Writing down thoughts as they come:
First I will accept the 200 move counter (100 per side) as long as the double chase is eliminated because the double chase is self propogating from both sides because on one hand is the chaser and on the other hand is the double chasee, the player who is escaping every capture from 2 attackers is also prolonging the game (yet fairly so). So the 200 move counter without a double chase rule will send more games to autodraw than we all would want to end up as so. In fact this could occur at the very beginning of a game, and both players would be like "wtf" it just drawed on me. The move counter has to be right up there in the corner of the screen and reset to zero when one piece is revealed/attacked. Or better yet, start at 200 and go down for each move that is not an attack.
MidnightGuy-I am for whatever is easier to program, if the goal is to eliminate the unsportsmanlike player who denies a draw to try and steal a win. If that is easier I vote for the 200 total moves between both sides not revealing or attacking each other (this includes a scout hitting a bomb even). The downfall is that sure a game in which one side has 2 pieces(captain & major) but no scouts or miners who is bombed in playing against an opponent with no miners but say 3 scouts and a sargent left (who hasn't moved), can become a problematic game , for example if the player with the scouts is refusing to draw but also not using his scouts to attack for 199 moves, than uses one scout on the 200th move thus prolonging the game 3-fold( I know I use a rare example). In any case regardless of my example I will agree with the masses that a move counter which can be adusted set at 100 unrevealing moves per side would be peachy fine.
However I am not quite sure about your debate on my argument that 200 moves is not enough to mount a defense. If you clarify that to say 200 moves combined between both sides not attacking or revealing at least one piece then 200 moves is plenty. I'm really just re-adding the reference of 200 moves where neither side attacks.
Gary- I think Gary is saying that even 75% of the brats who try to extend the game will be a little bit ashamed at doing so when they know the auto draw is coming, so the games may result in a mutual agreed upon normal draw a lot quicker. (its like saying Obama is coming to take my gun away some day so I might as well give it up now, lol just kidding - really a dumb reference). Gary also, this move counter HAS to reset to zero, at each attack, because again my argument that 200 unchallenging moves over the whole game can and will and does go by See "To Prof" below to see the exception to why a game should be sent to a draw when one player is INDECISIVE.
I think the 200 move counter if ever enacted probably would be so in those games where there are no more than 15 pieces left per side including bombs and one of the 2 players is being a real jerk.
I agree with Mguy that to let the autodraw become enabled unless both sides agree to extend the game, do you mean for another 200 moves or on into infinity.
Whether a game is winnable or not has nothing to do with ending an unsportsmanlike game with timer. The timer has the ADDED BENEFIT, of ending a game in a draw if the player with the upperhand is not moving fast enough to finish off his opponent. I agree Mguy that is a separate issue. Timers in ISF games are meant to make one put forth your strategy in a timely fashion and become penalized for NOT WINNING FAST ENOUGH. So while Maestro and I want a timer to become enforced, there are two outcomes of a timer, and that is beyond the scope of the goal here. The goal of turning losses into draws for the victims of unsportsmanship.
Move counter it is.
To Prof- While I root for the timer, I also know what the real effect of a timer is, and I hate it for that reason. A timer helps the Sohal's of this league hang on for a draw for that newbies once in a lifetime chance at beating The Gods of the game. Once a God gets behind by a major piece he will start working his expertise to force you into fearing lottos or fearing him swapping out all your pieces and preventing that INDECISIVE newbie from trapping any colonels/majors/captains etc. With his expertise in moving slowly and swapping pieces yes you poor soul your once in a lifetime chance at beating a God ends up a draw. Thats why I hate timers. So fear not little ones, your chance of a glory win of David over Goliath lives on because the timer is not coming. Spend 20 seconds on every move if you must the limp ones here enabling your wet dream becoming reality. This timer is why at Gvon, the higher up players use it and the little injuns hate it.
However , Gvon does have games without timers, because their admins can step into the room and view a game when one player is becoming a jerk, but that is not an option here and it can't be programmed to become so, and that is okay by me.
General Tso - stick to Chinese food, because a lot of your wishes are not programmable and therefore are not going to be entertained. "a player should just quit". lol. I agree 7 minutes is too long however. Therefore if the player sits for 5 minutes and does not move, the system has to calculate that the player has not moved, and so when his timer is 2:29 or less once he discos the game ends in a win for you right then and there. Furthermore and this is not in the Jumbo funds account, I think that the system should be able to look for gaps of time in which a player has not moved for 2:30 of his clock and this grand total number of times he does this over all games is recorded in the system and the frequency of these instances can be used as evidence in sending out auto punishments. I dont agree that just because a loss is immenent that you should just automatically give up because once in a blue moon that 2 piece advantage player decides to wak a mole or whatever into a bomb and walla new game is winnable. Also if you want fast games then thats too bad so sad, without a timer, you are going to run into those player who will dabble over every single piece and protect everything without risking anything. Those are the players who win 70% of their games. Gvon has a 5 minute game timer game, try it its like lightning and ends in extra draws.
Napoleon 1er your example #1 has been solved with the concept set forth here of having an option to extend the game if both players agree., that warning will come up when move #180 has happened without any attacks. You cannot possibly say that a game cant be won if I have to give up a scout just to keep the game going. Yes your highness you will have to give up that scout to extend the game. OMG the sky is falling. Its impossible to say that giving up a scout every 200 moves is going to some how alter your playing style, lol, give me a break. However as a peace offering to you, perhaps maybe the 200 move timer of no challenges should never ever start until possibly after the first 50-100 moves of both players has occurred. Maybe that would help you.
Your example # 2 yes it should become a draw quicker and even immature people will see their foolishness a little soooner so yes the games will end in a draw, which they already can become draws now, sure, but because this counter is going to FORCE the issue, just the threat of its enforcement will create the inevitable draw quicker and mutally agreed upon, because the jerk will feel guilty quicker and agree sooner. So what are you even arguing this for, the autodraw's threat will create quicker draws not its non-existence. The non existence of it is why we are here today requesting a change in the system. You can't program your idea of a faster auto-draw just because each side only has this or that left. Just let the 200 move thing do it or the threat of it do it. Progress has arrived.
No on the punishment of double chasers. The move counter should not be dependent on any aspect of any circumstances of the game, it should be outright and start either right away (or at my option above after 50 moves or 100 as mr. shelton the grammatically correct one says). The double chaser who is defending his flag is not an exception to an abusive chaser. They are one in the same. A man does not have a right to defend his castle infinitely. The double chase itself is what has to be eliminated regardless if the flag is going to be captured as a result of enforcing the rule or not. I would counter to say that a miner is a device set to detonate and you cannot turn off that detonator just because you fear losing. Chase one miner with 2 pieces and giveup the flag on the other side, so sad too bad, you cannot double chase for any reason, YET NOW IF YOU DO WITH THE RULE CHANGE, THE 200 MOVE COUNTER will save you via draw, so NIX that and get the double chase prohibition rule put in without any circumstances of exceptions applied.
There need not be any communications of double chasing going on . If you move 2 pieces in alternating fashion (or 3) and cannot take either piece than the software kicks in and makes you move another piece or a different direction. so sad too bad miner gets the flag oh well you screwed up somewhere not saving a miner to swap one of the 2.
And lastly I would like all the forum respondents to give a round of applause to Gary. Without Gary's valuable input, we'd not be able to read his glorious posts, and counter them with tried and true logic. Me? I just like to agitate. Gary clean up your inbox it is full i cant send you a message. I wish to friend you so that we can have a chat about somehow arranging a game or two to play. I want to show you what I've learned from the Gods of this site.