Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugWell I assumed, maybe wrongly, that the vacation system and details are still to be implemented. The way the vote was worded made me assume that they were wondering whether it was worth it or not to *try* to develop a vacation system.
Show me these details you seem to know all about..I can't remember it saying that in the vote, it just said something vague about if people would be happy for there to be a vacation time free from timeouts.
Where does it say that people won't be allowed to make moves in this time?
And seriously I like to join 3/7 tournamounts, if everyone in that to ...[text shortened]... a few weeks out for their vacations I havn't joined the tournamount I wanted to join, have I?
The details I'm stating, are the details that I think would make this vacation system work. If people could make moves in this vacation time, then yes, I think it's a bad idea. If people can just raise and drop their vacation flag at will, then yes, I think it's a bad idea. If there is no option for players having the opportunity to respect the vacation bank, then yes, I think its a bad idea.
But just because there may be some ideas that fail, doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about.
Originally posted by bosintangThank you for saying that!
The way the vote was worded made me assume that they were wondering whether it was worth it or not to *try* to develop a vacation system.
The timebank is our existing vacation system.
I think you have nicely illustrated why vote 13 is meaningless.
Originally posted by GatecrasherYes, I agree the wording of the vote was poorly worded. I hope if they decide to try to implement a new vacation system (I see the current timeout/timebank system as separate), they'll look at our ideas and make a proposal first.
Thank you for saying that!
The timebank is our existing vacation system.
I think you have nicely illustrated why vote 13 is meaningless.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by PhlabibitThat's an interesting scenario. Let's compare it with what happens under the present 'system'.
2-4 weeks? Consider this.
Player A B and C are in a group, and by chance each take 3 weeks off in a single round (Many tourneys are several rounds long)
A and B wait for C to take only 3 weeks off one month. A and C wait for B to take 3 weeks off a couple weeks later... and B and C wait for A to take his few weeks off some weeks later. That is mo ...[text shortened]... similar happens each round, and the tourney is held up nearly a year, not a couple weeks.
P-
Player A, B and C are in a group in a 3/7 tournament, and by chance each are about to go on holiday for 2 weeks.
A and B wait for C to go on holiday. 10 days after he's gone, before he comes back, they click his skull, claiming time-outs. C is eliminated from the tournament.
B then goes on his holiday. Sure enough 10 days later, A clicks on B's skull and knocks him out of the tournament.
Players B and C have been eliminated from the group and Player A goes through to the next round by default!
Imagine similar things going on in other groups in the same tournament. What a complete waste of time!
If only there had been vacation immunity. Ok, the tournament would take slightly longer to complete. But at least the eventual winner would be determined by merit, rather than their ability to avoid time-outs.
I do a lot of things with great enthusiasm, but once in a while I need some distance, also in chess. I call this holidays; just to have the freedom not to think about moves every day.
Quite often I am also traveling because of my work. It is always a nightmare to keep the games going without making blunders (and often I do them).
Finaly, we all face opponents who suffered a lot of timeouts recently and then have a much lower rating than they usually have. They are annoying to lower rated players when they enter lower banded tourneys and they are annoying for higher rated players, because if they win they easily get a lot of rating points.
A limited vacation bank of 2-3 weeks would solve a lot of problems.
I would very much be in favour of a system in which you can choose to take 1, 3, 5, 7 or 10 days for a move (available options) for any type of game (open invite, clan, tourney) without a timebank system; thus, once a player's time for his next move is up he'll lose the game automatially.
Next, each player is allowed a 35 day vacation bank per calendar year; as soon as he puts up his vacation flag his games are frozen and cannot time-out. As the clock ticks, it takes time off the vacation bank.
35 days a year is a sufficient amount of time to allow for vacations and short absences.
Originally posted by sevenstarA vacation "bank" is much more acceptable in the absense of timebanks. But I would like to see a solution that increases the likelyhood of games finishing earlier rather than later.
