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.

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.

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.

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: 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.

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! :)

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.

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

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.

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

SafariGal: the problem with a rating like that is it does not take into consideration how long they have to make a move. If a player only plays games with 7day + limits because they know they are busy and can only play once a week they should still have a perfect score as long as they always play atleast once a week.

mctrivia: you missed the point of the rating, which would be "how quickly does this player play". Playing once every 7 days in a 7 day game is not the same as playing 10 times a day in the same game.

grenv: exactly right grenv, the point mctrivia makes on this is irrelevant to the speed rating.

A different rating may be an average of time it takes for a player to actually make a move when it is their turn. This would be more accurate than my first suggestion. If mctrivia modified his post a little, maybe he meant that in a 7 day game your opponent can take all 7 days, you can then move immediately but it is still only one move in 7 days making you look bad.

Something more along the lines of the time taken feature at goldtoken but get an average per move, this way your slow opponents wouldnt affect your speed rating.

So mctrivia, indirectly, thank you very much for pointing out a flaw in my original idea :)

SafariGal: Quite right, for instance I'm not moving now because I have no games where it's my move. So that might look slow ;-)

SafariGal: Wouldn't making a terniment or game with aproprietly short time limits do the exact same thing? There is an entire fellowship of people you can play that like to play quick.

mctrivia: Wouldn't making a terniment or game with aproprietly short time limits do the exact same thing?

No, it wouldn't. The same idea was some messages before written with title "Simple Solution?", but the idea misses an important point:

When someone creates a tournament in a new game (example: Fabrice in his excellent game "Ambiguous
Chess"), then his main motivation is to discover some strategy of the game, opening theory, etc.
Even if he creates a tournament with only 1 day per move, this doesn't prevent slow players to join in and then lose by time. You may think that then all is OK, they lost and are "punished" and the faster players have the winning point. But the intention of the tournament was to learn something about the strategy of the game and not an easy winning point by timeout!
So, to create a tournament with short time limit is not enough to prevent slow players to do harm against the intention of the tournament.
Therefore, i tried to give this species some name, remember "Specialist" or "Unrestricted Mover", hoping that would make it easier to take measures against this phenomenon.
The suggested names were 0-1-variables, only to make difference between "Specialist" and "Not specialist", but now grenv has suggested a rating, which measures even between the 0-1-extremes "how much specialist" a player is!
I think this includes the solution of the problem, and agree 100% with the suggestion of grenv, as always his idea is convincing!

CryingLoser: I can't take credit for that, it was SafariGal that thought of it, I just seconded it. :)

grenv: Upps, have overseen that.
SafariGal: Sorry, SafariGal, and i agree 100% with your idea

CryingLoser: But in a tournement with short time limits would get rid of the slow players that you don't care about and give you free points. I know you want to learn but the majority of people are not going to time out. I think the majority of players on here play before the time runs out they just sort there games by how much time is left so a 7 day game will be played last but a 1 day game may get played a lot more often.

Ok.. this board is not meant for debating new features! :-D ... Please let's get back to requesting new features.
Feel free to take it to General Chat or Members Only to continue the conversation about "slow" players. Thanks.

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

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 ;(