Proposed Vacation Abuse Solution

What about any games you have going from times in the past? Sometimes it can take months to finish a game.

is vacation time abuse such a great problem that it requires this sort of action? I ask this in all honesty, as I've never come across it. Though I imagine it can be annoying, surely hitting the vacation button when you are in a losing position is tantamount to a resignation, just dragged out a little?

 Secondly, while I recognise that paying mambers deserve more benefits than non-paying, I think that the vacation button is a basic feature of the site that everybody deserves to use. We should take into account the international nature of this site( its great strength!), and that people living and working in the developing world (for want of a better name) might not be able to afford the fees. 

 The benefits of paying membership are enough, and are deserved, but the vacation button is very necessary for those of us who love our chess, but have schedules that require us to be offline from time to time. 

 Just some thoughts. 

if people are patient, vacation takes care of itself .  I had a long losing streak broken when a 14 day game expired

 Tournaments are an obvious exception as vacation holds up everyone, so features that restrict vacation for tourneys makes sense to me. 

As a minor point, people that have games expire when vacation ends should be banned or at least never allowed new vacation.  Similarly, perhaps people with high time out percentages should have vacation restricted. 

 I don't know what you mean by  "this sort"  but the action  being proposed is quite minimal. I for one think that the proposed change in vacation is reasonable even if there was no vacation abuse. Why have 40 days alotted on Jan 1 that expire on Dec. 31st?  To me it makes more sense to spread out the alotment and expiration through the year.

LordSvenstikov makes a good point that the initial 5 days might be too little in a few rare circumstances of people signing up right before they take a long vacation. I think any policy will likely result in a small fraction of people that you just have to shrug and say "too bad." 

sorry Loomis, to clarify:

I mean limiting the amount of days one can take on vacation - especially basing it on the amount of time you spend, or games you've played - to an extent where it might not be enough.

It seems like a small problem to me, one that doesn't justify tinkering with a website that is already working very well (if it ain't broke...), and also doesn't justify limiting the vacation time of all the people (which I would imagine is a majority) who use it legitimately, and may regard it as a necessary feature given their schedules. 

I tend to agree  with "lecycliste", see quote below:  

I'm not sure that anyone is attacking you for WHAT you said... it's HOW you said it.

"Freeloader" is not a very friendly nickname, and presuming to know every non paying member's financial status or motives isn't the nicest way to come across either. Whether you meant to or not, you came across that way, and it is somewhat harsh and condescending.

Don't get me wrong; I completely understand, and to an extent agree with where many of your points are coming from.

Unfortunately for a lot of people, it's not always as simple as pulling a dime out of your pocket when you wake up every morning. People have financial priorities, and sometimes paying to play board games on the internet doesnt reach the top of the list.

Besides, if everybody thought of every purchase, bill, debt, donation, etc... in terms of pennies per day, and on top of that were able or willing to set aside said amounts, the amount of financial strain in the world's economies would reduce dramatically, if not altogether go away. 

Personally, I'd say MY biggest issue is that if I was able to access all of benefits that paying members receive, I would spend WAY too much time on this site!

by the way,

Thank you to the chess.com staff for putting up such a fantastic site that both paying and non-paying members can come to and relax every now and then.

 From Retguvvie98; (Those who are freeloaders (scratch that replace it with UNPAID MEMBERS)

Why would you choose to call those who enjoy playing chess without the dues and extra expenses (regardless of the $ amount) Free-loaders? I pay my taxes, bills and every other necessary expense just the same as you do. Just because you choose to pay a monthly fee does that mean the rest of us are low-lifes? Free-loaders? Some may not have that extra $30 a month and still want to learn and enjoy a game free of co$t. I could get into many different scenarios but dont have the time. In short, your comment was crude and offensive and not the least bit amusing...

Could I pay the dues? YES, do I need to pay $ to enjoy the game? NO   I h ave been on this site long enough to get a feeling for most members personalities and this comment of yours suprised me as I thought you were a very level headed person before now. You have just lessened who you are in my opinion. So take that to the bank when you withdraw your next $30.

I agree.

ok. i'll refine this idea a bit more, but we'll probably start with ~10 days of vacation, and you earn more with time (not # of games, as some people play very few).

additionally, we may allow those who are being affected by vacation abuse to report it, and if we find that the abuser is dragging it out intentionally (lost their queen with no compensation, has no chance to win, etc) then we will force the loss and send a warning.

thoughts? :)  

 Maybe he's a republican?

I must say this seems to me like a strange thing to throw resources at... 

Having said that, I admit I've never encountered this behaviour in person, but honestly, if my opponent wants to blow his/her whole year's vacation to make me wait 43 days (or whatever) for the flag to drop, what's it to me?  I've got lots of games to play, forums to read, etc., etc., in the meantime.  It's not like anyone is limited to playing a maximum number of simultaneous games, so what's the problem?

 frankly, the problem is tournaments. one person can hold up an entire event, inconveniencing hundreds of people.

 Not a really good idea. What if someone has paused his games for a legitimate reason, and one of them happens to be one where he thought he may still get a draw or even win, despite the fact it's clear to a better player then him his position is hopeless? 

You're just giving yourself extra work and hassle explaining the facts of chess to <1000 less crowd IMO. 

Hmm... I'd be inclined to look for a tournament-specific solution then.  Just cut tourney play off at 3 or 5 usable days of vacation max, for instance.  Don't you already have to make special considerations for tourney play where a given player has their 'auto-win on time' checkbox unchecked?