Evidently I violated the Good Sportsmanship policy for punishing those who refuse to resign.

How did this conversation even turn into caring about other people? It's an irrelevant point, a red herring at best.

im just defending why trolling is sometimes a useful thing to do...for one's own entertainment

Well, strictly within the confines of this statement, I'd say trolling people who are trolling is a perfectly acceptable thing to do 😂 I don't have much energy or patience for it personally, but it's always good to sit back and watch with the popcorn.

I just like to make fun of people who do dumb things or are just...creepy

lol

The people being "trolled" are perfectly free to resign at any point they like. The amount of people against the OP here is unbelievable.

But this is the issue; according to the OP they're not free to resign whenever they want. They have to wait until exactly the point he's happy for them to resign before they can. This is evidenced by the basic fact that half the thread he's bemoaning people for not resigning when he's "having a laugh" with them, and then posting games demanding to know why people did resign.

This all just screams controlling behavior to me, and it's not too far-fetched from being an outright troll.

Oh jeez, it's a chess site, its not that deep. He's obviously just being sarcastic, not like the opponents have to work hard to keep making random king moves in a game they are already going to inevitably lose.

Do you really think that any of you guys matters so much to the chess.com staff. that they will scrutinize your games for impolite moves? As if they are the X/FBI_section? Hahahahahaha!

No. This is a level above sarcasm. Just because it's a chess site, doesn't mean actual people are not playing on it. We're not even talking about the game itself anymore, but the player's (specifically the OP) motivations behind it.

Using your logic, the whole thread from start to finish can be written off as sarcasm, at which point that really is trollish behavior and should just be locked. What you have here isn't a counter-argument, it's a last-ditch attempt to save face on behalf of another person.

LOL

just mute chat.

That’s not really fair, and it is stalling. They did have a right to report you.

But playing on endlessly in an obviously winning position where even stalemate is unlikely isn't stalling?

I think most people would agree that's absolutely NOT stalling. If a player either accidentally or intentionally makes stalling moves, or moves that increase the odds of stalemate it then becomes more and more reasonable to play on.

At first, stalemate was unlikely. But if the first player displays a desire to not win, why WOULDN"T the second player continue?

What I mean is they can't complain since they are the ones choosing to play on.

They shouldn’t have done that. It does count as stalling

I don't see the people who see stalemate as more and more likely complaining. I see the first person, the one who intentionally makes stalling moves in a likely winning position complaining.

They choose to play on, and not complain, because they see the first person as unable or unwilling to win. What most people don't understand is why the first person, the person who could win, complain about not resigning when the first person has given them every reason to not resign.

I'll bet you have seen it plenty of times in your own games. Your opponent has a decisive advantage but makes a mistake or for some reason doesn't play the winning moves. You see that opportunity, don't you? You now look at the board and think "maybe I now have a chance to draw". Don't you?

Well at the 1500+ level, people who go out of their way to promote to Knights and bishops aren't just going to let a stalemate happen. They aren't going to throw away a won game. It's not like they are promoting to a bishop and knight and risking that they may not be able to do it, they are keeping their main checkmating pieces.

But he does. And he has. But maybe he's not above 1500, I don't know.