Rating Opponent Sportsmanship?
Sort:
cool its ok to me
Big Brother, i have a tale to tell!!!!
Ok, i just noticed something that seems very unsporting!!!
Manipulating ratings by purposely losing matches, to the benefit of a friend/different handle,
Erik, i rather not name names in a public forum, and i can't leave you a message without it being visible to anyone who looks at your profile, but an opponent of mine, whose rating dropped by 400 points from 1700 to 1300 in a week, just lost 6 games in a row in four moves apiece against the same player, they are obviously not that dumb, as they are beating me in the game we have running currently.
This kinda thing really bugs me!!! Very unsporting!!!!
Can you drop me a line and look into it for me.
Cheers
bad idea any one can downgrade someone too easily ed
Hey Big Brother, i know your watching!! :)
Yeah, so further to my post earlier about the rating manipulation issue, i snitched on the culprit, and received what seems to have been an automated response "appropriate action is being taken"
Ok, that's fine..but the player is still doing it, i checked into their archive, and counted more than thirty games lost, in four moves, against the same player!!! (including several today)
My main issue here is, that i don't mind losing, the player is beating me fair and square, but i do mind that due to the rating manipulation ongoing, their rating continually drops, and the consequential rating adjustment that will take place against my handle is now at -49, were the opponents rating to be 1700+(as was the case when i iniated the match), my loss in rating would be much less severe.
Frankly, i take some modicum of satisfaction in being rated at just about better than average, and this satisfaction will diminish greatly if my efforts are negated by this.
What is going on here?, its seems really unfair, especially if there is someone winning against the unsporting blighter, imagine their distain after thinking they were going to win against a 1700, only to realise that infact, in a matter of days, their efforts were only going to gain them a couple of points at most.
Its getting to the point where i'm thinking of resigning prematurely, so as to avoid breaking my lowest opponent lost against record (which currently stands at 1132)
:(
Nov 15, 2007
0
#66
all of your input has been very helpful. we are thinking of some creative ways to combat the infrequent but irrirating issues. here are the issues that make people upset:
1. vacation abuse
2. chat abuse
3. resigning issues
4. cheating
and here is how we will combat them:
1. vacation abuse: in the near future you will NOT be allowed to go on vacation until you have made a move in all of your games. also, we are going to add vacation stats to people's pages
2. chat abuse: you can disable chat
3. resigning issues: people need to learn to respect that fact that different people view resigning differently. get over it :)
4. cheating: if you see cheating, just use the REPORT ABUSE link at the bottom of any page!
anything i am missing? :)
*sighs*
Nov 15, 2007
0
#69
Pimpingpawnage wrote: *sighs*
why the sigh?
and batgirl, we're trying to build a program so that if somebody irrirates you then you can push a button and it will shock the other user very badly through the keyboard. i think you'll enjoy that.
vacation abuse? (use!) : people need to learn to respect that fact that different people view vacation USE differently. get over it :)
IMHO
batgirl wrote: Is there some way we can connect and combine this topic with this topic? Erik Wrote
all of your input has been very helpful. we are thinking of some creative ways to combat the infrequent but irrirating issues. here are the issues that make people upset:
1. vacation abuse
2. chat abuse
3. resigning issues
4. cheating
and here is how we will combat them:
1. vacation abuse: in the near future you will NOT be allowed to go on vacation until you have made a move in all of your games. also, we are going to add vacation stats to people's pages
2. chat abuse: you can disable chat
3. resigning issues: people need to learn to respect that fact that different people view resigning differently. get over it :)
4. cheating: if you see cheating, just use the REPORT ABUSE link at the bottom of any page!
anything i am missing? :)
"We're trying to build a program so that if somebody irrirates you then you can push a button and it will shock the other user very badly through the keyboard."
