Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugI think that is the idea.
Well, they are currently, will the change make it impossible to move whilst the vacation flag is up? That's not mentioned in the vote.
If the vote ends up with a majority of 'yes' votes then a new system should be discussed to curb abuse.
Maybe only let people move in games x hours after turning off the vacation sign.
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugThat's half the problem. On its own the proposition doesn't look unreasonable. But what about the existing timebank system? Is this in addtition to it? Can people move when their flag is up? What is the minimum amount time they can put their flag up? What is the maximum number times they can raise their flag each year? Or can they put it up and down at will any time they like to avoid imminent timeouts?
Well, they are currently, will the change make it impossible to move whilst the vacation flag is up? That's not mentioned in the vote.
Until the implications of this proposal are plain for all to see, people don't really know what they are voting for, other than their happiness, or course.
Originally posted by CrowleyOr simply have 15 periods of 48h with which they can freeze their games in all aspects.
I think that is the idea.
If the vote ends up with a majority of 'yes' votes then a new system should be discussed to curb abuse.
Maybe only let people move in games x hours after turning off the vacation sign.
To the people who vote YES, losing this vote is fairly meaningless [they can continue in the same way as they are at present - note they are still here playing] - to the ones who vote NO, losing this vote will make a huge difference and probably some will leave - as mentioned above, non subs wouldn't hang around for 4 weeks waiting for their opponents to return before they can play.....still who cares about that!
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveThere are so many other issues we could be discussing to make this site better, That is the point people to make it BETTER.
To the people who vote YES, losing this vote is fairly meaningless [they can continue in the same way as they are at present - note they are still here playing] - to the ones who vote NO, losing this vote will make a huge difference and probably some will leave - as mentioned above, non subs wouldn't hang around for 4 weeks waiting for their opponents to return before they can play.....still who cares about that!
Go vote No!
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugAh, 🙂 I see what you mean. Nope, when you set your vacation. ALL the games would say 'on leave' meaning that the player on vacation could not move in other games either. That way it is no technical trick to avoid losing or drawing it out in one game.
Copy and pasted from my post in another thread:
If it was not possible to skull when someone was on vacation then we would notice a massive rise in the number and length of people's vacations.
X doesn't want to lose to Y even though the position is completly lost, he likes his 1700 rating and doesn't want to resign and go back to 1680, his timeban ...[text shortened]... hile Y watches in anger as X is moving every day in every other game whilst on 'vacation'.
Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
Copy and pasted from my post in another thread:
If it was not possible to skull when someone was on vacation then we would notice a massive rise in the number and length of people's vacations.
X doesn't want to lose to Y even though the position is completly lost, he likes his 1700 rating and doesn't want to resign and go back to 1680, his timebank has run out but it's ok he can drag it on for another 4 weeks by using his allocated vacation time. Meanwhile Y watches in anger as X is moving every day in every other game whilst on 'vacation'.
Originally posted by GatecrasherIf a new system is to be incorporated, this is how I see it:
what about the existing timebank system? Is this in addtition to it? Can people move when their flag is up? What is the minimum amount time they can put their flag up? What is the maximum number times they can raise their flag each year? Or can they put it up and down at will any time they like to avoid imminent timeouts?
1) You can not move in ANY games.
2) Time banks will still run out, but you will be immune from TO until your vacation time runs out.
3) When you take the vacation flag down, you should have a buffer period to make moves without getting timed out, but this will still decrease your existing vacation timebank.
4) After the buffer period expires, all games should be treated normally and be in danger of TO, regardless if you had time to move in all the games or not.
5) Vacation flags may not be used again within a certain amount of time (48 hours?) since they were last brought down.
Other things to consider:
- Maybe limit PMs and forum posts while 'on vacation'?
- Maybe there should be a formula to adjust buffer periods depending on amount of games in progress?
