Rating Opponent Sportsmanship?

I think the system as it was intially descirbed is perfect and follows a smiilar flow to competitive ratings, even if the math is a bit different.

 Having one's own rating go up or down along with feedback will encourage people to give positive feedback as much as is possible.  If a game is played in utter silence with no hiccups of interest, both sides would likely see no reason not to compliment each other.

 Meanwhile people who care to avoid rude players will note lower ratings and avoid them.  They also will likely be polite themselves and garner a lot of positive feedback.  The odd circumstance where they DO give negative feedback it would be because someone has truly been offensive.  Meanwhile, if a player is truly offensive in any reccurring way they will get a lot of negative feedback from many seperate sources and will be clearly low rated.  Meanwhile the various people who give thema  chance and are offended enough to be negative, will not likely play again.

One thing to contemplate is when to activate feedback.  Since a majority of complaints seem to revolve around the timing of a game (since chat is able to be turned off) this will also limit feedback if it must be reserved until the end of a game.  If a player is rudely slow, their opponent will know to comment negatively long before the match ends.  Having the feedback option during a game may help.  If a rude player apologizes after feedback has been given, the two players can conduct a rematch and place new feedback to square things away and this would have relevence on the comment frequency algorithm.

Anyways, I simply suggest that this feedback mechanism be installed asap and allow feedback to placed once per match, but at any during the match or within a time after it consistent with the match's chosen move time limit.  (to avoid going to month's old games to give spiteful feedback no longer appropriate) 

Erik this is why you don't hand a gun to a child.

 it will be anonymous

This whole issue is a bit overblown, if you play chess online, with time limits set by a number of days, you have to accept the fact that if you have a game with 14 days per move, your opponent is perfectly entitled to take the full 14 days to make their mind up.  For instance, i have 25+ games running concurrently on this site, in addition to a number of games on other chess sites, the way i work it is (and this is the beauty of correspondence chess!!), if i can't see an easy solution to a dilemma, i'll skip the game for the next one, each time a tricky game comes up, i give it some thought, and even if i think i have a good move to make, i may still not make it until i've looked at it a few more times, this is a strategy born out of losing plenty of games needlessly by making rash moves.  Does this make me a bad sport? I dont think so, as for players delaying the inevitable by being slow, time will run out eventually and the victory will be yours regardless, the site is my favourite chess site because is allows unlimited games, if you are being slow-played, simply start another one!!!

Some dont like to resign when they are in a losing position, there is a logic behind this also, hopefully we are playing non-AI opponents, people make mistakes, they could well totally mess-up, get over-confident and allow you a sneaky check-mate, if this poor sportmanship too?? I dont think so.

I have been the victim of this gamesmenship, and frankfully i take it as a compliment, also these people are wasting their vacation allowance, when it could be better spent for times when you may actually be relaxing on a beach.

I think this is a great idea, although as ever, these things are open to abuse.

It might be an idea to run it blind for a few weeks, so that you can asses the impact of the algorithim and any changes that may be required, that way you can get people used to the system, gauge their feedback and see for yourself the overall impact before you push a go live and risk people being outcast, just because they play a few bad apples in a row at the beginning. 

"If you play chess online, with time limits set by a number of days, you have to accept the fact that if you have a game with 14 days per move, your opponent is perfectly entitled to take the full 14 days to make their mind up."
 

Pimpingpawnage, suppose your opponent was playing at a rate of 1 move per day, then you reach a K+Q vs K endgame, and he plays at 1 move per 14 days. He followed the rules but I would give him a "Bad" rating. The neat thing about Erik's system is we're all free to define who is "Good" or "Bad" to us, and it's the general consensus that will determine a player's overall sportsmanship rating.

I have not run into such players here, but I have elsewhere. I like that, if it happens here, I can do something more than put them on my noplay list.

I've played about 30 or 40 games so far on chess.com and haven't run across anyone who was a bad sport. Quite the opposite, I have been beaten by, and beaten, some great folks.

 Am I just lucky?

Erik, how does this system help me if I put out an open seek? Can I put a seek that can only be answered by players above a certain threshold of sportsmanship?

Is it possible that players wind up in a situation where they don't get a chance to redeem themselves because nobody will play them anymore? 

 good question on the seeks. perhaps we will have to do that ("seek only above...").

players who are "unredeemable" will have to play other players like them and then move up. 

The proposed system for rating people on the basis of 'sportmanship' is valid for the rather conveniently extreme example you mentioned, however the point i was making, is that there are different intpretations of gamesmanship, i think its a little oppresive to rate people on the basis of slow play.  How people play,and the length of time they take to take a move, is an individual choice, and shouldn't be dictated by the fear of being shunned by other players.  The average amount of time that someone takes to make a move is already a feature from which you could decide if they are a 'worthy' opponent.

Further to that point, if someone only accesses the site once a day/week to make their moves (due to work/family/social commitments), does that make them a bad sport?

Perhaps the site administrators could put in another rating, i.e time logged into site, vs time per move, or time spent per move whilst winning vs time per move whilst losing.  Or number of times resigned whilst losing?  Statisitics, damn statistics, oh joy!!!  Won't all of this be negated by the 'live chess' feature recently mentioned as forthcoming?

It all seems a little Orwellian

"It all seems a little Orwellian"

Doesn't it, though?

1984 called, they wanted to rate our sportsmanship.

I have some thoughts on this.  I have heard the discussion in other forums about resigning until I think there will never be an end to it.  There seems to be two camps  1. Resigning  2. Not Resigning .  Personally I think it is ok not to resign because sometimes a game can be turned around by either good playing or an opponents mistake and taking advantage of that mistake.  Also sometimes there is the possibility of going for a stalemate.  I think people shouldn't be rated or not rated for resigning, but for the way they conducted themselves in actual play. 

1.  Were they couteous?

2.  If you messaged them did they reply?

3.  Was their language acceptable.

4.  Did they move the game along timely keeping in mind that when they are in a difficult spot more time to think about a move is required that when you are up several pieces and have postional advantage?