This topic has been beat up many times over the past four years. Sorry, but here's one more go round on it.
I am currently on vacation for a week. I am immune from losing on time.
However, if an opponent's skull appears, I'm free to claim the time out win.
This just seems fundamentally wrong to me.
I don't think it's enough to suggest that i personally simply refain from taking the win, as (1) it's my choice, and (2) we're not talking about just one person - it's what is fair for everyone that counts.
Recommendations:
1. post my return date visible to all
2. once i've posted my vacation time to that certain date, make my opponents equally protected from being timed out until that date, even if I cancel my vacation and return early
3. alternatively, should I cancel part of my vacation and return early, then at least send an email to my opponents telling them that i am back, and make it at least two days from my return before being able to claim a time out win.
I see no harm in putting rules like this in place, and it would make the vacation system a lot more fair than it currently seems to be
Originally posted by coquetteBoth players know the time control before the game starts.
This topic has been beat up many times over the past four years. Sorry, but here's one more go round on it.
I am currently on vacation for a week. I am immune from losing on time.
However, if an opponent's skull appears, I'm free to claim the time out win.
This just seems fundamentally wrong to me.
I don't think it's enough to suggest that i per ce, and it would make the vacation system a lot more fair than it currently seems to be
It is up to each player to manage their own time.
If they fail in that task, they deserve to lose the game.
Both players have the same amount of timeout immunity for the year.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair in the current system.
1) My return date is nobody's business, and my opponent's return date isn't my business. I don't care.
2) If your opponents want protection from time out while you're on vacation, then they can go on vacation as well. If they're out of vacation days, then they had better make the time control.
3) Personally, I don't want any emails about my opponent being on or off vacation, and there is absolutely no reason that I should be stopped from skulling them whether I'm on OR off vacation. If I skull them, it's their fault for not moving in time.
Simple as that.
Russ, where's my autoskull option?
Anyone interested in a greasemonkey auto-skull script? Hell, I may write one for my own personal amusement. 🙂
The flag might seem overly 'abusable' here but over at chess.com I'm automatically protected when my time is merely 'low'..there's no holiday to go on but no matter how many games or how low the 'natural time' left, the flag just goes out on its own accord.... the 90days entitlement there could be chopped to about what it is here without that 'feature' ! Perhaps their system of accruing extra days based upon passage of time \ loyalty is worth looking at though..you get a few extra days after certain time periods.
Certainly, however, holiday return dates should be posted as a courtesy, or perhaps the site could post the number of days holiday left next to our screen names.
Originally posted by PonderableSo make timeout-only tournaments exempt from vacations. But don't stop people who are willing to move from moving.
The point would be that some people use the vacation as a help in timout only tournaments. If there would be the odd day off after a move tehy couldn't use the ruse.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by coquetteThe crux of this seems to be the unfairness of being able to take a skull while on vacation,
I am currently on vacation for a week. I am immune from losing on time.
However, if an opponent's skull appears, I'm free to claim the time out win.
This just seems fundamentally wrong to me.
without the ability to lose on the same grounds.
It is also not enough to say that you cannot take a skull while on vacation, because the guy
on vacation can remove the flag, take the skull, and go back on vacation.
What if you were immune while on vacation, and for 12 hours after your return, and your opponents get the same privilege.
12 hours rather than a day to stop people doing the one-on one-off trick, for more vacation. And immunity to both sides to be fair to non-subs, tournament players et al. Adding some time after the return gives the opponent time to see. Given that the biggest concern is timebank only games, I would expect people playing those to be online at least twice a day, so 12 hours should suffice.
p.s. Very impressive shiny new platinum star there coquette.
Originally posted by gezzaThank you!
The crux of this seems to be the unfairness of being able to take a skull while on vacation,
without the ability to lose on the same grounds.
It is also not enough to say that you cannot take a skull while on vacation, because the guy
on vacation can remove the flag, take the skull, and go back on vacation.
What if you were immune while on vacation, an ...[text shortened]... day, so 12 hours should suffice.
p.s. Very impressive shiny new platinum star there coquette.
Originally posted by coquetteNo changes at all are required for vacations. All your points fall neatly into the category of "War is war, loser".
This topic has been beat up many times over the past four years. Sorry, but here's one more go round on it.
I am currently on vacation for a week. I am immune from losing on time.
However, if an opponent's skull appears, I'm free to claim the time out win.
This just seems fundamentally wrong to me.
I don't think it's enough to suggest that i per ...[text shortened]... ce, and it would make the vacation system a lot more fair than it currently seems to be
P-
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116964
Originally posted by gezzaI never even look at vacation flags; whether or not my opponent is on vacation has no bearing on when I check my games for my moves.
The crux of this seems to be the unfairness of being able to take a skull while on vacation, without the ability to lose on the same grounds.
It is also not enough to say that you cannot take a skull while on vacation, because the guy on vacation can remove the flag, take the skull, and go back on vacation.
What if you were immune while on vacation, and for ...[text shortened]... would expect people playing those to be online at least twice a day, so 12 hours should suffice.
Also, how does "one on-one off trick" provide the user with more vacation?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by divegeesterIf the extension to timeout immunity in my suggestion was a whole day after return from holiday,
Also, how does "one on-one off trick" provide the user with more vacation?
then someone going on holiday for 10 days could just book the 1st, 3rd, ... , 9th day,
but the effect would be as if 10 days were booked.
So you get 10 days immunity, for only 5 days holiday reserved.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
Let it rest... if you can't move within the time agreed upon you get timed out... simples. It's not if my opponent is on vacation, if i fail to move without my flag up - game over. Basically what you guys are saying is that you also shouldn't be able to move during a vacation, why slow the games down even more?
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by Trev33Trev,
Let it rest... if you can't move within the time agreed upon you get timed out... simples. It's not if my opponent is on vacation, if i fail to move without my flag up - game over. Basically what you guys are saying is that you also shouldn't be able to move during a vacation, why slow the games down even more?
The reason this keeps coming up is because people are not happy with the current situation. You have been here long enough to remember Atri's quest for fame.
I have made the suggestion you repeat. Coquette's is something different, attempting to balance
things out: If you can't lose on vacation to a skull, you also can't win by one. But this does not have to slow things down.
Timebank only games, protected by vacation are always going to be an issue with the current system, so something needs to be fixed.