pgt: Autopass cannot be used since you still have an option to offer a double.

Fencer: So autopass is never an option in a cube match when you "own" the cube?

pgt: Right. Or do you have a better solution? Like an option "click here if you never want to offer a double in this game"?

Fencer: Perhaps "never in this game" is a bit harsh, but maybe a "activate autopass until there is a possible move" would be a good idea.
In fact, that would solve ALL the problems, without having to agree on autopass when setting up the game: the player who cannot move could just click "do the autopass on my behalf until I can move again" if that's his wish. His opponent could not possibly object (could he?).

pgt: The opponent could object if he doesn't want to play with autopass at all.

Fencer: Take a poll!! I bet you a year's membership that 99% of BG players would not object!

Fencer: The opponent could object if he doesn't want to play with autopass at all.

Yes...., but is that a reasonable objection? Say I would use an automatic system to pass for me (be it autopass or a script that I've running on my computer) would the playing experience for my opponent be any different as from me just moving quickly? If the objection is that "but with autopass, the games come right back at me", I'm happy with autopass giving my opponent to option of having a delay. (That is, players can choose that if their opponent uses autopass, the automove happens after 5 minutes).

AbigailII: I cant understand why both players must agree to autopass. I dont care if my opponent is a "clicklover" so why should he/she have any objections if im using autopass alone?

Andersp: I don't understand that either. In my humble opinion, a red message "Your opponent is using Autopass", just as the auto vacation message would perfectly do the job. You wouldn't be surprised by an offline opponent passing back every game to you in an instance, and everybody who wants to take advantage of it could do so.

And I really like pgt's suggestion of a "use autopass as long as I can't move" option when you own the cube - the chances that I want to offer a double get smaller not bigger when I can't move several times in a row, I guess

Gordon Shumway: Maybe it requires both players approval because it's still in an experimental phase and Fencer is being cautious.
I aggree when you compare it to AutoVacation. I find AutoVac much more intrusive in a game (since my opponent won't timeout when expected and a game may go well beyond the time I intended it to in the begining) and I'm not asked if I allow my opponent can use AutoVacation or not.
I hope AutoPass will be like this sooner or later, let's just wait a while...

pauloaguia: Good point(s), that sounds reasonable :)

pauloaguia: I find AutoVac much more intrusive in a game (since my opponent won't timeout when expected and a game may go well beyond the time I intended it to in the begining)

While I agree with the points being made regarding autopass, I don't quite agree with the point quoted. Even if your opponent doesn't use auto-vacation, he can still set vacation days after the game starts (and if he doesn't use auto-vacation, and will be on vacation, he's likely to do so).

IMO, vacation plays a role in how long a game lasts, but much less so as the average amount of moves we manage to make in a day - and the latter is depending on many factors, one of which is the timezones the players are in.

AbigailII: Problem is AutoVac kicks in even if the player is NOT on vacation. Meaning that they can still log in and make moves, chat etc... yet the games they don't move in still don't time out.

AbigailII: Point taken. You are right, of course.
But I still don't see much of a difference between having to accept AutoPass or having to Accept AutoVacation.
(except, maybe, on Fischer clock games - there AutoPass gives you an advantge, because the clock is less time on your side).

I can't believe anyone could reasonably object to an opponent using autopass any more than they could object to their opponent moving quickly.

If doubling is an option, at least the options should be "double" and "pass" which would at least skip the step of rolling.

grenv: I can't believe anyone could reasonably object to an opponent using autopass any more than they could object to their opponent moving quickly.

If doubling is an option, at least the options should be "double" and "pass" which would at least skip the step of rolling.

I agree 100% on both issues. But pauloaguia is probably right that the rule that both players must agree is only intended for the test phase, which sounds reasonable.

Fencer: I dont think you shall waste more time on autopass, its better to have no autopass at all than this "agreement mix"

Andersp: Is it an autopass or not?

Fencer: I rather have no autopass at all than have to "ask for my opponents permission" to use it ..understand? :)

Andersp: There is no pleasing some people. Then play only with opponents who won't decline the autopass request.

Fencer: Well...as you can see im not the only one you "cant please"..but ok..ill do as you say...at least you are pleased then.

