SafariGal: I like the idea of having the rating, but I also think the group winner should be decided as eraly as possible.

grenv: why not have a simple rating for every player.
Moves / Game
then it doesnt matter quite so much how many games they have started. If they have 100 active games and make 200 moves that day, they score a rating of 2. (2 moves per game per day)
If they have 600 games and make 50 moves, they have a rating of 0.083.

Then set a tournament that only accepts players with ratings over whatever the creator sets.

This would not totally guarantee a specialist from screwing up the tournament but it would help a lot and certainly help identify slow players

SafariGal: Agreed, the problem is that in tournaments that should be over quickly, one slow player can ruin the whole experience.

This could be partially fixed by figuring out the winner of a group prior to every game finishing, and starting round 2 before round 1 is over if all the winners can be determined.

CryingLoser: I was under the impression this whole idea started because many people were getting frustrated with specialists holding up games. The target seems to have moved away from that directive

Mr. Shumway:
(2) Every player can define by creating tournaments if "unrestricted movers" are allowed or not, and every player can choose if he want to put "unrestricted movers" automaticly in his
Blocked-user list

The second point about automatically putting "unrestricted movers" on the individual blocked users list would eventually cause a too high server load

It is possible to put only the flag "unrestricted mover" on the Blocked-user-list, and in every actually situation the server could check in milli-seconds the setting of this flag.
Of course, to put all the names of the "unrestricted users" on the Blocked-user-list would make it unnecessary big.

Eriisa: That's exactly what I was trying to say ;)

Lots of times, I will set up some tourney's that are 1 day moves, with no days off. This way, everyone has to move at least every 24 hours and auto-vacation will not extend the time.

Voila! No slow players!

CryingLoser:
(1) I liked joshi_tm's idea better, that every player can set an individual maximum amount of games (I think I could use it ;)). But that wouldn't fit your idea of avoiding to play too slow players. Therefor your point
(2) would be pointless. So let's assume from here on, that this feature would be applied. Point (2) are actually two points: The settings for tournaments are not necessary, because you could just set up a tournament without vacation days - so noone could "misuse" the autovacation feature. The second point about automatically putting "unrestricted movers" on the individual blocked users list would eventually cause a too high server load, because every time someone chooses (not) to be restricted, the blocklist of more than 20000 accounts had to be updated. And your Blocklist would be unreadable.
(3) I think that is too much for the servers also. People are demanding to only be shown the tournaments they may participate in since a long while, and it doesn't happen - But to realize it, you would only have to compare the tourney settings to your own data. If your wish would be applied, you would have to compare every tournament's player list with your complete Blocklist - everytime you look for tournaments. I think, that would really blow it up.
(4) That would be a gread feature! :)

CryingLoser: That is a much beter sugestion of a feature. A simpler sulotion for #1 would be to allow each user to be able to chose there own max. This way if they are on a team the captain can't put them on more games if they reached there max. However that solution makes number 2 meaningless.

Mr. Shumway:
OK, i will be consequent, the limit should be only for people who wish it.
So my features request actually is:

(1) Player *who want it* should have a move limitation, that self-regulates the max. number of
started games to a limit they can handle. I suggest, that after the first time-out they can have 1000 open slots, after the second 500, etc.,
but here we can find of course some better algorithm. Let's call player who choose this self-restriction "players with max limit", and players without it "unrestricted movers" (a better word than "specialists", i think)
(2) Every player can define by creating tournaments if "unrestricted movers" are allowed or not, and every player can choose if he want to put "unrestricted movers" automaticly in his
Blocked-user list
(3) When someone is searching tournaments, then to let hidden this tournaments where players have
joined who are on his Blocked-user-list
(4) When he has joined a tournament, then should work an automatic that immediately eliminates his name from the tournament in the moment
when a player of his Blocked-user-list joins in this tournament

This features only consider the personal decision of a player with whom he want to play or not to play. Or do you regard it even as a restriction for the "unrestricted movers" that after that they will not be able to force the other players to play with them?

CryingLoser: I don't think we need forced move limitation at all!!! If some people want to set themselves a limit, that's fine. But please stop screaming for restrictions of others, just because you don't like how they play their games.

joshi tm: I'm now also playing as some kind of 'specialist'. I don't like this title, I really want to do something about this, but I became too busy.

Have taken my wish for feature #3 back, coz some people didn't want to be restricted.
On the other hand, you prove that there exist cases in which players would regard the move limitation not as a restriction, but as a real feature for them. BTW i hate the irony in the word "specialist" that i have introduced, we should find as soon as possible a better word.

