Site changes, new policies

I do not want a reply from non-staff.  There are enough threads out there with comments by the members but in the end they are meaningless.

A new vacation "abuse" policy has been implemented.  Amoung other things it makes a person's vacation time subject to the questioning and approval of his opponent.  I find the concept wrong, can I make my opponent subject to my membership fees?  Seems appropriate since he now controls some of my account.

The policy calls for adjudication of lost positions.  If the position is lost, what is to adjudicate?  So who determined it was lost so the "abuse" policy could be invoked?  What is a lost position?  By the rules of chess I can think of three, mated, out of time, resigned.  Obviously Chess.com has come up with some new rules of chess.  What are they?  After all, not winnable is not the same as lost.  A statement such as "A position in which a 1200 player might be reasonably expected to beat a GM."  is both subjective and ridiculous.  B+N vs. K is a theoretical win, every watch a 1200 player try to execute it?  Advantage of 2 pawns is generally considered a win between GMs, does that apply here at all levels?

Or is the real rule, Scream loud enough and we will placate you?

 I can't find any mention of this policy on the site. 'Amongst other things', so there is actually more in the policy then is mentioned above? I too would welcome a staff response to this post.

Probably best not to post in the public forum then.

How about a link to wherever the OP got this information?

Thanks for the response Eric. What about the comments regarding a new vacation policy?

Still waiting a definition of lost position.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-pros-blunder

well the staff claims it knows but isn't sharing the secret.  By my lights (and the rules of chess) there are only 3:   Mated, out of time, resignation.

FIDE's Laws of Chess cite dozens of ways of losing a game of chess e.g. arriving at the chess board late (article 10.15); but see also new-fide-rules and whats-up-with-fides-quotzero-tolerancequot-for-not-being-seated.

Here's a definition of Lost Position:  Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play.  Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play.  (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary) 

In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances.  And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy. 

I welcome site changes but only in a tournament scenario, 

I have had an opponent in a forced mate position who waited until he had a few hours left and then take vacation time before the win was eventually recorded,

However its not such an offence for 'lets play' objective to sit at the bottom of the pile on vacation. For tournaments however, many people may be waiting on the result and is therfore more onerous ...

Sounds more like musical chairs than chess.

 Still no clarification on this part of the original post. I doubt this could be chess.com policy, as when a person takes a vacation is their own business. Also, in three day and longer games, which can go on for quite some time, as person may not know they may need to take some time out when they start the game, as some unforeseen situation may arise.

I don't know where the poster got his information, but until the staff say different, I will take it that there is no change to the vacation policy.

brasmus, absolutely, I do not take a negative position in this situation - people are afterall people and though its hard to believe life exists outside of chess! - the impression I got of my opponent waiting is justifiably called waiting because it was I who was waiting ...

But, from what I heard from Erik earlier in the thread, the site also doesn't really enforce it, so isn't lack of enforcement equivalent to tacitly allowing it?

But you probably alsodon't have anything to worry about if you are a casual, or even habitual but not egregiously so, vacation abuser.

So what's all the hoopla about then?

Those that would like to see it enforced only really want to see it enforced in extreme circumstances, and it is.

Those that feel that their vacation time is sacred and private and that they should not be interfered with for what they feel is legitimate vacation that needs no justification will not be unless they are blatantly, repeatedly and egregiously using vacation to defer clearly lost games that are holding up a tournament.  In order words, their vacation time is effectively sacred and private and in need of no justification.

 I'd go with that, and also TheGrobe's comments. If vacation time is used as the site intended then fine. I think I was reading too much into the original post, that if someone took vacation time they almost had to get their opponents permission. What I read from the new message is that a player can call the staff's attention to a situation where they feel vacation time is being abused, the staff can then decide if the person is a serial vacation abuser and take appropriate action if they feel it neccessary.

again:

we adjudicate VERY rarely, and only in tournament situations where they are that last games. 

what is a position that is completely lost? we generally have one of our professional chess players handle that (like IM David Pruess). but examples are: king vs. king and 5 pawns, or king vs king and queen and 2 pawns. i mean, these are not tough decisions. they are obvious situations.

Yep, you need DPruess to know that :)