Originally posted by FleabittenI'd agree that your idea is workable with one caveat. I don't want to have to 'catch' somebody hiding behind a vacation flag in the exact moment they take it down to move. I think that once you take your vacation flag down, you can't put it back up until 12 hours after your last move. That way, you're a fair target for timeouts the remainder of the day. You can schedule that it be up 12 hours later, but you can't drop it, move, and immediately put it back up.
I think the OP addresses this. If what's proposed was enacted, paying members would still reap a benefit of subscription in the form of vacation time. However, if someone wanted to move, they would have to take their vacation flag down (making them vulnerable to any potential time outs) and then reinstate it when they have finished playing for that session.
Again, is there any reason this isn't fair or workable?
An alternative I suggested in another thread is that a pre-determined number of moves in any 24 hour period would automatically drop your vacation flag. For example, you could make 6 moves a day and still be considered on vacation, but the seventh move drops your flag and your flag automatically goes back up (assuming you had the day scheduled) 12 hours later.
Originally posted by sbacatIn fairness, it's blackamp's idea, so all credit/scorn should be heaped their way. 🙂
I'd agree that your idea is workable with one caveat. I don't want to have to 'catch' somebody hiding behind a vacation flag in the exact moment they take it down to move. I think that once you take your vacation flag down, you can't put it back up until 12 hours after your last move. That way, you're a fair target for timeouts the remainder of the day. You c ...[text shortened]... hat it be up 12 hours later, but you can't drop it, move, and immediately put it back up.
Personally speaking, I would have no problem with the modification to the idea you've propsed.
Originally posted by FleabittenKewpie just suggested an interesting alternative in another thread. Leave the vacation system as is, but put a cap on the max number of tournaments you can enter in a given month if your gameload exceeds 1,000.
In fairness, it's blackamp's idea, so all credit/scorn should be heaped their way. 🙂
Personally speaking, I would have no problem with the modification to the idea you've propsed.
I'm thinking either the vac mod or the 1,000 game tournie cap or both would be an improvement. Opinions?
Originally posted by sbacatI'd prefer the vacation mod, if feasible, for two reasons:
Kewpie just suggested an interesting alternative in another thread. Leave the vacation system as is, but put a cap on the max number of tournaments you can enter in a given month if your gameload exceeds 1,000.
I'm thinking either the vac mod or the 1,000 game tournie cap or both would be an improvement. Opinions?
1) One of the advertised benefits of membership on this site is the abilility to play an unlimited number of games/tournaments. Apply Kewpie's suggestion (which I'll say right up front sets a very liberal bar), and that becomes null and void.
2) The tournament cap doesn't address the timeout exposure situation, which seems to be the true crux of the arguments against the vacation system as it is currently implemented.
1 edit
Originally posted by FleabittenOK, then let's discuss the math of the idea. Any calendar year, a subscriber gets 36 days vacation. Each passing day when the vacation flag is up, decrements the remaining total by one day. On any day that the flag is up, but the player makes more than 6 moves, the flag drops and stays down until (what's easiest?) midnight GMT at which point if the following day had been scheduled as a vacation day, the flag goes back up. Based on the vacation reservation system, it likely treats each day as a discreet event anyway, so all we're adding is the forfeiture of the balance of the scheduled day when moves for the day exceeds 6.
I'd prefer the vacation mod, if feasible, for two reasons:
1) One of the advertised benefits of membership on this site is the abilility to play an unlimited number of games/tournaments. Apply Kewpie's suggestion (which I'll say right up front sets a very liberal bar), and that becomes null and void.
2) The tournament cap doesn't address the timeou ...[text shortened]... e the true crux of the arguments against the vacation system as it is currently implemented.
Sound fair?
Originally posted by sbacatCompletely. I'd be okay with that.
OK, then let's discuss the math of the idea. Any calendar year, a subscriber gets 36 days vacation. Each passing day when the vacation flag is up, decrements the remaining total by one day. On any day that the flag is up, but the player makes more than 6 moves, the flag drops and stays down until (what's easiest?) midnight GMT at which point if the following ...[text shortened]... rfeiture of the balance of the scheduled day when moves for the day exceeds 6.
Sound fair?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
But does this idea really address the atri of the world? I'm not complaining that he is following the rules. He is following the rules. The rules that allow you to enter an unlimited number of tournaments while YOU ARE NOT EVEN MOVING in the games you do have booked. That is absurd! I would support the suggestion made here about the flag and moves but as long as you allow someone to continue to enter tournaments while that flag is flying you will continue to invite abuse. How about adding the same condition to entering a tournament? If you enter a tourney the flag goes down for 12 hours.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by TerrierJackGuys.
Exactly! And what is to stop me from following in his footsteps? If 2 players do it then it will be an even greater disruption. How many would it take to grind everything to a halt? Would it be better to have some rational rules to prevent this or should we wait for a demonstration?
Silly question. What if you were to do the same without having the vacation flag up? Would it really be so very different?
Cheers,
G.
Originally posted by gezzaObviously your use pattern on RHP is different from the others involved in this discussion.
Guys.
Silly question. What if you were to do the same without having the vacation flag up? Would it really be so very different?
