Specific toxic behaviours

Some players clearly lack of fair-play spirit, have no sportmanship.

For instance:

- betraying the opp in the 1st stage FFA for any reason (finishing then 3rd in most cases, but they don't care),

- targeting some particular player, specifically the opp', simply because he is much higher rated, in order to make him finish 4th on purpose and to have the Schadenfreude to see him losing 30, 40 points,

- resigning on purpose just before someone eats your Q and gets 9 pts that he deserved,

- resigning on purpose just before the certain mate, in order to create thus a zombie king and to prevent the winning player from having 20 points and quite often from winning the game he was clearly winning,

- eating as much pieces of someone with no strategic advantage (once someone realises he won't win), just in order to make him lose (by revenge),

- failing to take an obvious mate in 1, making the opp to lose his Q, on purpose,

- throwing on purpose in the 2nd stage FFA to some other player, playing for 2nd and wanting another specific player to be 3rd (kingmaking),

- resigning on purpose in order to avoid for the CLEARLY winning player to win, seeing that he needs just 1 or 2 points to win (another case of kingmaking: one makes on purpose some player win rather than some other who clearly deserved the victory taking into account the game and his moves, etc.).

I haven't played a lot of games where all the players were above 2500-2600, so cannot say, but in the 2200-2500 area such behaviours are unfortunately common. I think it's very damageable for our nice hobby.

I think none of these are against the 4p chess rules; but all is against the fair-play spirit.

I legit just experienced this from a 2750. Beyond stupid.

betrayed me when he was doing well.

very well in fact

True

is 4pc lol 

with 4pc there are very much strategies that we can't find in 2pc, is more upredictable and somewhat "barbaric". We get used to it and that's final.

That's why i like it so much

Well, "spiritual" things are immaterial and often are practically self-harmful.

For the first post of the topic, I have to say that those things I'm actually trying to meet in games: since I didn't expect them from OTHERS, I have to better MYSELF. All of these (and much others) could happen, so why should I not be ready for them?

Because being obliged to be constantly ready for that has a clear cost (development) and therefore reduces the general game quality. Rather sad.

Well, this is only for the 1st point of list in fist post (not the whole first post). Yes, this costs, but this is the rule and FFA is not Teams (and not Teams with continuation in 3-way FFA). Even high-rated players consider betraying (and being betrayed of) the high-rated opposite (I saw it on ChaCha's streams). So, again: why should I not be ready?

This post is completely pointless as none of what is said in it is rule-breaking by any means, and anyone who's played 4 Player Chess for quite some time will more than likely know all of this. You really can't force people to change the way they play. 

Also, I find it a bit odd you don't include how players talk in certain scenarios, because that's where most toxic things stem from. 

FFA is based on seeking to better than everyone else. The spirit of the game will never be "fair." We can only be fair in our social interactions with others. As for the game itself, some idea of morality will only dilute it

I forgot one toxic behaviour in fact!

That's to be under imminent mate and to let the timer finish on purpose rather than resigning, in order to oblige other players to wait, sometimes up to 1-3 minutes. Very rude! Had an example today.

Where are these so-called rules of sportsmanship defined? Most of these things have a strategic advantage in that they can help you score ore points. Are you saying players SHOULDN'T do everything they can (within the rules of the game) to win?

The least he could do was go in depth more for each point. 

a) informal rules of sportmanship are in fact general knowledge, but yes some people feel it (because of their education) and some do not, it's like that,

b) as for your "strategic advantage" argument, I don't follow you. Where is the strategic advantage of making someone 3rd on purpose when you lose yourself? Where is the strategic advantage of making other players lose 2 min. waiting instead of straight resigning? Where is the strategic advantage of not taking an obvious mate in the 1st stage FFA and making the opp lose his Q? I definitely fail to see. But I understand that some things are not obvious when one is still 2108, it becomes quite different after 2300-2400 approx.

Has just happened to me again, cost me exactly 40 points in just 3 bullet games. The 1500 idiot who for some reasons hates me targeted me every time, and in the last one betrayed (as he always does when he is in front) and overall I had to play 3 vs. 1 twice in a row. He lost every time (of course), but he doesn't care: it's just SOOOO sweet and funny to see someone crashed by 3 other players and lose plenty of points.

The lack of normally rated games is a tragedy. If one plays only decent level queues, one has to wait for 1-2 hours sometimes. So yes, at some moment you want to play too much and you click on an unlimited game, and sometimes you're unlucky to have a b...d in front.