OK, wow. I just checked in on my Timeout Protection offender (who's incidentally online right now) and he has 87 games on the go!
No wonder I can't get him to make a move.
Singificance of Timeout % Diluted
Sort:
I like this idea. I'm a premium member, but would never use this feature unless I fell into a coma or something.
silentfilmstar13 wrote: I like this idea. I'm a premium member, but would never use this feature unless I fell into a coma or something.
Nor would I, and I have trouble coming out of one.
May 24, 2008
0
#5
The only thing I think is a tad unfair is that premium members can effectively go on vacation with moves to make in their games. Non paying can manually set up vacation but they have to make moves in all their games first. I can't say I get too wound up about it. I notice one or two people that were very vociferous about not having vacation in tournaments and some of them are now on vacation during a touney :-) If I go on vaction I make up for it because I generally play relatively fast the rest of the time, in that I log on nearly every day. I have played people who only move once every three days if that's the limit and they, even w/o taking vacation, slow everything up. Can't complain because that's the time limit we agreed. I see quite a few TD's are specifying a maximum time per move for entrants, I think this is the way to go.
On a similar hackneyed theme also I've had opponents who once they get into difficulties slow down to the max each and every move, whereas they are online more often and are starting many (30/40+) other games whilst our games is going on. I try to grin and bear it consoling myself I have a win and rating points "in the bank". Personally I think the slow players hold things up more than vacation time. I agree with The Grobe though it would be a useful statistic to know.
MM78 wrote:
The only thing I think is a tad unfair is that premium members can effectively go on vacation with moves to make in their games. Non paying can manually set up vacation but they have to make moves in all their games first. I can't say I get too wound up about it.
Totally agree with this. If there's any inherent unfairness in vacation it's not the common misperception that premium members having access to an automated version of a feature everyone has is unfair, it's this.
To that end, I believe (and take every opportunity to reiterate) that the only pre-condition to turning your vacation time on should be that you've advanced all of the games in which it was your turn when you last turned vacation off at least one move since then, and that this should apply to everyone regardless of membership status.
This ensures that vacation abusers can't perpetually stall games, and in my opinion is much better than the 1 day vacation use minimum (which I think should be scrapped along with all of the problems it seems to cause crediting game time back in exchange for unused vacation time).
IMDeviate wrote:
MM78 wrote:
I notice one or two people that were very vociferous about not having vacation in tournaments and some of them are now on vacation during a touney :-)
They're not anti-vacation, they're just anti-other-people's-vacation. Selfish, childish and immature mostly.
I have played people who only move once every three days if that's the limit and they, even w/o taking vacation, slow everything up. Can't complain because that's the time limit we agreed.
Precisely my point, the AGREED upon time control is something many vacation whiners and those who complain about slower opponents conveniently forget.
On a similar hackneyed theme also I've had opponents who once they get into difficulties slow down to the max each and every move
This is normal human behavior - Difficult positions require more attention. Just think how it would be if we switched to an ICCF-like time control of 10 moves in 30 days! Your opponent might not make a move for 29 days. You know how many people would be complaining then?! A bunch!
Sorry for the edits. Trying to save bandwith.
Let's not confuse, though, the whiners who forget that they agreed to a time control (including provisions for vacation) at the beginning of the game with those who have legitimately been victimized by actual vacation abuse. It does happen, and should be policed and made punishable in some way.
Sure it is, but it's also doled out to some in large enough quantities to be problematic should a user choose to abuse it. Perpetual is overstating it, of course, but they can certainly cause an inordinate amount of delay which is further exascerbated in a tournament setting where the number of impacted players can be much, much larger than just the one opponent.
It may not be any skin off of your back, and for the most part it isn't problematic for me either, but I can certainly sympathize with those for who it is and don't begrudge them their right to voice a very valid complaint about a very real problem.
By the way, I think that something that would help this is to offer a much wider variety of time controls. That way those that have an problem with these kind of issues could be directed to a time control that's more appropriate for their preference with respect to the pace of play.
The current offering is pretty restrictive and the addition of things like hourglass timers, X moves in Y days, time per game + max time per move etc. would present a much more robust set of options that would allow those who are just whining to find a better fit for them.
Fundamentally, though, you can't deny that there are those who can and do abuse their vacation, and that the complaints about them have some legitimacy, no?
Adding options that no-one's obligated to use will piss people off?
Who are the whiners now?
Something I've recently encountered since the advent of premium memberships and timeout protection is the repeated fallback on this feature by some users. I have two games going on now where my opponent has slipped into vacation mode three times and has yet to actually make a move (it's a tournament game, otherwise I'd simply walk away).
I'd like to suggest that a new statistic analogous to the Timeout % statistic be provided so that users can get a picture of when a prospective opponent abuses this feature: Average Timout Protection Uses per Game.
It would basically work like this: If I have played three games and fallen back on my timout protection twice -- the first time with only two games started, the third time with all three going, my Average Timout Protection Uses per Game would be 1.67 (Five instances where a game went into vacation mode because of it, and I've played three games, so 5/3 = 1.67).
It would be great if this were displayed on a users profile right beside their Timeout % and could be used in the same way as Timeout % to set a standard for tournaments, seeks etc.
Thoughts?