Originally posted by JDK2I have seen this on other sites and it's a complete joke. People supposedly on vacation carry on moving. So all the games really ought to be suspended when a vacation is claimed. This would mean no intermittent moves when you got the chance in internet cafes etc - I foresee even more whinging.....
Ah, 🙂 I see what you mean. Nope, when you set your vacation. ALL the games would say 'on leave' meaning that the player on vacation could not move in other games either. That way it is no technical trick to avoid losing or drawing it out in one game.
Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
[b]Copy and pasted from my post in another thread:
If it was watches in anger as X is moving every day in every other game whilst on 'vacation'.[/b]
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI see your point about non-subs. I am keeping them in mind. If you are playing 6 games against the same opponent then this would cause a problem. But against 6 opponents, I cannot imagine them all being on vacation at the exact same time, meaning you will always have a game or two to move in. The other way around this would be to implement a 10 game limit instead of 6. Does that sound more reasonable.
To the people who vote YES, losing this vote is fairly meaningless [they can continue in the same way as they are at present - note they are still here playing] - to the ones who vote NO, losing this vote will make a huge difference and probably some will leave - as mentioned above, non subs wouldn't hang around for 4 weeks waiting for their opponents to return before they can play.....still who cares about that!
Originally posted by Crowleyre;
If a new system is to be incorporated, this is how I see it:
1) You can not move in ANY games.
2) Time banks will still run out, but you will be immune from TO until your vacation time runs out.
3) When you take the vacation flag down, you should have a buffer period to make moves without getting timed out, but this will still decrease your existing vacat e there should be a formula to adjust buffer periods depending on amount of games in progress?
2)
I assumed the timebank would be frozen at the time the vacation was implemented. Hence if you left with 4 days timebank it would till be 4 days when your vacation ended.
Still a bad idea though.[imo]
Originally posted by JDK2With over 1000 votes for yes, You do not see how more then 6 of your games could all be on a four week hold. Come on!
I see your point about non-subs. I am keeping them in mind. If you are playing 6 games against the same opponent then this would cause a problem. But against 6 opponents, I cannot imagine them all being on vacation at the exact same time, meaning you will always have a game or two to move in. The other way around this would be to implement a 10 game limit instead of 6. Does that sound more reasonable.
Originally posted by JDK2Or an advanced option to play only non vacationists.
I see your point about non-subs. I am keeping them in mind. If you are playing 6 games against the same opponent then this would cause a problem. But against 6 opponents, I cannot imagine them all being on vacation at the exact same time, meaning you will always have a game or two to move in. The other way around this would be to implement a 10 game limit instead of 6. Does that sound more reasonable.
Problem solved.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Some of you 'No' voters are acting as if the World is about to end! Let's get things in perspective.
The proposal is 3 or 4 weeks vacation immunity per year.
People are imagining that their opponents are going to use up 3 or 4 weeks in one game, when they happen to be playing them! I suppose it could happen. It's not very likely. Why would someone waste all their vacation allowance to delay a single game, and then not have any time left for the rest of the year? It doesn't make sense.
It's far more likely that players will use their vacation allowance for more practical purposes, such as going on vacation!
What happens under the present system? Someone puts up their vacation flag and goes away for a couple of weeks. Hopefully they will also message their opponents and put a return date in their profile. I presume that most players would wait 2 weeks for them to come back?
Now with a vacation allowance, exactly the same sort of thing would happen, except that the person who is on holiday couldn't be timed out. When they return after those 2 weeks they will switch the flag off, so that they still have time left for other situations that might arise over the coming year, such as having to deal with a family crisis, emergency, business trip or illness or even (if they’re lucky) a second holiday!
So in practice, those 3 or 4 weeks a year, won’t make nearly so much difference as people seem to imagine.
There is another site, similar to this that has a vacation immunity system. On that site, non-subscribers are allowed 80 days vacation and subscribers are allowed a whopping 120 days.
In comparison, a 3 to 4 week vacation allowance is very sensible.