Hrqls: there are also people with busy lives who don't have hundreds or thousands of games going on

Sure but they don't therefore affect hundreds of tournaments and hundreds of other players.

I would further suggest that the number of busy lives who almost always play at the very last minute is minimal. As I pointed out to Roberto, the time controls are not as labelled. The 5-day time control is for 7, 8 or 9 days, not for 5. A game-hoarding slowcoach will often take the full 9 days when it occurs whereas a busy lifer will not.

Hercs: the players do (or should) know what they signed up for

Why "should" they? Did you nod knowingly above, when I said that a 5-day control is for 7 to 9 days? Maybe you did but do you think that it's common knowledge?

Hercs: for prize tournaments: the creator has chose the time limit for a specific reason

Lol. Do you really think that tournaments that can take decades have been given a thoughtful time control? I suspect that most tournament creators do it naively.

Besides, even when they are carefully chosen, the tournament can still proceed very slowly. I used to create tournaments with limited time controls called "Some like it fast". The idea was that they could be over within weeks and thus be suitable for fast players and Pawns. But a slow player can make those take months instead of weeks, perverting the intent, spoiling the enjoyment and degrading the membership of any Pawn who falls foul of them.

The reason that I reject "but they're playing within the rules" as a poor excuse is that it misses the point, which is that the rules are not fit for the purpose.

Roberto Silva: There's no need to shout, Roberto, and it's clear from what you say that you only have a limited understanding of the issue and no interest in improving that impoverishment. I see no value in any further conversation with you other than to point out that you, like many people, do not seem to realise that the so-called 7-day time control is not for 7 days between moves, it's for 9, 10 or 11 days depending on which day of the week the move is made.

This whole discussion is moot. Brainking will be on auto-pilot soon and no changes will get made by anyone.

BGBedlam:

Pawns,Knights,and Bishops have a limit on games started. I doubt Rooks would be happy about being limited. I vaguely remember a site penalizing players who timed out of games but I can't recall details.

crosseyed:

Surely a solution would be to put a limit on the maximum amount of games somebody can play.

SL-Mark: I don’t agree with this. I’m a rather fast player because I’ve few games, usually 50 or 60. When I connect, all my moves are made in the same day. But sometimes, rarely, for personal reasons, I can’t connect for several days. So, with your system, I could be penalized for joining in a tournament. On the contrary, a pawn playing rapidly every day could join it. I think it's not good that a paying member has less benefits than a non-paying member, because it is still a paying member who makes the site live. I understand that some people can’t or don’t want to pay a subscription, it’s their choice, but, for me, tournaments must be open for everyone, people have just to be vigilant about time.

What about incorporating a player speed rating?
Each player would have a speed rating, e.g. between 0 and 100, 0 being infinitely fast and 100, playing at the time limits.
The rating would be calculated and averaged for each move made as follows:

Time Taken per Move / Time Allowed per Move

and added to their overall rating:

(Total Time Taken per Move - Total Vacation time used) / Total Time Allowed per Move / Total Number of moves

For tournament creators, they could add a minimum required speed rating.
For the entrants, the pending tournament could also display the speed rating of the slowest player, so they have an idea how quickly it may progress.

Roberto Silva: Well put and I agree with all you mentioned.
But I also agree with most of what playBunny posted.

playBunny: People are signing up for whatever amount of games that they can handle, under the time limits provided. If they sign up for games with a "7 days per move" limit, it's because they expect to make a move once every 7 days. What they do with the amount of time in between is their own business, if they choose to play 1000 different games in the meantime, it's entirely their business, and you have no right to tell them what to do with their lives.

There are people who like to play fast, there are people who like to play slow. The game caters to all, everyone can chose the game speed they like.

