Should Chess.com Change How Vacation Works?

I hope less vacation time. I'm having a problem in my group of 44 rapid chess tournament. One player is on vacation but in this tournament is not allowed but hte player is still in the game and the other are still waiting for playing

You know, you can set up a tournament to be non-vacation. 

I won't play in it, but you can do it. 

How do you all feel about automatically resigning lost games (engine eval -4 or worse) that have been on vacation for a week? 

Would that help a lot of the hurt?

A "lost" position at one skill level is not a lost position at another skill level.

If you are going to make a system like that, you probably should also add a criteria for how much material advantage the winning side should have and make different criteria for different ratings.

I had a game with a -4.34 evaluation (with the most basic analysis tool on chess.com) [i was white] at one point and i won that game against a 1780 player. So you probably should have a higher evaluation bar than -4.

personally  I would not like the idea erm... 'conceptually'...

for instances:

it would mean introducing a form of computer evaluation in an ongoing game. I feel computers should be completely shut out from ongoing games.

(computers meaning engines)

I don't like it.  Many -4 positions are non-trivial wins, and some are far from certain even for strong players.

I'd be more comfortable if the threshold is -10.

-4 was just a random number. 

I'd prefer a different random number.

It might also be good to vary the threshold based on the rating of the players involved and perhaps based on the material left on the board.

This was a blitz game (an extremely sloppy one from both players), but I was -12 a couple times and still won: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/2349170446.  Rather oddly, despite the fact that that was a complete blunderfest, I get an accuracy score of 95%...

As a Diamond member who has benefitted numerous times from the way chess.com’s vacation is set up, I think the current system is unfair.

In correspondence chess, everyone should operate under the same conditions. Allowing one player more time and automatic vacations while the other has less time and no protection from flagging is simply unfair. Find other ways to give premium members benefits without making unequal playing conditions.

Personally, I like the cc rule giving a set amount of vacation time that can be used however the player likes (automatic vacation for everyone). But once the time runs out, it’s a loss. 

Speaking against personal interest as someone who has been forced to use months of vacation time in a single year, vacation time should be limited to ~45 days per year (floating, not calendar).

Regarding adjudications: I like the idea of a player being able to request adjudication. If the player’s evaluation is correct and the position is clearly won/drawn, they get the result. If they are wrong, they could be given a time penalty or even be awarded a loss!

But this is not specifically about games where the opponent is on vacation.

@MGleason, adjudication of games where the player is on vacation would work the same way, and would probably be the main use of adjudication. I’m not in favor of adjudication in live chess.

Right, it shouldn't apply to live chess.

But I mean that if your opponent is playing out to mate in a totally lost but slow-moving endgame, adjudication could be used there even if he's not using vacation time.

Exactly right, @MGleason. 

I'm politely, but completely in disfavour of any form of adjudication... based on engine evaluation.

This is like opening a trapdoor.

I do hope the powers that be do at least read my post #80.

..next thing - reasonment runs - someone will be checking the engine in an ongoing game, but - mark me - not to decide which move to make, but to check whether his game qualifies for adjudication

I read it  I've read every post in this thread. At this point all I've decided is that with any change we make we are very likely to make a lot of people unhappy. 

Still just tossing around ideas to see what we can come up with that will make the most poeple happy and everyone else tolerably unhappy. 

ever thought of asking members via a thread if they would like a certain change ?