Resigners in beginning of the game 2

Today I couldn't play for half an hour because of resigners. One them is welfare_parasite. Can developers create some function to automatically ban abusers? Like if they continuously resign 3-4 times in a row just ban them for a time?

While it is annoying to have to wait for players who will actually play, this is minor usually, and happens usually to the one-sided parings that can crop up. It would be quite harsh to outright ban players who are trying to find a game where they gain little to no rating/have little chance of a fair game against much stronger opponents

If it is abused, it could be possible to put the auto abort system in like normal chess...  seems fair enough

What I do when people resign 50 games in a row on move 1 is wait 1-2 minutes before entering the pool, hoping the resigners are paired against someone else.  But I agree it's a problem.  In my opinion after something like 10 resigns in a row, they should start losing points for resigning until they play an actual game to reset the counter.

Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the maximum point difference between potential partners, or at least allow us to restrict this ourselves? +/- 600 makes for some lopsided games that quite reasonably, some don't want to play.  1800s don't want to partner me any more than I enjoy being partnered with 600s. If reasonable matches could be guaranteed I'd be happy to lose points for resigning.

@FromTheRiverToTheSea No, that doesn't make sense.  It would severely limit the player pool and make it much harder to find games.  Also, if a 2600 partners a 1200 manually, under the system you propose it would be impossible for them to ever find a game.  I would much rather get paired and have some people resign a lot because they are chickens than to never get paired.  The former is what happens now.  The latter is what happened when they did it the way you suggested earlier.  I used to have to wait 5-10 minutes to get each game.

Fair points, Chuck

personally, I think after like 10 resigns they should be "banned" for like 5 mins so it gives a chance for new people to come in and the offending people to start playing with someone else. I understand why they do it but it gets intensely annoying after a while...

There is a simple solution. Make it an option to choose the minimum amount of points you want to play for winning and losing. I would straigthaway set my minimum amount of won points to 3. I would set the maximum points I would like to battle for to be 14 or 15 (16 and opponents are too strong). For simplicity these options would only be available for random matching so that if you want to play among friends, which I guess is very rare with so large difference in strength between players, you can chose to do so without having to alternate minimum points.

I am surprised that this has not already been implemented.

The main reason for the implementation of this is in my case definitely not rating optimization. It is because it is no fun to play very uneven games. I don't find it fun to play too strong opponents as well as too strong opponents.

It's all the same. This continues for the third year in a row. Some will cancel the game immediately, while others being 500-600 points lower do not understand what they are doing. Just admit that this is a boring and dishonest system. Even if there are only about 1,000 players here, a bug is still a lot of wasted time due to canceled games, noobs, unequal partners. You can only hope to play with friends. The fan sector hates it. I watch the most patient explode. If this is to keep you on the site this is the worst strategy. Streamers on pain of death will not go into a random pair - it will be a shame for them.