But when you sign up for slow games, and then complain that people are playing slowly, then you are complaining about a problem you created for yourself. It's not other players' fault that you signed up for those games under false expectations. Demanding that other people cater to your own time preferences, even though they went to the trouble of specifically choosing time limits where they didn't have to, is quite arrogant and disrespectful. The world doesn't revolve around you and what you like or think is 'right'.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE SLOW PLAYERS, DON'T SIGN UP FOR SLOW GAMES! If you sign up for slow games, people are going to play slowly, because that's the very reason why they signed up for those games in the first place. Again, I can't see what's so hard to understand about this basic fact.

Carpe Diem:Re: crosseyed: Could be that Carnie is talking about past situations.
I see she has been in this site just over a year. Still fancy harping on about the past if indeed she has suffered in the past.

Carpe Diem: One of them is enough: Search for any running tourney from before 2012, see which games are running. it is typically a single player (or two) that keep such a tourney still in round 1 (although different ones in different tourneys). Just try it. I did it multiple times.

Carnie: If there are people with several hundred or even thousands of games who are still signing up and playing extremely slowly, I could see how that would be frustrating, although I'd be surprised if it was common. The way I arrived at the situation was that I was (and am) in several fellowships, and signed up for a lot of games at one time. A message for one tournament would come to me, and I'd sign up for a bunch of games, and then another message for another tournament would come before the first set of games started, and on that went for a little while. So I was signing up for more games not fully realizing how many I was committing to (obviously still my own fault). 

Carnie: I looked at your profile and the games you are playing and I think your peeve or moan is unfounded. The only player holding you up is me and both the games have 3 days limit. My last move was made on 4th November. So my next move is due in 20 hours which I am sure I will do today. I doubts if any of the players you are playing have hundreds or thousands games running. I have 958 at present and I do my best to play as many games as I can in one day.
Update I have now made my moves on both games at 8pm UK time.

playBunny: I don't disagree that it can be a problem, especially when, as you mention, it takes up the slots for a Pawn that's new to the site. But I also don't think it's fair to pin the problem completely on those who are playing within the designated time limits. The solution might be a combination of things - make it more clear to people the repercussions of signing up at certain time limits, and for signing up to multiple games in multiple tournaments, perhaps have some allowance to give pawns some more games to play if they are maxed out with games that are taking forever. 

playBunny: there are also people with busy lives who don't have hundreds or thousands of games going on

those players can also make their moves within the time limits, but maybe too slow for others

i understand your point about pawns not knowing what they signep up for, and i also can go along with you for the prize tournaments

but for all the other tournaments, which is the most complaining about, the players do (or should) know what they signed up for, and specifically: they had the chance to join other tournaments with a time limit that better suits their taste, or create their own tournaments with their own time limit

for prize tournaments: the creator has chose the time limit for a specific reason

(and please keep this discussion cicilized)

Roberto Silva: I'm getting sick and tired of all this constant whining of people who sign up for time limits they don't like and then complain when people aren't playing fast enough for their liking.

And I'm years past being sick and tired of people who think that their inability to understand this issue makes their "advice" of any value.

How many Pawns come to the site and join a tournament not knowing that it's going to take years and they won't be able to join another tournament? What's your solution for that?

You say not to join if the time limit is too long but what if it's a prize tournament? You're saying that people who can't wait years - sometimes decades - have to forgo the opportunity that such rare tournaments provide.

To add insult to injury, many of the excessively slow players who have joined those tournaments were Black Rooks who had no need of the membership that was to be won. In my book their action is either thoughtless or selfish and neither is a good thing, whether it's "within the rules" or not.

You have sympathy for people who have such a busy life that they can only play one move every nine days (seven day clock with weekends off). Do you really think that many of these people exist? Nine days between each move?

You say that people shouldn't have to "give up their busy lives to indulge others" - but you're ignoring the real issue - which is people indulging themselves with hundreds - and sometimes thousands - of games that they cannot play except at the very limits. Their life is busy alright - busy with too many games! And it's other people who suffer for that indulgence.

Do you begin to see that it's not as simple a situation as you've imagined? Do you begin to understand that STFU is not a solution?