For that feature I will become a paying member! ;-)
Personally, I like this idea. Admittedly, it does leave a little too much room for people to abuse because they lost, but it doesn't sound like that will be a problem once you take their own rating into account to determine how much your rating is affected. (Sorry if that isn't stated clearly enough. In one of the earlier posts, Erik was saying that if they always give out low ratings and they give you a low rating, it won't affect you much, and vice versa.) Maybe you could have a few different ratings, i.e. in-game chat, time taken per move (while online and factoring in whether they were in a difficult position), post-game sportsmanship, etc, and let members rate the other player on each of those. Anyways, it's a great idea, and I'm sure it will be great once it starts functioning! 
Nov 15, 2007
0
#75
we're actually going to hold off on this for a bit while we try some other things out to reduce bad behavior :)
hutter wrote: I like the idea but it seems to me it's too personal a thing to assess someone and it's another time people trying to do God's job.
IMHO, this system won't judge other people, it just gives an approximation of their courtesy. You could say that people are always trying to do God's job. Computers are man's way of trying to be seen all around the world simultaneously, which only God could do before now, but we all use computers without thinking about that. Besides, whether you realize it or not, you constantly judge people. After all, you wouldn't want to be friends with a thief off the street, would you? No, they're rude and untrustworthy. This system will allow you to see whether they are rude or not, and let you decide whether to play them or not.
I think that it's been previously suggested in this thread but I think that having the option of putting a member on a "noplay" list like ICC or FICS, would go a long way towards solving these problems. maybe you could have it so if a person gets say 20 people put them on their list, that they come up for review to see what the cause is. If it is because of cheating they would get a ban if rude behaviour or other lesser infractions perhaps you could mark their homepage with a notice such as "This player is an abuser" Or could suspend their chatting privileges . I realise that this would create alot of work but I'm sure their would be no shortage of people willing to volunteer to become moderators and assist with this.
tekn0c4t wrote: the biggest problem with chess is that those that think they are good, also think they are too good to spend time teaching those that are not as good.
Off-topic, I apologise, but simply because one has the capacity to teach does not translate into an obligation to teach. Everything I used to teach myself is publicly available and there is a wealth of information on this site. I can't stand when someone implies that I am being a d*ck because I wont invest my time teaching him or her how to play. If you were a practicing magician and saw a magic show performed, would you then demand for the magician to reveal his tricks to you at the end of the show?
That being said, I'm happy to help someone with their chess, provided they don't 'demand' that I help them. And I do love the supportive learning community that is Chess.com.
On topic, the feedback system doesn't consider that people have different playing styles. If I say hello to someone at the start of a game and they don't respond, are they being rude? Am I being rude for talking during chess? Are they even looking at the msg's or are they on the moves tab? And is someone rude because they use their full time allotted per a move? One person's perception of slow playing a game may be appropriately fast to another. Someone could even give me a poor rating following a game simply because I sound rather cranky in the forums - which is completely unrelated to the game itself!
Perhaps rather then a simple good or bad generalized rating, people should be rated on more specific qualities. A single reputation rating is too vague and really doesn't reveal much at all about a player. If I take too long to move, my 'time to make a move stat' already reveals that. Why should I get a bad reputation rating for that as well?
Nov 16, 2007
0
#79
Erik:
I'm very sorry.. I have no time to read all this right now... But I've read like 50% of it and I have two suggestions to make:
1) It seems to me a very good idea to have this feature put to test for 15 days to 1 month first. This would be to let people vote but not show the ratings publicly at first, so you can see the outcome of the math and tweak the algorithm and reset the values as many times as needed
2) Votes could have an expiration date. Let's say, a vote is valid for 60 days. It will be removed from the rating after 60 days. This will give you a value that reflects the subject's behavior of the last 60 days, which would allow some kind of redemption. Now, 60 days could be 1 year if you'd like...Something to think a bout there...
I think people shouldn't be rated or not rated for resigning, but for the way they conducted themselves in actual play.
totally agreed. and i think people will, under this system, be much more careful about differentiating what is actual poor sportsmanship from just differences of opinion.