It might be cool to have a fast play game page, where players can play against people who take there turn more rapidly than others and who don't have any boots against them.

 This would be different from lighting  and fischer clock games where as people could not join if there turn times were not fast enough or if they get booted a lot.

I know it might be segregating but it might be fun to have the option.

Just a thought.

Why not just use the fisher clock?

the fischer clock does not block multi booted players. i'm looking for select individuals that take there turns fast like me. my average turn time is 4 hours i would like to play people who play fast but not limit it to a certain time limit. ie. still have a three day  long turn timer but with people who don't get booted and take there turns on average of, lets say 10 hours.

Oh, so you mean fast in 'regular' non-lightning games.   One way to do this might be to extend the range of the fisher clock.  For instance make it so you could have 12 - 1 - 24 hour settings.

yeah, i guess. but your missing the point. fischer clock games tend to not fill up, mainly cause of the clock. what i am suggesting is games with players who take there turns faster than others and who don't have boots all the time.the clock just adds pressure to play.

i want to play people who frequent the sight and also play fast.

I understand your differentiation, but I don't feel your position makes sense.

You keep referencing people who get booted a lot, so I can understand that you're trying to avoid those people.
That makes sense on its own.

But then you're also asking for a 3 day timer game, where people play faster (turns measured in hours not days), so how is that not just playing a 1-day timer game?

BTF: i think he's saying that having a shorter time clock tends to scare a number of potential joiners away. so he's looking for those players that a) aren't afraid of quicker timers AND b) don't have a bunch of boots. in this searching, he thinks that having a separate page for those of us that look in often would make it easier to find like-minded players.

sorry j-bomb if i put words in your digital mouth, hope i captured what you want accurately.

Makes sense to me. I'm one of the types he's looking to play.

I often won't even look at the fischer clock games - unless I'm ready to commit an hour to playing. So I'm mostly in 1,2 or 3 day games with preference for the longer clocks. But it kinda bites when you're in a game with a player who runs the clock every turn...

That said, I look in all the time, especially in the evenings, and therefore have a fairly small average turn time. You can count on the fact that I'll play my turns at least once a day religiously, and probably two or three times after work. 

When in a game with people with similar habits, the game is more fun - so I agree with desire. 

In implementing such a system though, there are alot of side effects. Things like games get more restrictive (bad for the site), people who might really like a board and can't be a part of the game, you'll get a small contingent of dedicated players for this particular clock, there will always be someone who misses a day or sleep in on the weekend (all weekend) etc.

It does seem like maybe just some additional fischer clock settings might work, although M57 seem a bit fast for me.  How about:

start with: 1 day of time

each turn get: 18 hours of time  (or maybe a full day?)

max accumulation: 3 days of time.

So generally it's a 1 day game, but if you go quickly during the week, you build up enough to sleep in on the weekends.

Right - I feel like I've suggested this before - The Fisher clock should also be customizable by hour.

Weather and ratsy nailed it. 

Don't get me wrong, it would be segregation.

I enjoy playing people who take there turn fast regardless of the turn timer. Thats all I,m saying.

I believe that I understand your communal perspective, but I'm proposing that it's sounding like your solution isnt' actually fixing the problem as defined.

weathertop wrote:

so he's looking for those players that a) aren't afraid of quicker timers AND b) don't have a bunch of boots. in this searching, he thinks that having a separate page for those of us that look in often would make it easier to find like-minded players.

I believe that a page already exists that already does most of what is requested: the Join Game page with only 1-day timer selected.
It contains a list of games inhabited by players who who regularly check the site, almost universally play their turns quickly (single-digit hours), and who want to play in games where their opponents play similar speed turns.

However, I concede that the part of your request that those games would be filled with people who do not get booted regularly is not fulfilled.

For this, we have 2 options now:

1) Make a completely different set of games that people with boots can't access.
If this is the preferred method, than why is the discussion of turn timer even coming up?
This solution has nothing to do with turn timers, and it's just about creating a special section of games that volunary booters can't access.
There have been many other forum posts on this topic, and IIRC, the decision was made to not limit players based on boot counts.

