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?
In place of this, I'd support an inability to go on vacation a second time for any game in which it was your move on the previous vacation, and in which you still have not made a move, including when initiated by auto-timeout-protection.
I can not think of a single reason this should be permitted. I think this would level the field for premium and non-premium members, and eliminate any possibility of the kind of abuse (well, vacation abuse anyway) being discussed here.
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.
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 don't think there should be a difference here between premium & non-premium members.
I agree.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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.
There are a lot of other differences btw premium members & others, so vacation policy need not be one of those.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?