@kayknight Yeah that is true...I'm not sure how Chess.com calculates time wasting exactly, but I believe that I have seen a couple opponents get a violation for it. I don't remember exactly how it happened though.
Suggestion to Deal with Fair-Play Violators
Sort:
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
I had some violation notes the first 2 months playing blitz. It irritated me. My violation was aborting games, but It was not on purpose. Something hung, and I pushed a button once more, and whoops, the game was aborted.
Those incidents happened when starting a live game.
An opponent thought I was a cheater because of the warning text in the chat.
So, I am warning against to much warnings.
Yeah the aborting policy might be a bit strong, but remember that you don't get a fair-play violation for your first aborted game. You have to abort multiple games to receive some actual restriction on the account (I'm not sure if the number of aborted games and in what time span). I have aborted the occasional game and I see the message "to not abort too many games" or whatever it says, but I've never had my account restricted for aborting a game or two.
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
I agree, the Fair Play policy needs to be seriously rethought before chess.com puts any effort into increasing punitive measures. We shouldn't be scolded for aborting games.
Adding to the previous comment, I agree that we shouldn't be punished for our first or second abort in a short span (that is, our "fair play record" shouldn't be affected). Perhaps we should be allowed one abort per X number of games and then it resets. Having said that, in the thousands of games I have played on this site, I really can only remember one time when I had to abort more than once in a short period of time. If we're aborting games frequently, we probably shouldn't be playing chess at the times we're playing. ;)
@GreenCastleBlock Nice youtube channel by the way.
I didnt have me restricted, but that message in the chatbox was really irritating, indicating I had a moral below my standards. But it wasnt bad moral, it was clumsyness, I guess I pushed "new game" twice because it looked like nothing happend. At that time I played 500 games in a month, so it was a huge number of possibilities to make an unlucky buttonpush.
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
I didnt have me restricted, but that message in the chatbox was really irritating, indicating I had a moral below my standards. But it wasnt bad moral, it was clumsyness, I guess I pushed "new game" twice because it looked like nothing happend. At that time I played 500 games in a month, so it was a huge number of possibilities to make an unlucky buttonpush.
As far as I know, pushing New Game more than once doesn't hurt you at all (I don't think it does anything actually). If you aborted one game in a month, I doubt you have anything to worry about.
I guess I aborted ten games that month, I do not recall exactly what happened, but I think I had three faults the same day, and got the warning. I think pushing "new game", when a game is started is abortion.
So that was probably my fair play violation, in addition to a couple disconnections when I wasnt able to restart the computer /browser/netconnection fast enough after a hangup.
But I noticed that a lot of players lost connection when they obviously was in a position where "resign" was a good choice. They did steal some minutes of my time.
Sometimes it's a dodgy connection, but sometimes it's not. What really annoys me is players with a thoroughly lost game who will wait the time out to lose. Since lots of players like and value their ratings, what about doubling the ratings points lost for persistent violators.
Say, for example, a player is disconnecting or timing out with a wait of more than 10% of the game's playing time when down by 2 pawns in more than 25% of the games that they are losing. Double points loss until they learn to resign
cheech1981 wrote:
Just an idea for Chess.com:
It would be cool if the Live Chess server would give you a pop-up window right before a game starts with someone who repeatedly violates Fair Play Policy. The window could read something like:
I think this is an effective way to discourage fair play violations (of course, they could still have their account suspended if they continue to violate, so I'm not saying to eliminate the current system, just add to it, because if my personal experience is anything like others', I regularly come across disconnectors, time wasters, cussers, etc. etc.).
This system would make it harder for repeat violators to get games because I think most people will just cancel and seek another game. They might have to wait five seeks or so before someone finally accepts a game, which is likely to annoy them, so I think many violators would probably start playing more sportsmanlike.
I'm not saying that people should have this happen to them on the first couple of offenses--we all have disconnection issues at times or aren't at our best once and a while--but if you get X offenses in X period of time, your opponents will see the aforementioned window for the next X games. And of course Chess.com can make those values whatever they think is appropriate.
Anyway, just an idea. What do you guys think?
If somebody "repeatedly violates fair play policy" and it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that he has done so, why not exclude him, full stop?
@astronomer999 Some kind of system based on rating points is an interesting idea.
May 3, 2014
0
#33
I calculate that I have a problem with these sort of things around 5% of the time, if even. And although annoying, I somewhat agree with Kaynight. Nevetheless, my hat goes off to you for seeking a solution Cheech.
Continuous brainstorming will likely lead a "fair" method of warning people about players who have a significant percentage of complaints, disconnects, aborts, etc.
Perhaps a # of disconnects should be posted on a users profile (that way a percentage is visible to the public). A low percentage is understandable; it happens. A high percentage, well, play the player at your own risk.
May 3, 2014
0
#34
FACT:
Number of violent crimes in real life have decreased, on average, worldwide by 10% since chess.com started.
May 3, 2014
0
#35
ConnorMacleod_151 wrote:
FACT:
Number of violent crimes in real life have decreased, on average, worldwide by 10% since chess.com started.
Correlation is not "Causeation.." It gave me a laugh though 
.
May 3, 2014
0
#36
FACT 2:
Divorce rates have increased since chess.com started...
Erik...beware!
May 3, 2014
0
#37
ChezBoy wrote:
ConnorMacleod_151 wrote:
FACT:
Number of violent crimes in real life have decreased, on average, worldwide by 10% since chess.com started.
Correlation is not "Causeation.." It gave me a laugh though .
Manipulation of the truth is good PR
Lyrik2 wrote:
Perhaps a # of disconnects should be posted on a users profile (that way a percentage is visible to the public). A low percentage is understandable; it happens. A high percentage, well, play the player at your own risk.
I actually suggested this to chess.com a while back (my suggestion was to put some kind of icons next to people's names depending on the violation--for instance, if someone continually disconnects, maybe some icon representing disconnection). Later I realized that this doesn't really help you know the person before playing, so you are in the same situation as now (that is, we can block the person later but still have to put up with their nonsense during the game).
Playing bullet with a bad connection is as much fun as facing a machine gun with a banana.