Actually i have the same opinion like Fabrice (nabla), that we need a simple and fair algorithm for a moves-limitation.

WellyWales: How can you play quick if half of your games that you have only move once a week or once a month which is the case from my games , so does that make me a slow player ?.
I have cut down from 300 games to about 40 now because of the fact that most tournies i enter there is always one that takes forever to finish ;(

Marfitalu: The maximum number of games you can play should be based on how quick you play them.

joshi tm: Yes, I would also like this feature ! Of course nobody is forced to start more games that he would like, but it is much easier to decline a challenge when you simply can't start a new game (ideally, people could not even challenge you when you are at the maximum). The game limitation, even if it was only 20 games, was one thing I found cool about the pawn status.
Now the question is whether BK would like to help curing BK addiction !
CryingLoser: I like your idea of forcing the above game limitation on players who time out, the problem being of course to determine a simple and fair algorithm for it.

I think there should be an option where I can choose how many games I want to pklay as maximum. I'm still trying to lower my number of running games, but nothing works, they just keep on coming. So if there would be an option which limits me to 250 games (or something else) (and I cannot make new games, sign in to new tournaments, etc.) that would be fine.

CryingLoser: I'm now also playing as some kind of 'specialist'. I don't like this title, I really want to do something about this, but I became too busy.

mctrivia: There is a very simple solution to your problem. Do not play games with long time limits or vacations. Stop trying to restric people

You are right. In the case of the feature #3, which restricts other players, i am not interested any more in his introduction.

But for features #1 and #2, which include a personal decision with whom we play or not,
we should continue to suggest their introduction
(to have an other player in the Blocked-user-list can also have other reasons than his slow play)

mctrivia: What makes no sense is someone timing out, yet a vacation day is automatically added, yet they are actively playing some other game. That's not how it was intended!

CryingLoser: Your argument is weak: using it someone can say he is "busy" in games where he expects a defeat and "not busy" in games where he sees a victory...

Your argumenty makes no sense. Mathematically you are beter off to play the game you will be defeated in faster and slow down the games you will win in. As for me being busy. It is not that uncommon for me to work 16+ hours straight when I am busy I will offten come online and play a game or 2 for a short break. It would not be fair to say that I could not play because I am busy. Just because I can't play all 10 games doesn't mean I can't play 1 or 2. I am on here for fun and I play my games as quickly as I can and usually have a few days spare before I will time out. The point is you can't say people who are on vacation are not allowed to play.

There is a very simple solution to your problem. Do not play games with long time limits or vacations. Stop trying to restric people when you can easily control who you play and the limits on the game.

Eriisa: Last week I had to let over 60 games time out because I could not come online. It was unexpected and unanticipated. I do not cry or complain since things happen, but I do not think I should be punished by the system either

Hmm, usually we have about 3 - 7 days for a move,
and over this for such cases like a technical defect we have the auto-vacation.
Can it be that you trusted technical resources (which by experience sometimes fail) so that you renounced to use the auto-vac? Or did you use the 30-days-vacation and nevertheless you exhausted the time in 60 games?

In both cases this argument against the "specialist-regulation" is too weak.

grenv:
Which i think is solved by not allowing people to move on vacation days

Great idea, fully agree with it.

mctrivia:
I am really busy. But if I hit a wall I can come online and play a game or 2 to get my mind off the problem then get back to work

If someone is "really busy" and has to take the vacation day, then for him it doesn't matter that he is not allowed to make other moves in this day. If someone is not so busy and assuming he didn't start more slots than he can handle, then he should make his moves. Your argument is weak: using it someone can say he is "busy" in games where he expects a defeat and "not busy" in games where he sees a victory...

juls31: If you guys have a problem with the vacation system, why don't you just play games without vacation? It's fine if you want to be removed from a tournament because of slow players - but you can't punish others for taking the time they need and that they have. And nobody here has 365 vacation days ;)

grenv: That would make things worse. Besides I some times take a vacation day just because a project has come up and I am really busy. But if I hit a wall I can come online and play a game or 2 to get my mind off the problem then get back to work from a fresh outlook.

juls31: Which i think is solved by not allowing people to move on vacation days, which is implemented on some sites.

Eriisa
thats ok because you had a reason to time out, i was playing someone the other day who used 4 automatic and when i looked he had around 234 games on the go and he was on line the same time as me he would have seen this soit would have been nice if he could have made his move with me

CryingLoser: A complete other idea for solution would be a counter for the timeout-defeats of a player in a year. The first timeout should limit his open slots to 1000, the second to 500, etc. until this system self-regulates the poor forecast of a "specialist" and reduces his open slots to exactly the quantity he can handle.

