The way the current Pause feature is presented implies an entitlement to pause that I don’t believe is intended.
Also, it is incredibly easy for people who play a lot of games to never notice that an opponent has paused a game. This can delay tournaments and ladders as described elsewhere.
Why not replace ‘Pause’ with a ‘Request Pause’ function using the notifications so that games are only paused by mutual consent instead of that consent being by default.
So if i were to pause my correspondence game because i notice that my opponent is losing on time, it wouldn’t get paused unless my opponent logins to OGS and accept the pause? For my mind that would kinda defeat the purpose of having the pause-button at the first place
A very valid point @_KoBa & @trohde. I have occasionally paused for the benefit of an opponent that I know doesn’t make a habit of timing-out but I try not to do so too much or for too long in tournaments & ladders.
Idea 1: Pause Request includes a temporary pause proportional to the game speed. eg 1day for the typical correspondence game.
Idea 2: Pause function available when it’s your opponents turn, Pause Request when it is your turn.
Simply adjust the wording so that when pause is activated it says, ‘4 pause requests left for Black’, removing the perceived entitlement and in the case of Correspondence games, send a notification that the game has been paused.
If it’s my turn, I place a stone, then it’s my opponents turn and I can pause.
And no, there are players who wouldn’t notice that one of their games is paused, because they have too many games.
I believe it is fully intended, as it is accurate! Each player is fully entitled to 5 pauses during each game to use when and how they wish. The only caveat is that either player can unpause at any time, but that in no way affects the entitlement to 5 pauses that each player has, only their duration.
I do not disagree with this. My concern is two-fold.
Firstly that it is not obvious to someone unfamiliar with the site that they are entitled to unpause, especially when no explanation is given for the pause. This creates an awkward situation where the onus is on the second player to say ‘No’ by pressing resume. How many times have we heard in this forum, “My opponent paused the game. What to do.”?
Secondly that in the case of correspondence games, player2 may be unaware that player1 has paused the game.
Pause would continue to operate in the same way but the wording change would make the use of ‘resume’ more intuitive and less controversial. Also less likely to result in an argument or misunderstanding.
I regard ‘Idea 4’ as the most that can be done without negative side-effects and hopefully without opposition to the idea.
This I like especially, because when I pause a corr. game as explained above, I always send a PM with link to the game, explaining that I paused b/c of imminent time-out.
I’d be glad if I wouldn’t always have to do that. (Yeah, I know I don’t even have to pause but you know what I mean )