Vacation Protection Unfair

Functional inequity between paying and non-paying members is fine, so long as it doesn't provide a direct advantage during game play.  I feel the inability to turn your vacation on because your opponents are too active qualifies.

Hmmm, 400, then I'll have more than you :)

Well, I was saving up for the scooter, but I'll give it some thought.

It should be simply a matter of convenience but it isn't and if non-premium members weren't restricted to only being able to do so after they'd made all of their moves it would be.  It's the restriction I have an issue with, and that I feel is at the root of the inequity.  It's not that big a deal, but I do think that it's an unncessary restriction that serves little to no real purpose.

Hello TheGrobe, I did actually mean timeout protection and I don't want to be protected against vacation. Looks like my title and original post is misleading for some. Sorry about that.

Thanks to all that have posted comments on this topic it is good to get some opinions on this topic and it looks like there are plenty of people that sit on both sides of the fence.

I have an opponent who uses 2-5 days of vacation after every 2 or 3 moves.  He has 100's of simultaneous games going.  Clear abuse IMO.  I would avoid playing this individual, except I was automatically paired with him in a tournament.

My suggestion to Chess.com is to deny users access to view their games during vacation time.  I have absolutely no problem with so-called vacation abuse if the "abuser" is not allowed to analyze during vacation.  Cancel vacation status to be able to view games and make moves.

Well site rules have thankfully been amended to carry a"missbehaviour/health warning" on miss use of vacation .Denying access is an excellent idea;  it would apply to all vacationers of whom only the abusers would be discomfited ! Have you made official abuse complaint in  notification ? Perhaps that would be best move.

I think the problem is one of mindset too many people bring a OTB/Live Chess mentality to the issue.  Turn based games should take months and 24 months is not an unreasonable number.  Taking vacation to have extra time to study a position is a reasonable action, especially given I have the same amount of time to make an opening move that is found in dozens of books as a move in a complex middle game or Queen ending.  If Chess.com wants to switch to a 10 moves/30 days, accumulating total time control then vacation becomes less of an issue.

Bottom line?  If you want quick games don't play correspondence/turnbased games.  And yes I've had many opponents who drag out games using vacation and maximum time for moves.  Its part of the game.

when I goes on vacation, I is kinda lookin' for 'abuse' one way or another  - where's this thread headin' ?

Yes, and proving it is difficult.  Is it dragging out a game to play your best to the end.  Does failure to resign constitue abuse?  Does taking vacation by itself constitute abuse?  Taking vacation, in a losing postion, in 2 day increments? Is that abuse?  My view is the vacation time belongs to the player and he can use it however he wishes.  The only thing I can see that might make sense is changing vacation increments to a one day minimum, if you go on vacation it is for 1, 2, 5 days rather than the days and hours setup now used.  Other than that, as I said, its the players vacation time to use as he pleases.  If the vacation time is too long reduce it rather than this attempt to make players play in a manner dictated by their vocal opponents.

And I don't think it is something to prove, vacation belongs to the player to use as he desires, especially if he pays money to the site.  Vacation time is for personal use.  Please note my average move time is 8 hrs, 39 minutes and I've 2 months 29 days of vacation. 

I note that nowhere in your quote of chess.com rules does it say a person must be unable to make moves to take vacation.  That seems to be your personal opinion and not borne out by chess.com policy as people can still access chess.com even while in a vacation status.  If you can access the site you can make moves. 

There is of course also the definition of completely and hopelessly lost.  B+N vs. K is a theoretical win, how many can pull it off?  N+N vs. K+P is the same and harder.  This also leaves aside the concept of swindles.  Are tablebases suddenly allowed now to prove/disprove completely and hopelesly lost?  There is hope as long as there are moves to make and time to play.  If I am crushing someone and they want to play it out to the end both of moves and time that is their right, especially if they are paying to play.

Comprehensive list of unfairnesses on chess.com.

I find that difficult to believe.

You know, as I look at the site I see the legal disclaimers, a privacy policy and FAQs but really little in the way of policy.  If we go with FAQs as policy they do not always agree.  For instance:

Don’t worry - we know that everyone needs to take a break :) Chess.com gives all members the ability to pause their Online Chess games using Vacation time.

Vacation here is solely at the discrection of the player who needs a break regardless of reason or type of break.  There is no basis for terminating a game based on vacation use.  The policy does not say:  The policy states that you are to only use vacation when you will be away from the site for an extended period of time.  Although I will admit that is in another FAQ, which is correct? 

You talk about violation of the rules but there doesn't really seem to be any.  By the italicized section anyone who visits the site should either have their games removed from vacation status or they should be forfieted for vacation abuse.  Has that been done?  At the moment it seems to be at the discretion of who whines loudest and who the staff wants to keep happy.

I think part of the problem is with the name 'vacation'. Many people have a clear view as to what constitutes vacation e.g. lying on a tropical beach reading a trashy novel. If it was called 'sickness days', there mightn't be the same stigma attached to someone 'pulling a sickie'.

I think it also has to do with selfishness; you do accept the conditions of a game when you commence it so you should abide by your mutual agreement as to your use of valuable time. Your opponent's time is equally valuable as is your time and he is entitled not to have his time planning upset by selfish whimsies which prevent him from getting on with it.Real emergency is a different matter.If the offered condition does not suit you there is nothing to stop you messaging and offering one that does . 

Assuming for a moment that prolonging a lost, turn-based game IS against site rules: what practical nuisance does it actually cause the waiting player (outside of delaying tournaments)? The usual animosity towards stalling is because it forces me to wait and prevents me from going on to do something else. When someone stalls a turn-based game, this is not the case, surely?

It's not as if you're waiting for payment, or waiting for someone to turn up, or are held up from progressing anything of significance.

And what is vacation abuse?  There is no such thing as a completely lost and hopeless position thus the FAQ on vacation abuse is inapplicable.  In addition the Chess.com policy says I can use my vacation time as I see fit.  Again how can it be abused?  If I get a whining opponent who doesn't like how I play and complains loudly and continually to the staff?  That seems the true definition of abuse: If you make your opponent unhappy that you are using your vacation time you are abusing vacation.

There is no single clear policy.  The FAQs contradict each other. Enforcement is haphazard or rather capricious.  By the one policy anyone who logs on while on vacation is abusing vacation and should be forfieted.  Obviously it is not being done.

I'm in danger of being adjudicated as I've 89 days of vacation and an average move time of 8 hours.  If someone were to start whining and the staff listened to them I would take my credit card and play elsewhere. 

Perhaps there should be a clear, single, policy instead of the contradictory FAQs currently floating around.  Then the issue could be properly discussed and members could make informed decisions about participation.

The maintenance of a coherent set of helpfiles is in itself a complex process, especially if done by rotating committee.

True, but as this is a business rather than a volunteer organization, like a state chess association or the ICCF, clear articulation of the terms of the contract would seem to be in order.  If the staff can terminate a game because of complaints under the guidance of vague and contradictory clauses this is relevant to the buisness-customer contract.