stalling

I'm not that cynical about people. I believe most people are fair and would not abuse such a rating idea. If there's a player out there with a high number of negative reports from a high number of different players, that would be useful information. Ebay for example has been using a feedback rating system for years and it did not "get abused to the point that it wouldn't accurately reflect anything." It has stood the test of time because it works and people like it. People can look at the rating (including the reasons given for it) and decide for themselves who they will or will not do business with, or in this case play chess with.

i'm not so sure the "rate your opponent" idea is fool proof either, BUT a lot of things about this site are far from fool proof--live chess for one.  but don't worry, 2.0 is just around the corner!)  hahaha

also, this idea that people can do whatever they want with their time is absurd to even say.  what gave you the impression that anyone doesn't understand that a 3 days per move game means just that?  i'm not talking about forcing people to move more often than the time per move allowed.  what i'm talking about is the annoyance of playing an opponent who is dedicated to moving quickly until he begins to lose.  my opponent is logged in sometimes hours on end with no move.  i know this s his right.  it's also his right to intentionally fart in a packed elevator but i would expect him to wait until he is in a more appropriate setting...  that's all i'm talking about.  being courteous and non-churlish, regardless of your chances to win the game.  or if in fact my opponent has a legitimate reason for his sudden laggard play, then a bit of communication seems warranted...  especially since i asked him why the change in pace.  all i got was silence.  classy.  i think we as a community have a right and probably a responsibility to address issues like this.

Yeah I think some people think that just because a certain behavior is not expressly forbidden in the rules, that it must be okay. Their sense of right and wrong is totally dependent on the fine print.

Haha im the opposite of this,

whenever im losing badely or something, i get angry or just frustrated at myself (or nothing if my opponent played good) and just resign the stupid game :P

If i ever slow down on my games it is probably because i cant go on alot and so i wont be able to make moves as fast as i was before.

 Agreed.  Think about it...  You're complaining about certain player's behaviour regarding time usuage now, what makes you believe their behaviour would be acceptable to you when they rate your sportsmanship? 

 False.  Ebay had to change their feedback system so that Sellers could only leave positive feedback or none at all.  WHY?  Because too many Sellers were using feedback as a weapon, refusing to give good feedback unless the Buyer did so first. 

This would be one more area that the Chess.com staff would need to police to make certain there were no abuses.  There is already a HUGE disagreement amoungst players on this site about time usage.  Some think it is unsportsmanlike to use your entire allotment of time when at a disadvantage.  Others think that since it is within the rules there is nothing unsportsmanlike at all.  If there is no agreement about what "sportsmanship" is in this regard, I guarantee that there will also be no agreement on the subsequent RATING of sportsmanship. 

What a can of worms!

I don't see any problems with that. Once you both agree to play a game with x days / move limit, you should not be frustrated that the opponent uses his time. If you are frustrated, only play games with faster time controls. I myself have some games like this going (one of which is 7 days/move), I just concentrate on the other games and treat such games like this as finished. If the opponent wants to see a lost game for a few more weeks - it's his right to do so. I see a won game for the same period :)

+1 to slack and kokakola.

if you agree to a 3-day game, no point being a crybaby when they use that 3-day limit. it doesn't matter if its earlier in the game or later. thats the rules of engagement.you will get the ratings points sooner or later, if that's the way it's meant to be.

also, i think it's unfair to say "this happens on chess.com a lot" (paraphrasing). it happens on the internet a lot, period. some people are rude. i think most people here are way friendlier than any other site. most say hello to me, others don't, and perhaps they have 20 games going on and have no time to chat. no big deal.

another point, did you ever stop to think that when they are losing, they may take longer to....analyse the game? and try to fight back?

the sportsmanship-ometer is completely idiotic and petty. i won't even go there.

saying that 'we as a community' need to address this is going over the top. this is not a community, it's a chess website. if you want a chess community, join a club in the real world. your rating will take a real dip though. this is online chess, its just practice and fun.

maybe you should stick to one day games, or bullet chess, if you are so concerned with people using their allotted time.

 Just because Ebay modified their feedback system, doesn't mean my argument is false. They worked out the kinks and improved it. Fine. Ebay still uses a feedback system, right? I make sure to check a seller's feedback if I'm considering buying something from them. If the negatives are too low, I look elsewhere. No doomsday scenerio. Now for chess.com, If someone is collecting a large percentage of negatives we can be pretty sure it's not from the whims of the oversensitive (unless you think most people are not fair-minded), when we read the feedback and the same unsporstmanlike pattern comes up again and again we can be reasonbly sure that this person is a jerk and we can use that information to decide not to play with them. How is that opening a can of worms? If anything it would improve the behavior of this site.

i think the saying is opening pandora's box...  just sayin'

it's stirring a can of worms.

I pulled this up from Google. It must be true! "Metaphorically speaking, to open a can of worms means to inadvertently create numerous new problems while trying to solve one. Experts disagree on the origin of the phrase, but it is generally believed to be a Canadian or American metaphor coined sometime in the 1950s. Bait stores routinely sold cans of worms and other popular live baits to fishermen, who often discovered how easy it was to open a can of worms and how difficult it was to close one. Once the worms discovered an opportunity to escape, it became nearly impossible to keep them contained."

Nope, flags, it's opening a can of worms, or opening pandora's box.  Never heard "stirring a can of worms".  Stirring up a hornet's nest, maybe.

i stand corrected--sort of.  i believe and have read (although i don't have it in front of me) that opening a can of worms is a mixed metaphor that is now totally accepted and used, that origianlly was stir a can of worms--i suppose i am probably wrong.

originally the saying was to open pandora's bax and now we say a can of worms.  it's a newer American idiom that is roughly 60 years old--this i knwo for sure.  pandora's box has been around far longer.

also i was mostly giving gbidari a hard time cuz he's a mate.

i googled it to and i think this is hogwash.  this is what it means now but the meaning is totally forced!  haha

Probably is a mixed metaphor.  Doesn't really make much sense either way.  Are a bunch of worms going to jump out of an open can and cause trouble?  Are worms going to get excited if they get stirred up?  Nope, they're pretty docile.

plus isn't the can already open?  and if you open it what are you using?  a can opener?  haha  poor little buggers are suffocating in there!  open the can!!!!  and as far as i know--with limited experience, but still some experience, worms do not try to crawl out of a container...  they crawl down to the bottom, not up.

now opening padora's box? watch out!  that's some crazy shit right there.

I agree. I just don't see what the problem is that needs to be fixed.

 Wait a minute.... I though we were talking about stalling - lol. :-p

Just remember.  There was a time when we used to play correspondence chess with post cards.  In a normal ICCF APCT event, I'd usually get in about 1 move per 7 to 10 days from the Pacific Rim. It wasn't unusual for games to take 18 months or more.

 Wow! he wouldn't even resign against queen+king vs king at the 2500level!!lol

Ah well, doesn't really matter, you blasted him!