The Fight against Inconsideration

We've all played someone who was very inconsiderate - abandoning a game with ten minutes left, someone who waits 13 days and 23 hours before each move in Online Chess, disconnections, and many other shows of unsportsmanlike conduct. And yet, most of this goes unpunished. Except for disconnections and game abortions, chess.com has no way to track, and potentially punish, unsporting behavior. My proposal: to have a link to refer someone to the chess.com administrators, where enough "points" lead to account suspension, just as in the current system.

For example, look at the following Online Chess game:

In this position, White waited the max 13 days before making his move! This action is clearly intended to antagonize his opponent. In the ideal system, one would be able to refer him to administrators for proper punishment.

I don't see anything wrong with someone using their allotment of time. You could just play your future matches with shorter time controls if you think that's too long to wait.

My problem is, that was clearly intentional, as he had spent 1 or 2 days per move before, and then took 13 days. I checked his profile, he had multiple logons during that time.

You mutually agreed to a rather lengthy time-control.  If he chooses to take advantage of this (regardless of how this tests your patience), he's not breaking any rules. 

Granted, he logged in. Granted, he played the earlier moves faster.  Big deal. You just can't apply "face-to-face club rules" of human decency to the online world.  

I'd love my life if this was one of the few things that annoyed me during a day.  

Even if it was intentional, he still has 14 days to move based on the time control you both agreed to play before the game. I don't think people should be punished for using their time.

Be that as it may, chess.com discourages "making your opponent wait unnecessarily" ...

You didn't wait unnecessarily. You waited the amount of time that you agreed to wait per move before the match. If you would like to wait less time, you should play with different time controls. Your opponent shouldn't have to move faster just because you think he/she should -- that's why the time controls exist.

So, maybe my example is invalid (I still believe that it is representative of a greater problem). But that doesn't necessarily undermine my point as a whole.

Which point? That people should generally be more considerate? Fair enough.

The point that there should be a referral system for what is considered to be inconsiderate conduct.

By your own admission, your example of inconsiderate conduct is invalid. How are you going to prevent people from just reporting everyone they play? Everyone's definition of "considerate" is going to be different, and I don't think your idea for a reporting system would actually change anything.

I'm done with this conversation.

Nobody says that this person in question isn't being inconsiderate (given that he's definitely logging in and capable of playing moves faster based on empirical evidence).  There's also much to be said that he displayed this shift in behavior after losing his queen ... which says a lot about the kind of person he is in real life. 

Though I'd try not to lose sleep over this. If this was an OTB tourney that I was running  and if you raised your hand and brought me over for him running the clock indefinitely in a long game (> 30 mins), I'd declare the game a loss and issue him a warning.    He's not breaking any rules, but he's stalling with the sole purpose of annoying you ... and TDs CAN police this kind of behavior on a case-by-case basis.

In a face-to-face situation, there's little room for doubt.  An A-hole is pretty much caught with his pants down, if you'll pardon the pun.

It gets a little hazier online ... have you tried to report him in terms of conduct, given this SPECIFIC instance (position in question?)

I don't think your point is invalid, I think they are breaking chess.com rules by delaying the game just to annoy you. It's no coincidence the point at which they changed their pace of play. People do get there accounts closed for stalling though: http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=52664209

Unfortunately I'm not sure their response is the same if the player isn't timing out.

Actually, the basis of the system is that multiple referrals are necessary to have consideration for restriction, so individuals reporting everyone would not be significant. And, accounts of misconduct should be reported specifically, with descriptions, so that administrators can determine whether any wrongdoing was committed.

Actually, I did not say that. I said, maybe it is invalid, but I went on to explain that I did not believe that it is.

Unless the game is the last in a tournament round then shrug your shoulders and wait, your win is coming whether today or in a months time. It's not like you chess.com limits the number of games you can play.

Well said. :)

Why, thank you.

Waiting the maximum 13 days to move for no reason other than to spite one's opponent is certainly very inconsiderate.  Since this is not a bullet game and black can afford more than two seconds per move, white should really resign.  Then you can politely explain to him why moving the queen four times in the first six moves usually does not turn out well.

Next time, don't sign up to play 14 days/move.