I would very much be in favour of a system in which you can choose to take 1, 3, 5, 7 or 10 days for a move (available options) for any type of game (open invite, clan, tourney) without a timebank system; thus, once a player's time for his next move is up he'll lose the game automatially.
Next, each player is allowed a 35 day vacation bank per calendar ...[text shortened]... .
35 days a year is a sufficient amount of time to allow for vacations and short absences.
A timebank only approach could also serve this purpose. Instead of 3/7, 7/14, etc, every game has a limited timebank. For example a 6 month game would allow each player make all his moves in +-90 days. A 1 year game would allow each player to make all his move in +-180 days. People can choose games with timebanks that suit them. The advantage being that every game completes in a contracted, pre-agreed, finite, timeframe.
Then players are completely free to take vacations whenever they like. Their timebanks will run down, but they can catch up again when they get back.
There will be no need for a vacation flags, and games cannot drag on forever.
Originally posted by ChrisI voted no just because it has too much potential for abuse especially in tournaments. If you had limits i.e. you can only use 1 week of vacation during a round of a tournaments with a 1 day timeout... Or imagine what would happen in the hardcore tournaments....
I have put another vote up - [vid]13[/vid].
This is a simple Yes/No vote to decide if we need to make the vacation flag give immunity to timeouts.
The time that would be allowed to stay in vacation mode would be limited (if the vote comes out as a Yes, we will put up another vote on the time period), and I imagine it being about three or four weeks per year.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowHm, if the vacation bank wouldn't apply to tournaments, it wouldn't make much sense to me. I think it is especially important in tournaments. It's easy to avoid starting a 1-day timeout game if you know you'll be on holidays within the next two months or so, but a 1-day timeout tournament could easily last a year or more. So if you want to take two weeks or so off RHP once a year, you either have to settle for slower tournaments or you have to risk getting timed out.
As I understand the proposed changes, tournaments would auto-TO regardless of vacation flags.
Originally posted by NordlysBut the tournament wouldn't get held up. On the last site I was on, they had flag TO imunity, but it did not apply to tournaments. They warned entrants of this. Knowing this, I entered very few unless there was a long time/move allowed.
Hm, if the vacation bank wouldn't apply to tournaments, it wouldn't make much sense to me. I think it is especially important in tournaments. It's easy to avoid starting a 1-day timeout game if you know you'll be on holidays within the next two months or so, but a 1-day timeout tournament could easily last a year or more. So if you want to take two we ...[text shortened]... ear, you either have to settle for slower tournaments or you have to risk getting timed out.
There is also time for the Site Admins to realise how poorly formulated this poll was in the first place.
It may be called a vote, but in reality it is a poll.
Remember, this is not a democracy, its a business, and any new measure that is likely to be bitterly unpopular with a signifcant portion of the membership is not likely to be adopted.
There is general agreement, even between the yes's and the no's, that we need an equitable system that allows people to take a vacation, but at the same time does not further delay gameplay.
If they have any sense, and I'm sure they have, they'll read through the threads that Vote 13 has spawned, and come back later on with a proposal that will be more universally acceptable.
Originally posted by GatecrasherJesus G, it's just a poll to see the feeling among the members of a possible feature change.
There is also time for the Site Admins to realise how poorly formulated this poll was in the first place.
It may be called a vote, but in reality it is a poll.
Remember, this is not a democracy, its a business, and any new measure that is likely to be bitterly unpopular with a signifcant portion of the membership is not likely to be adopted.
T ...[text shortened]... as spawned, and come back later on with a proposal that will be more universally acceptable.
Seriously, you need to relax. R&C have never implemented something willy-nilly. They do their homework.
I can see this is a big deal for you, but seriously, you need to tone it down just a bit.
Originally posted by CrowleyYou obviously don't read too well, because that's exactly what I'm saying.
Jesus G, it's just a poll to see the feeling among the members of a possible feature change.
Seriously, you need to relax. R&C have never implemented something willy-nilly. They do their homework