Cheers,
G.
Here's the difference. The person who kicked off this debate has taken on 2,000+ games while having his vacation flag up. If his vacation flag wasn't up, he'd be timed out hundreds of times over. Why is that important?
Two reasons. His rating continues to climb because he is cherry-picking the games in which he is winning and slowly playing or not moving at all in the games he's losing. This keeps his rating artificially high, which is making him eligible for banded tournaments he would not be eligible for if the vacation flag wasn't protecting the normal rise and fall of his rating.
Second reason. He's entering every tournament he can, which means that slots that could go to players who would enter into the challenges in the spirit of the game cannot enter those tournaments and those who do enter those tournaments are getting frustrated by having him there, not playing.
Hopefully, he'll be skulled down to a much lower rating when those artifically postponed losses catch up to him the moment his vacation flag expires, but his tournament rating will stay at 100 below his peak for 100 days and there's no way to defend the system against somebody else going down the same path.
This might all be a non-issue for you, Gezza. But most people here play more than 65 games in 4 years. If that gameload satisfies your need for chess online, then that's all well and good. Most here play heavier schedules and don't relish ongoing impediments to their games.
Hope that helps explain it,
Steve
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by sbacatHi Steve
Obviously your use pattern on RHP is different from the others involved in this discussion.
Here's the difference. The person who kicked off this debate has taken on 2,000+ games while having his vacation flag up. If his vacation flag wasn't up, he'd be timed out hundreds of times over. Why is that important?
Two reasons. His rating continues to climb b ...[text shortened]... don't relish ongoing impediments to their games.
Hope that helps explain it,
Steve
Thanks for the explanation. I think I already got it though. See my post in the other thread: Thread 112993
The question still stands though. It is perfectly possible to drag the tournaments out by playing on until the checkmate in a hopelessly lost position, and moving at the last possible moment.
Yes, he cannot inflate his rating by using vacation to prevent skulls, but there is still the option to prevent skulls by slow play in losing games.
I just think that the fix suggested does not actually fix the underlying problem. Anyone can still enter all the tourneys available, and cause disruption that way, without using vacation.
I'll agree that it does not affect me personally. But I started commenting on a thread which just suggested a fix, for something I didn't see as broken...
Let's say that vacation is making the problem more extreme, but I don't see it as the root cause.
The real issue seems to be all the tournament entries, which he or anyone else could do without the vacation. Thus my "Silly Question"
Originally posted by gezzaYes, saw your 'I understand now...' thread in another forum after I'd posted here. My position on Atri started out differently from what it is now. I joined in appreciating the silly nature of the phenomenon and poked fun at it in other forum threads. Only when TJ expressed his anxiety at the behavior did I consider the real damage Atri was doing to what I consider the finest chess community online.
But I started commenting on a thread which just suggested a fix, for something I didn't see as broken...
Let's say that vacation is making the problem more extreme, but I don't see it as the root cause.
The real issue seems to be all the tournament entries, which he or anyone else could do without the vacation. Thus my "Silly Question"
As a community, it is an ever-evolving work of art, if you will. And it is a business. The usability factor plays into attracting, but more importantly retaining subscribers. I work in IT and have developed many websites, far less complex than this one, and I get the need to amend The Work to keep users happy and parting with their hard-earned cash. That process never ends and should not. RHP is a living thing and as problems arise, the living thing either ignores them (as you have recommended in one of your posts) or evolves to correct them.
I think you'd agree that the way things are now allows for any one player to take on an impossible gameload. Others have said that taking on an unlimited number of games is a selling feature of RHP and I get that. But one person's privilege to take on games becomes the opposite of a selling point when it starts to cause grief to other players.
From my perspective, the ONLY reason for vacation is to let subs dodge timeouts. I think since I've joined, I've taken only one or two vacation days because my schedule allows me to play quite a bit. Others feel the need to use vacation as a hedge against losing games to timeouts. The fact that RHP added the vacation option in response to customer needs is an indication that the site is willing to evolve in response to user requirements. What these threads suggest is the need for further evolution.
Change is inevitable. Guiding that change to further improve a wonderful site is the responsibility of every caring member here. Some members say 'no, don't change, I love it exactly as it is' but with each successive iteration, it gets stronger, more useful, and better capable of attracting and retaining subscribers and the health of RHP benefits us all.
So if change is inevitable as it must be, then rational voices must guide that change, to block rogue actions of the few without impeding the players who patronize the site in rational and respectful ways.
Thanks for listening,
Steve
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by sbacatThanks for listening and picking up on where I am going. I started at the opposite end: why change? Through the various posts and replies, I see the issue.
snip...
So [b]if change is inevitable as it must be, then rational voices must guide that change, to block rogue actions of the few without impeding the players who patronize the site in rational and respectful ways.
Thanks for listening,
Steve[/b]
I'd agree that if TJ regrets his subscription, then there is an issue which needs fixing. The only real question is how to make the fix.
I see site ideas as a discussion about where we think it could go. TJ made a suggestion which I disagreed with, so I told him why.
There are other ideas, some from me, some from others, which I think could fix the issue. It would be great if we could get down to a short list which could be proposed to the site administrators, or suggested as a vote.