It sounds like you are assuming anyone who times out is a 'specialist'. What about someone who has an emergancy and cannot get online? Should they be penalized list above?

Last week I had to let over 60 games time out because I could not come online. It was unexpected and unanticipated. I do not cry or complain since things happen, but I do not think I should be punished by the system either.

CryingLoser: Good idea.

How about if a vacation day automatically kicks in then you can't make any more moves for 24 hours?

Similar to when you create many new games, and they are listed as one game with a X20 below it to represent 20 games waiting, I would like it to do the same on my main page, so when I have 20 games waiting, it doesnt show all 20 games listed, rather 1 game and a x20 below it, or something.

whopper:
mctrivia: If they are constantly timing out they will run out quickly.

Not to be misunderstood: i don't think the slow playing "specialists" want to make the other players angry, but they simply have started more games than they can handle. Now, for losing as few games as possible by timeout, they manage to make the most urgently moves and to use their vacation tolerance where it is possible.

Such a tournament is indeed in my mind, and without a special player it would have taken about a week, but now with the "specialist" i am afraid it will not be finished this year. Even if the specialist
will lose in the next summer ;) by timeout, the other players want much more to start the next round of the tournament than to wait a year
for getting a winning point from the specialist...

In tournaments where players are trying a new game (example Ambiguous Chess) and want to make some experiments in opening theory etc., they would be glad to see the results of their strategies this year if possible ;)
To start another tournament is no solution, coz the specialist can start thousands of games and participate in every tournament he likes.

A complete other idea for solution would be a counter for the timeout-defeats of a player in a year. The first timeout should limit his
open slots to 1000, the second to 500, etc.
until this system self-regulates the poor forecast of a "specialist" and reduces his open slots to exactly the quantity he can handle.

grenv: You can only take advantage of autovacation a few times a year. If they are constantly timing out they will run out quickly.

whopper: If only they were punished, the auto-vac rule allows them to not be punished even while playing other games.

CryingLoser: The first two could be nice options, but I disagree with the third one. Options for individuals to avoid slow players are ok, but I don't like the idea of throwing them out for being slow. After all, they are either playing within the time limits, or punished by timing out.

There exist some players who are playing so slow that some of us decide to put them in the Blocked user list. Hope there will be a way to use this Blocked-user-list for the following features:
* When someone is searching tournaments, then to let hidden this tournaments where players have
joined who are on his Blocked-user-list
* When he has joined a tournament, then should work an automatic that immediately eliminates his name from the tournament in the moment
when a player of his Blocked-user-list joins in this tournament
* When the joining of a player would mean that
3 player or more would be removed from this tournament, then the automatic should prevent
the joining of this special player in the tournament

I think that the creator of a special type of tourney game EX: Chess with a set move list... be allowed to resign a game because they did not follow the game to the set move list... Alot of people create ste tourneys to practice and have fun... but alot of people do not follow the rules...

Fencer: Well, I think that would be the most common need. But, like I said, it's your site. You must have strong feelings on why you don't want to add the link (which is fine), because we've spent more time discussing it than it would take to implement it.

However, one thing I really like, is when you decide not to implement something, you usually come out and say so. Most people don't give any feedback at all. Thank you.

Summertop: I agree, I remember looking for quite some time for the vacation page on my profile.

Summertop: If you meant an easy access to the page to set vacation days, it would make sense, of course.

Fencer: Yes, it is always there. Users eventually figure out how to do things like set vacation days. However, Most people expect to be able to access this from their profile. But, if you are not wanting to make BK more user friendly because it will "duplicate" a link...Hey, it's your site.

Summertop: Why? The Settings link is always at the left column menu, it makes no sense to duplicate it.

Here is a simple Suggestion.  I think it would make BK easier to use:

could you add a link to the "Settings" page on the "My Profile" page?

For example::

My profile (edit | change password | Settings | order list)  

Fencer: That's all I needed to know, about adding to your TODO list. More than happy to be patient, I know how busy you are.

Thanks

Sarah1980: Yes.

Is that word game on your TO DO LIST???

tonyh: You just need to be more patient. Easy requests are solved immediately, other ones are added to the TODO list.

Fencer: Ok, I ignored that. Thanks for answering .

Fencer, where should I go with this idea?
Have you taken it on board or do I need to drum up much more support from other players?

Spirou: It's not safe to have RSS on anything what requires your password.

I would be happy with the "RSS" possibility on the GameList and accessorily also on the messages box.

Marfitalu: Switch the font to "formatted".

Marfitalu: use the code   to make an extra space.