Luke Skywalker: Why not use auto-pass for fisher-timed games?
I mean I guess I always try to play for win/loss, and not timeout of my opponent - so if an auto-pass can help keep a game going even if it's fisher-timed game, I can only see that as a disadvantage to those who try to wait until their opponent is off-line to play their move in the hopes to get them to time out.... which I guess is one way of doing things but what is the point of playing games if you are not going to let your opponent move? OK, sorry... i'm getting off on a tangent.... I try to not even play fisher-timed games anyway...
Luke Skywalker: I was about to write almost the exact same thing on this discussion on Feature Request, but decided to read the other boards before replying - and you said almost exactly what I was thinking also.
For example - I like to use AutoPass, and Fencer does not - we have a game together - if Fencer makes a move, and goes to me - let the system autopass it (if it can) and give it back to Fencer to make a move. In this way, Fencer is happy that he does not have to use autopass, and I'm happy because I can use autopass.
Anyway, the exact 3 things you listed is exactly what I would love to see also. Even though I don't like the idea of an opponent being able to just write " . " as a message to mess me up since you know there will be a few users who just like to cause problems who would do that.... but that can be a suggestion later down the road - to autopass even if there is a new message (with the reply of "Opponenet autopassed without reading last message" sent back) - but again, that suggestion can wait for now.
Luke Skywalker: Yeah, I agree with Luke here. I had always imagined autopass as a player attribute and not an attribute of a game. After all, how could a player object against his opponent using autopass? From a player's point of view there's no difference between a pass made automatically, or a pass made by a quick player.
As you might have noticed, we have recently introduced the auto pass feature for backgammon games. When a player accepts a game invitation, he can choose if he agrees to play with auto pass or not. However, this system doesn't work with Stairs because there are no invitations to accept/reject. There are two possible solutions of the problem:
All Stairs games will be played with auto pass by default. Who joins Stairs, must accept this rule.
Players will be able to specify whether they want to play Stairs games with the auto pass or not. Then, when a new Stairs game is created, it will use the auto pass feature only if both players have this option set to "accept".
BIG BAD WOLF: I was in a stair but went out of it when I see. that I can't challenge every player. But I think the answer before yours is a good help: "...challange anyone in your step that isn't currently involved in a stairs match..." But thanks for your help!
rod03801: There's a link on the Stairs page that displays only the Stairs you're in. If you can make a challenge in any one of them, that Stair is displayed differently... Or are you talking about fellowships? I wouldn't know how those are displayed, then... :/
MadMonkey: I suggested a year ago or so, having a red number in parentheses next to the Stairs link, that would be clickable. This number would be the number of stairs you are in where you can make a challenge. When clicking on it, it would take you to your personal list of stairs. (The same page you get when clicking "Show me my Stairs Only"), where you would see those you can make a challenge in, in bold. Obviously, there will be occasions (relatively rare, I imagine) that you click on this number, and there may no longer be a challenge available. I guess that depends on how often that red number can be updated. I imagine pretty quickly, since the other red numbers are updated instantly.