Site changes, new policies

These are workable, but I think that they really devalue the timeout protection afforded premium players.  Isn't the behaviour we're trying to encourage here to force players to move their games forward, not dictate how and at what rate they use their vacation?

Not allowing two consecutive vacations from a game that's in the same position as it was on the previous vacation (while it's your move) gets right to the heart of the problem.  You are not restricted from going on vacation by exceptionally active opponents, but at the same time you're forced to progress your games.

I think that may be too complicated to realize. Why not the original rule: vacation possible only after having made ALL pending moves. And, of course, independently of your paying status!

That would make life impossible for the likes of kacparov and AWARDCHESS (who often have more than a thousand games in progress). Perhaps if all members were first warned of impending changes and then given 6 months to reduce their load, then I could see this as a solution.

That's right, I forgot about those extreme cases. 

I just tried this myself -- it does indeed work. 

I can.  If you take away someone's ability to go on vacation a second time you basically put a cap on the number of games they can play at one time.  If you have several hundred ongoing games and go on vacation for a week leaving behind a bunch of games where it's your turn to move, when you get back, you're gonna have a hard time getting all those moves in while the clock is ticking down to a timeout. 

Making big changes to address a very minor problem in order to appease a vocal few is a bad idea.  I understand that there are ppl who are annoyed by vacation time.  Oh well.

It all seems to boil down to finding a rule that does not hurt those very few that run a huge number of games simultaneously. Though I am liberal, I fail to understand how the game of chess (or the player) benefits from having hundreds of ongoing games.

You mean compared to those very few who whine about the current vacation rule?  They make a lot of noise, but are we really convinced most people think it's crucial to change the rule in the first place?

 Or those few who complained in the first place to create a vacation rule?

But this restriction already exists in an even more onerous form for non-premium members -- requiring them to make moves in all of their games prior to going on vacation every time.  The proposal isn't to prohibit players from going on vacation a second time, but to only invoke this restriction for all players, both premium and basic, if they still haven't moved since the last time they went on vacation -- i.e. rather than being forced to move in every game immediately prior to every vacation, players would only be forced to move at least once in each game sometime between every two vacations.

The intent of the suggestion was to accomplish two things:  First, to level the field with respect to the ability to invoke vacation, as I believe this is truly where any small amount of inequality exists (as premium members currently have no such restriction), and to find a better way to force players to advance their games between vacations, effectively eliminating the kind of abuse that's been discussed in this thread.

I don't see this as a big change, just a big improvement.

In my opinion, the olde rule of having to complete all your moves before going on vacation is still the best way and a very natural rule. I know now that this no longer applies to premium members and I think that may be a mistake. I don't think there should be a difference here between premium & non-premium members.

I also know that this rule would make difficulties for players with hundreds of ongoing games. But I am somehow not concerned about those exceptions.

I don't know the history of that.  I've only been here a few months-- vacation was already established.  How about providing a couple links to what you're talking about?

I agree. 

This is primarily why my suggestion is that the rule be changed to a requirement that they have simply  progressed their game since their last vacation.  It doesn't back-end-load the requirement to move, nor does it allow your opponents to undermine it while you're trying to clear your games in preparation for a vacation.

I was here in late 2007 and vacation was well established then as well (as were threads about its abuse).  I susepct it's been a feature here since day one.

There was no vacation abuse policy nor popup notice on taking a vacation, when I started here.  The vacation policy was (and is still in the FAQ) vacation is for when you need a break from the game.  I think that should be the policy.

As to the comment there should be no difference between premium and non-premium players on the site don't be silly.   If there is no difference between the two why would people pay to be a premium member? 

There are a lot of other differences btw premium members & others, so vacation policy need not be one of those.

Well, the last thing on my mind when I went premium was vacation.

For my premium I expect extra features, which could in no way give me an advantage in a game. Auto protection gives such an advantage, I dont think the outcome of a game should EVER hinge on whether a member is premium or not.

Especially since the difference pertains directly to an advantage during game play (i.e. premium members not being forced to rush their moves in advance of a vacation).

I think that those types of differences should be avoided at all costs.

Isn't the crux of the matter simply that vacation allowances are ridiculously large?

While I agree, I don't think that it's the auto protection itself that gives the advantage -- it's just an automated tool for turning on vacation time.  The advantage lies in the difference in the pre-conditions required to turn that vacation on.