Using Vacation Time to Get more time in online matches?

So recently me and a couple of other buddies came across players that have like 50 minutes to play a move or maybe less, and then they use their vacation time to avoid getting timed-out and/or to also get more time to analyze and then eventually when they've figured out a move of their choice, they revert back from the vacation status and play a move.
This is far more common in 1 move/day time controls in online chess(correspondence).

Any suggestions as to how to tackle this, or maybe curb this?
I think chess.com staff should implement something against vacation time abuse.

 

I once played against a guy using the 3 days / move time control, and when his position was lost he went on vacation mode for three weeks.  Ultimately, he just let the time run out.  He wouldn't move, though, because his ego wouldn't allow himself to be checkmated by someone 300 rating points below his. I won't play him again.

If you don't like waiting for people who take vacations, you can play in "no vacation" matches and  tournaments.  Most matches and tournaments do allow for vacation, in which case it doesn't make much sense to complain that someone is using their vacation time, regardless of the reason they went on vacation.  If someone is using vacation to delay a game, they will run out of vacation anyway, and still have to finish the game.

TurboFish, What if I need to take a vacation (for a valid reason)?  

There's no way to solve this problem because there is no way in which one can validate whether you're going on a vacation or not. Chess.com either has no vacation time or vacation time. Anyone who does go on vacation is simply using up their vacation time by stalling matches, and will regret it later. Anyone who doesn't go on vacation has a life hard enough they can abuse vacation time.  

If your question was in regards to "no vacation" matches or tournaments, don't register for those if you think you will need to take a vacation.  I never play in "no vacation" matches because I occassionally unexpectedly need to take time off from chess to deal with life.  I only recommended "no vacation" matches because someone was complaining about their opponent going on vacation.

They are not taking a vacation on purpose to intentionally stall the game, premium members have auto-vacation which will pause their games when they get low on time.  It's a time-out prevention perk.  It lasts only as long as they have vacation hours though so it can't go on forever.

Seems a little unfair, doesn't it?

Oh well thanks for the help anyways :)

This perk is available to anyone who can afford a premium membership.  If that is "unfair", then every sport/game which requires equipment is "unfair" because there will always be some people who cannot afford to buy the best equipment.

It's fishing season. Hopefully my remaining vacation time is adequate.

How is it unfair? Somtimes you're busy and not able to keep track of games and the clock runs down so they get put on hold if you have vacation time. I know it can seem that people are messing about to delay games but I don't think this is the case in the vast majority of cases; this action would only lose valuable vacation time anyway, and for what, to delay the inevitable?

When I was on a free membership I lost a couple of winning games after being away and indisposed on a weekend and not being able to check games so I bought a premium membership to stop that happening amongst other benefits.

I do run into people moving quite fast then suddenly when the game is lost running the move time to the limit, which is annoying, like one game currently where it is unavoidable mate in two but he won't resign and is running the full 3 days for each move - now THAT is deliberate and annoying delaying, and extremely bad sport. But hey, you take your chance with whatever time controls you choose to play at. 

I'll admit that I use the Dead Man Defense when I suspect something nefarious in my opponent's play or if he or she is seriously underrated and playing lots of games (so the rating will be higher when I finally lose). I have also contended with opponents employing the Dead Man Defense.

TurboFish, It's not that I cannot "afford" a membership, it's the fact that your site fails to accept my card. I have no other payment options except for the VISA card I have. It's not always the "Free Guy's" fault/problem.

It's not my site -- I don't work for chess.com.  In fact, I often criticize the site's shortcomings.

I never said or implied that free members are "at fault" for anything.  All I said is that activities that require equipment (or books/videos in the case of chess) might be considered inherently unfair since some people can't afford the equipment.  But some people (including I) don't think the need for money is unfair, but rather a simple fact of life.  And of course life is "unfair" in other ways.  Isn't professional basketball "unfair" because it only accepts players with the right physique? (I'm too short).