The original intention behind the Vacation rule undoubtedly carries a human-centered warmth beyond pure competition — providing a buffer for players facing unforeseen circumstances such as sudden illness, menstruation-related discomfort, or urgent family matters. This goodwill should not be dismissed. However, any rule has two sides: Vacation can also be activated in situations where no such human considerations are necessary, becoming a tool that, within the boundaries of the rules, consumes the opponent’s time, prolongs the game, and disrupts its rhythm.
There are two extremes: one is the No-Vacation mode, where Vacation is entirely disabled; the other is what I temporarily refer to as “strategic utilization,” where Vacation is fully used within the limits allowed by the rules. Both deviate from the intended purpose of Vacation as a mechanism for human-centered accommodation.
In the past, although this issue existed, it was not prominent. Most players used Vacation with restraint, activating it only when genuinely necessary. As a result, the environment remained in a long-standing intermediate state between “complete prohibition” and “strategic utilization.” The introduction of Auto-Vacation, however, shifted this balance — originally maintained through individual restraint — toward the side of “strategic utilization,” now executed by default through the system.
This binary, either-or design overlooks a long-standing issue: players have different levels of tolerance. One player may be willing to accept a 30-day delay, while another may only tolerate a one-day delay. For the former, Auto-Vacation is almost negligible; for the latter, it can become a significant obstacle. Neither side can easily understand the other’s perspective, and discussions often become emotional. What we ultimately want is for every game to be completed fairly and properly, without being affected by external factors beyond the board. We should not waste energy on trivial disagreements, but instead focus our limited attention on the greatest shared interest. Sometimes, differences are not obstacles, but opportunities for complementarity.
I would like to say a few words in defense of Gia. Vacation indeed leads to a sustained perception of reduced fairness among some players. In the past, because most people used it with restraint, this perception, while present, remained within an acceptable range for most. Auto-Vacation, however, amplifies this experience, turning what was once a tolerable issue into something that must be voiced and confronted. Agreed-upon time controls between players fail to function as effective constraints when it matters most. Once such situations occur even a few times, they are enough to produce strong feelings of frustration and anger. I do not claim to fully understand everything Gia intended to express, but I believe it includes at least this sentiment: such emotions can directly undermine the purity of the game, leaving players feeling constrained and frustrated on every move, precisely because the agreed-upon rules ultimately fail in practice. This is not something that can be solved simply by reducing Auto-Vacation duration. This issue has long gone unrecognized or unacknowledged, even though there is already some consensus that Auto-Vacation needs improvement.
There are no two identical leaves in the world. It is natural that we differ. The fact that “you” cannot understand the problem “I” face does not mean that “I” am not genuinely affected by it. Rather than arguing over which preference is more reasonable, we should leave space for these differences to coexist. On the basis of seeking common ground while respecting differences, we should pursue a more inclusive and adaptable solution. With this in mind, I propose adding a configurable parameter to game time settings — the “Maximum Vacation Delay” — which can be set by either players or tournament organizers, and allowing individual games can be excluded from global Vacation effects. The main reasons are as follows:
-
Personalized tolerance configuration
This parameter allows players to predefine the “Maximum Vacation Delay” they are willing to accept. When set to 0, it is equivalent to the current No-Vacation mode; when set to infinity, it is equivalent to the current Auto-Vacation mode; values in between provide a balanced middle ground that accommodates both efficiency and human consideration.
-
Preventing unnecessary expansion of rule scope
This setting applies only to individual games. Under the current system, participating in No-Vacation tournaments often disables Vacation functionality at the account level, affecting unrelated games. In the proposed system, each game can have its own independent configuration. Even when a player enters global Vacation, games with a defined maximum delay will continue to operate according to their own rules. In other words, Vacation remains a global mechanism, but individual games can decide whether they are affected based on mutually agreed settings.
-
Compatibility with casual games, tournaments, and rating systems
This approach is compatible with both tournaments and ranked systems. Tournament organizers can use historical data to estimate average player return times and set reasonable default limits, ensuring schedule predictability while preserving necessary human flexibility. Meanwhile, Vacation as a global resource mechanism remains unchanged; it is simply transformed from “unbounded waiting” into “bounded, configurable waiting.”
What I want to emphasize is that feelings do not need to be proven in order to deserve respect. For some players, Auto-Vacation is a minor adjustment; for others, it brings real feelings of loss of control, frustration, and helplessness. If you cannot understand someone else’s experience, that is acceptable — but it should not lead us to deny its validity. We need to make space for such differences, rather than forcing uniformity in tolerance and preference. Overreaction is often the outer layer of powerlessness, beneath which lies a genuine need that has not yet been seen or acknowledged.
Even when the expression is uncomfortable or the examples are imperfect, it is still necessary to try to understand what is being expressed. This is often difficult. If we only respond to “How can you say this?” without asking “Why do you feel this way?”, we risk missing the very issues that need to be addressed. Anger, anxiety, and strong opposition are themselves valuable forms of feedback.
Our true shared interest is not simply to support or oppose Auto-Vacation, but to ensure that every game can be played within a mutually acceptable framework, as free as possible from external interference. If the problem comes from differences, then the solution should allow those differences to exist.
PS: I used AI to translate those passages. I’m confident that there was nothing disrespectful in what I originally wrote in my native language. I would normally go over the translation myself, but it’s very late here and I don’t have the energy to review every wording choice. If anything came across as offensive, please know that it was completely unintentional.
.
.
.