2) Choose a turn timer to limit the effects of the recurring voluntary booter.
If this is the preferred method, then we should be choosing a game style that limits the effects of the recurring volunary booter.
In that instance, the 1-day is a better option than the newly proposed fisher clock.
In a 1-day game:  the booter wastes 24 hours of delay on his first missed turn and 24 hours on his second.
This is a total of 48 hours of disruption.
In the proposed fisher clock scenario: he causes much more disruption.
Most recurring volunary booters don't quit on turn one, they play 3-4 rounds to see how their luck goes, then stop playing the games that they aren't winning on.
So by the 3rd or 4th round, the booter has earned up maybe 30-40 hours of turn time from rounds 1-3, plus the 18 they get every turn (so let's say 50 hours) that will have to expire for their first missed turn, and then another 18 for their second missed turn.
This is a total of 68 hours of disruption.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the failure you're trying to fix.
In which case, maybe it needs better definition so we can best choose a solution that solves the problem at hand.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

 ..the 1-day is a better option than the newly proposed fisher clock.
In a 1-day game:  the booter wastes 24 hours of delay on his first missed turn and 24 hours on his second.
This is a total of 48 hours of disruption.
In the proposed fisher clock scenario: he causes much more disruption.
Most recurring volunary booters don't quit on turn one, they play 3-4 rounds to see how their luck goes, then stop playing the games that they aren't winning on.
So by the 3rd or 4th round, the booter has earned up maybe 30-40 hours of turn time from rounds 1-3, plus the 18 they get every turn (so let's say 50 hours) that will have to expire for their first missed turn, and then another 18 for their second missed turn.
This is a total of 68 hours of disruption.

The last number in the sequence is the maximum clock time.  So for instance, with something like a 24-8-24 Clock, the longest possible time a player could stall a game would be 24+ 8 = 32 hours (they would run their clock down to 0 on the first missed turn. In such a game, the booter would potentially have to check in three times a day to ensure keeping their Limit at 24.   32 is 16 hours better than with the current 1 day timer, which is effectively a 24-24-24 fisher clock.  Moreover, in the above scenario with the 24-8-24 clock, the booter would have had to have been making very timely turns to have their clock at 24 at the beggining of their first skipped turn.  Total value of the stall would be significantly less.

I check in at least a couple times a day, and at least once in the AM and once in the PM, so I could see myself joining a 18-10-18 game. 

M - I'm confused by your post.
Ozy's proposal wasn't a 24-8-24, it was a 24-24-72, no?
In which case, my evaluation was correct.

But my point still stands: 
I'm confident that J-Bomb (or WT) doesn't see it as a viable solution for the problem, but then I guess I'm not understanding the problem, which is why I'm asking for clarification of where the 1-day timer fails.

I'm merely suggesting that an hourly fisher clock can go a long way toward speeding up an otherwise 1 day game - forcing play from players who check-in more often, and therefore move more quickly.  24-8-24 is an example.  24-24-72 or more appropriately, 72-24-72 would be a good example of a 3-day game that would necessarily play faster during some parts of the week (e.g. building up time for the weekend)

M57 wrote:

I'm merely suggesting that an hourly fisher clock can go a long way toward speeding up an otherwise 1 day game - forcing play from players who check-in more often, and therefore move more quickly.  24-8-24 is an example.  24-24-72 or more appropriately, 72-24-72 would be a good example of a 3-day game that would necessarily play faster during some parts of the week (e.g. building up time for the weekend)

Agreed, but I'm not sure I understand how that pertains to this discussion?
A 10-minute lightening game can go an even further way towards speeding up an otherwise fisher game, and therefore move more even quicker, but I'm sure that's not the answer that OP was looking for, or he would just be starting lightening games.
OP (and others) stated that they felt that just speeding up the game wouldn't accomplish what they are trying to fix.
I'm a believer that they see a problem with the system that isn't obvious to me, so I'm just proposing that maybe one of them explain why any faster-than-3-day solution isn't sufficient, so we can make sure that that problem is fixed by the eventual solution.