Your question is my question.... Why is it so hard to understand?

playBunny: You are naughty.

playBunny: That's what different time limits are for. If you sign up for a "7 days per move" game, then complain that people are taking 7 days per move, you shouldn't have signed up for them in the first place. Why is that hard to understand?

The site allows all possibilities for people to sign up for time limits they are comfortable with (with vacation days to cover for any unseen emergencies, so you can sign up for short time limits without fear of losing games if you get sick or the like).

I'm getting sick and tired of all this constant whining of people who sign up for time limits they don't like and then complain when people aren't playing fast enough for their liking. You had that choice when signing up! Thinking people should have to give up their very busy lives to indulge you in some silly game seems quite arrogant and disrespecful to me.

heavenrose: i just want him in peace is all

I've just consulted a medium and he said that dien will suffer eternal unrest if he doesn't get to hear people's last thoughts and to know how he touched their lives.

Carpe Diem: Playing within the rules is a terribly poor excuse; it completely disrespects the spirit of play. Many of the offenders will never, ever, understand how much game hoarding reduces the enjoyment of so many other players. It is a serious problem. If this were my site then it would be one of the first things that I would seek to change.

Carpe Diem: Yes, you’re right, we can’t say anything if the player plays at the limit but within the rules. I had noticed you were a fast player : last time, it’s true, we were the 1st to finish our game. I must admit I prefer to play rapidly because I remember my game. When a player makes a move once a week, it’s difficult to remember what you planned to play. Of course, you can note it but it’s not the same. But I say this although sometimes I can’t play for several days because I’m very busy with my job.

crosseyed: Yes, you’re right : each player is not available in the same way : if he works or not, if he’s away sometimes, etc ... Everyone is different.

Carnie: Yeah, that's the key - it's on us to decide what games, and time limits, to play. I've been on both ends of this. A few years ago I went crazy signing up for tournaments and ended up with well over a thousand games running and had a VERY hard time keeping up. Games were going to their limit all the time, and I used up most of my vacation days. Not something I'd have done on purpose, and I could see how some might find it frustrating, but at the same time, I was playing within the limits. Just gotta know that there will be some people who use up the full time allotted, so you have to allow for that when signing up. These days it's rare a game goes a day without a response from me, and games I'm in are often the first done in tournaments. But I don't begrudge those who make a game go on what seems like forever, as they're playing within the rules. 

beach: Yeah, that happened to me recently; I considered sending them a message to ask what they were doing, but in the end decided I couldn't be bothered. Player had a number of <1000 ratings, so it obviously isn't the first time.

Mélusine: I find that three days can be restricting for me. As I could be ill or be away and then might timeout on some games.

beach: Yes I had that happen to me two days ago. They resigned all the games I had with them. Some of the games had not been started. It is beyond me too?

Carnie: Now, I never join a tournament with more than 3 days per move.

beach: Yes, I agree with you. No interest in it.

I can never figure out why someone signs up for lots  tournaments makes 1 or 2 moves then resigns them all

heavenrose: yes we will, thanks

Mélusine: Well put Mel.

heavenrose: . No one knows if by remembering someone who has died is not letting them rest in peace. I am sure dien is at peace now. I think what has shocked us is that he was so young. Also he was popular and a very good player. Most people like to show their respect for him by posting a message.

heavenrose: I don't understand why you think people avoid him to be in piece only because they are saying goodbye and sharing their good memories. Everyone has the right to say goodbye as far it is respectful, or why do you think it's negative ?

Bernice: Yes, you’re right, to ignore someone is not respectful. As in games when we say hello and we wish good luck and some players never answer, not a smiley, not the minimum hi gl. It’s the same : to ignore the opponent isn’t respectful. People concerned will recognize themselves...

Mélusine: it is only RESPECT from his fellow players...I didnt know either of the deceased, but send condolences to both families....Heavonrose, if it was you or anyone in your family you might get the same respect...

heavenrose: I see what you mean but he was a very good player, look at his profile and you’ll see he was number one in several games and this is exceptional. We just wanted to recognize his value as player. Sincere thoughts for him and his family.