Fencer: It would be helpful for those that desperatly need autopass to have the option to make the invitation invalid if the opponent doesn't accept it. A "only invite if autopass is accepted" - checkbox. So autopass-wannahaves can play each other, autopass-ohnos can play each other and everybody can play against autopass-idontcares like me and be safe before sending the invitation :)

Fencer: So I was wrong when thinking that this agreement would be a temporary solution ; but I don't understand why it could not be that in the same game one of the opponents is using autopass and the other is not.
Apart from that, autopass is a wonderful feature :-)

Fencer: I also don't see why both sides need to agrea to auto pass. On my server it does not let people use auto pass on fisher clock games because of the advantage it would give to the other oponent. And I have only ever found one person that had a problem with autopass keep playing and that player just wrote a message in each play.

I think it is far more useful to have the following rules:
1) Auto pass can not be used on fisher clock games unless both sides agrea to it
2) Each user can chose to enable or disable autopass on any particular game at any time for themselves(Usually near the end of ludo games i like to disable autopass)
3) Any user can decide when creating a game that autopass is not allowed.(this way those people that don't want autopass can still have there way but other wise each user can use it or not at there discresion.)
4) In the settings page every player can set there default mode for each game type.

mctrivia: I find your propositions excellent, maybe the best possible policy. I fully second them !

mctrivia: Point three is equivalent with Fencers implementation.

AbigailII: Except that you can allow your opponents to use auto-pass without being forced to use it yourself.

mctrivia: With the POSSIBLE exception of Fischer Clock games, I can't see any good reason whatsoever why anybody should have any say as to whether his opponent uses autopass or not.

pgt: I agree also. The only reason I could think that someone would not want their opponent to use autopass is that they are trying to win on a time-out, and just waiting until their opponent goes off-line to make their move. (Which defeats the purpose of playing games why you try to win by no playing games - but whatever.)

I don't see why it would be a problem on Fischer Clock games - I mean if I make a move, and my opponenet's move is auto-passed back to me - I just make another move. I mean what would be the problem? (Other then if someone was trying to win by timeout which again defeats the whole purpose of "playing" games in my opinion)

As for not using autopass if their is an in-game message - I would even be for an option of "use autopass even if there is a message" - I mean I'm going to read the message the next time I visit the game - what does it matter if it is on move 40 or 52 after 12 auto-passes? I still read it at the same time. Maybe a quick note of "Opponent had not move, so autopassed back to you - so they have not read your message yet." [again, option since some may not like that]

BIG BAD WOLF: I updated my post to stress "good"!

pgt: The only problem with autopass on fisher is theoretically the game could be played back in 0 secounds to the player several times in a row. If you have little time left that would be a real problem especially if you have other games you need to play also.

mctrivia: I'd say that if you have little time left and you are playing a Fisher game without getting bonus time on each move (otherwise, there's no problem at all), I'd say getting the game back immediately is a benefit. Otherwise you might visit another game or log off or do something else, and lose valuable time (and possibly the game) if your opponent moves when you're not ready to play your next move.

What I don't understand is why the anti-automove people make such a big deal out of it. Most of the time, there's no forced pass anyway. It only effects a relative small number of moves.

I wonder if the following compromise could work:

• Autopass is a player attribute - anyone can determine whether he/she uses autopass, regardless of the preference of the opponent.
  
• By default, if a move can be autopassed, and if the player is online, the autopass is effective immediately. Otherwise, the pass is queued until the player online again. As soon as the player is online again, his/her queued autopasses are being played.
  
• People can set an "play opponents autopasses immediately" setting. If set, and if the opponent uses autopass, and if the opponent must pass, the pass is played immediately, even if the opponent is offline.
  </ul>
  
  This would allow Fencer to go to bed, knowing the autopasses of Big Bad Wolf won't come back to him until BBW is online again. It also allows people trying to win games on the clock to keep trying to win this way. And McTrivia doesn't have to wait for me to log again to move again in a game where I have to pass.

BIG BAD WOLF: The only time I agrea that a message should not stop auto pass is if both users are using autopass and both people will autopass back and forth several times but as soon as one person is no longer being autopassed the other should not be autopassed so they can read the message and reply back.