I think O is looking for games where players not only have to move at least once a day (for example), but ALSO prefer that those players move MORE than once a day. Yes, he may want to have a 2 or 3-day max for weekends off, but generally speaking, he's looking for more 'active' players. -That's my take on it.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

 believe that I understand your communal perspective, but I'm proposing that it's sounding like your solution isnt' actually fixing the problem as defined.

weathertop wrote:

so he's looking for those players that a) aren't afraid of quicker timers AND b) don't have a bunch of boots. in this searching, he thinks that having a separate page for those of us that look in often would make it easier to find like-minded players.

I believe that a page already exists that already does most of what is requested: the Join Game page with only 1-day timer selected.
It contains a list of games inhabited by players who who regularly check the site, almost universally play their turns quickly (single-digit hours), and who want to play in games where their opponents play similar speed turns.

However, I concede that the part of your request that those games would be filled with people who do not get booted regularly is not fulfilled.

For this, we have 2 options now:

1) Make a completely different set of games that people with boots can't access.
If this is the preferred method, than why is the discussion of turn timer even coming up?
This solution has nothing to do with turn timers, and it's just about creating a special section of games that volunary booters can't access.
There have been many other forum posts on this topic, and IIRC, the decision was made to not limit players based on boot counts.

2) Choose a turn timer to limit the effects of the recurring voluntary booter.
If this is the preferred method, then we should be choosing a game style that limits the effects of the recurring volunary booter.
In that instance, the 1-day is a better option than the newly proposed fisher clock.
In a 1-day game:  the booter wastes 24 hours of delay on his first missed turn and 24 hours on his second.
This is a total of 48 hours of disruption.
In the proposed fisher clock scenario: he causes much more disruption.
Most recurring volunary booters don't quit on turn one, they play 3-4 rounds to see how their luck goes, then stop playing the games that they aren't winning on.
So by the 3rd or 4th round, the booter has earned up maybe 30-40 hours of turn time from rounds 1-3, plus the 18 they get every turn (so let's say 50 hours) that will have to expire for their first missed turn, and then another 18 for their second missed turn.
This is a total of 68 hours of disruption.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the failure you're trying to fix.
In which case, maybe it needs better definition so we can best choose a solution that solves the problem at hand.

You are right, I did not address the no-boots requirement.  I was more thinking of the "usually takes 1-day turns, but occasionally takes 2 or 3 days" crowd.

One reason is that I imagine extending the allowed options in the fisher clock is probably a very simple thing for Tom to do, while adding a no-boot invite restriction is probably more complicated.

If Tom did add a no-boots invite option, how would it work.  I say keep it simple, and have a checkbox on the join game screen.  "Limit to most active players".   Maybe the criteria is:

* taken at least 10 turns in the last week.

* No boots in last month.

* No more than 2 boots in last six months.

But then would everyone just check that box?  Is that a problem? 

I guess the downside is:

It would be sad if I had some unforseen in my life, got booted from the 30 games I'm in and then couldn't continue playing at the same level (or be able to rejoin some games or something) for another six months.... 

If Tom did add a no-boots invite option, how would it work.  I say keep it simple, and have a checkbox on the join game screen.  "Limit to most active players".   Maybe the criteria is:

* taken at least 10 turns in the last week.

* No boots in last month.

* No more than 2 boots in last six months.

 

But then would everyone just check that box?  Is that a problem? 

1) If that's really what you're trying to do, then I would propose that Ratsy's response is the most pertinent.
Another example: I happen to play a lightening game, and end up getting booted because my kid falls and knocks his head on the coffee table, and now I'm stuck not being able to join those game types for a month?
You only have to spend 20 minutes comforting a kid, and mopping up the pool of blood before you've got yourself a boot in a clock type that (at least in my experience) nearly half of the games have someone that voluntarily boots.
So I understand now what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure that limiting people because of boots is really a solution we'd want to implement. 

2) I think your criteria are a little tight (although I know you were just throwing something out there).
Counting turns in a week is deceptive because 1 lightening game per week and you could easily hit that threshold, and that says nothing about your daily-game play speed.
I'd think that a rolling average of turn timer would be better indicator (average turn timer for the last 7 days < 24 or something of that nature).

Also, maybe saying no daily game boots in the last month would maybe be a better metric?