I appreciate all that chess.com has done to make online chess spectacular.  They recently added tournaments with no vacation, which is a great idea, but could lead to this.  Here is my suggestion.

I believe chess.com should have floor ratings like USCF.  For example, what if a high rated player enters a tournament with no vacation and then something comes up in his life and he cannot make a move?  He will surely lose all of his tournament games and certainly lose a bunch of rating points.  So, how about this plan of implementation.  If a player maintains over a certain rating for 100 rated games, his floor should be that certain rating-100 points.  So, if I were to play 100 games and my rating remained above 1400 during all 100 games, my floor should be 1300.  Just a suggestion.  Any feedback?

IDK, if something comes up in your life that you CAN'T make a move in 90+ days (including vacation), maybe your rating is the least of your problems? And if there is something not serious enough that you care about chess, but serious enough that you can't move, either you shouldn't be in no vacation tourneys, or suck it up and move on.

i think that it's a reasonable idea... we shall see how it turns out.

I don't understand rating floors.

Say I'm a 2300 International Master, and I've recently recieved a lobotomy that reduced my playing strength to 800. Why should I remain in the 2000s? My opponents will merit from undeserved increases in rating.

I still don't see the big deal eveyone makes about ratings. If I'm playing in a tournament or any game for that matter, & something in my life comes up to restrict me for playing chess for a few days, and I lose several hundred points, so what? It's not a big deal. I don't care whether my rating is 1000 or 1800, I'm still going play chess the next time & I'm still going to play for a win. Too many people place to much emphasis & worry over ratings. Does it really matter what your rating is? You still have to play your best in each individual game. 

RyanMK: I'm talking about non-vacation tournaments.  If there was a death in the family or something, I don't think it would be fair.

BlackWaive: USCF has floor ratings.  And that situation is truly hypothetical and not frequent.

I'm pretty sure this was implemented after a player dumped hundreds of games to timeouts last year.

Really?

I'm just trying to find the thread where it was followed closely, but I was sure the outcome was the introduction of rating floors.

This is exactly why I'm not entering no-vacation tourneys. You've got 3 days to make to make a move in most cases, and if something pops up, you're G-A-W-N unless you put yourself on vacation...

Yes. See post #101 by jay. The concern is for the timeout winners rather than the timeout loser.

That's the thread I was thinking of -- thanks TadDude.

OK, I didn't see that.  I remember that thread being posted, but didn't read it all the way through.  Thanks

Let's base all the rules on the hypotethical possibility that someone goes through a lobotomy.

Rating floors were initiated in otb chess in order to combat sandbagging. Sandbagging is encouraged by having very high class prizes every 200 points and I think its absurd that some 1750 player will leave a tourney with several thousand dollars while a professional GM goes home with nothing because he didnt finish in the first 3 with 20 GMs and 20 IMs playing in the top section while the 1750 player faced noone stronger than 1799. This is what you get when prizes are based predominately on entry fees.

Well, sandbagging occurs a lot in chess.com tournaments, so wouldn't this be a good remedy as well?

Chess.com has floors I believe.

But that's only for consecutive timeouts.  People can also resign a bunch of games to get into tournaments they otherwise couldn't.

 What's the difference really, apart from playing strength between a 2400 and 1800 player? Both players are dimensions away for being even noticed in a chess community that only follows closely the top 20 players and secondary the top 100 players.

 I think that in any event, the majority of the prize fund accumulated by the entry fees should be appropriated towards the top finishers in the premier division, but I think this actually usually happens anyway.

1750 and walking away with thousands? show me the door to that tourney mate.

 Take a look at the world open prizes. Also, at the top the "Open Section" is often 2200 and up. Throw in 1 or 2 2700 GMs and the 2200 guy is possibly gonna have to play players 400 and even 500 points higher rated while the class guys only play within their own 200 point group. How is this fair ? It seems the better players are punished for becoming stronger players. If I were just starting out in chess I would see more incentive ( $$$$ ) in keeping my rating artificially low so I could have better chances of winning big cash prizes and thats what many people do today.