@KilltheHorsie I like that idea. I made a similar suggestion in another thread, where you get a pop-up window before playing people who have a certain number of recent FP violations.
Check out the graphic: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/suggestion-to-deal-with-fair-play-violators
It seems feasible to code and would help people avoid having to play people like this so often.
@LongIslandMark that's a pretty good number. I see a higher number, but then again I play way too much chess. :)
And I see a much higher number of poor sports in bullet, but then again you don't have to wait too long for the clock to wind down so it's not too bad--still though, the alert box would be cool. :)
@LongIslandMark: "Folks playing longer time control live games have a more significant grievance."
Exactly! I usually play 15 minute games; I would prefer to play 30 minutes but I don't very often for precisely this reason.
Question: when someone violates the Fair Play Policy and has their account restricted, how long is it restricted? And what are the restrictions? And, is there any way to prevent them from just switching to a new screen name and continuing their wicked ways?
I've noticed when I play somebody who runs their clock, or maybe they say something rude, other people have already posted notes to their profile complaining of similar issues. It's a shame that you can't get a peek at somebody's profile before you get hitched. I also always wonder why the person in question doesn't delete the negative comments on their profile??? Maybe they wear it like a badge of honor?
I understand you could check out their profile before you move as it is, but if you saw something you didn't like, your only recourse would be to abandon the game. And, I don't think anybody wants to do that.
@jurassicmark: That's why I have 52 friends, most of whom I've never met in person. These are people I've played in Live Chess who have been good sports. Usually I click the 'friends' tab when I go to Live Chess and play a friend if one is available.
@jurassicmark Wouldn't the suggested Alert Box system solve the problem you mentioned in your last post?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/suggestion-to-deal-with-fair-play-violators
@Mottley I have taken the others' suggestions and removed all content pointing to specific members. Now the thread just poses a question, but I can see from a thread of your own that the Mods wouldn't be cool with it, so the point is moot. Might as well treat this thread as closed. :)
It would be nice if CC kept track of disconnection-in-lost-positions. They can add this as a "jerk-percentage" number on someones profile. That way , you can have a look at someones profile to see if (s)he is an "asshole-type" , the type you're talking about.
Next , it would be nice if you can set a "filter" in your opponent-selection . Say you only play against people with a jerkfactor< 2% or so. Just like you can set a filter for your opponents rating.
I can understand OP's motivation. I just don't think his way of solving it is the right way to do it.
It is a serious problem and although I hardly ever play rapids , I've had my share of bad loosers letting me stare at a dead screen for minutes.
For once I have to agree with Pelly. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.
@jurassicmark Wouldn't the suggested Alert Box system solve the problem you mentioned in your last post?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/suggestion-to-deal-with-fair-play-violators
This would work all too well. But, nobody would want to play the person with the "Alert Box" system. So, the violator of the fair play policy would be affectively banned, which is clearly not what chess.com wants to do. I would revert back to killthehorsie's questions: "...when someone violates the Fair Play Policy and has their account restricted, how long is it restricted? And what are the restrictions?"
If those restrictions are too lax, then the violator has no real incentive to play fairly. If the restrictions are too harsh, you run the risk of banning somebody with legitimate disconnection issues, etc. The incentive needs to be "just right," but I think that it's going to have to be something enforced by chess.com (perhaps unfortunately).
Anybody remember the warn feature on aol chat? Just have a button appear when the notice of the 'fair play policy' comes up and click it. If a player completes enough games w/o doing that, the number goes down. In short, punishment for negative behavior, positive reinforcement for good behavior.
I admit that I have rage quitted like that before a couple of times. Probably everybody has. Doesn't make it okay though :)
@jurassicmark Wouldn't the suggested Alert Box system solve the problem you mentioned in your last post?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/suggestion-to-deal-with-fair-play-violators
This would work all too well. But, nobody would want to play the person with the "Alert Box" system. So, the violator of the fair play policy would be affectively banned, which is clearly not what chess.com wants to do. I would revert back to killthehorsie's questions: "...when someone violates the Fair Play Policy and has their account restricted, how long is it restricted? And what are the restrictions?"
If those restrictions are too lax, then the violator has no real incentive to play fairly. If the restrictions are too harsh, you run the risk of banning somebody with legitimate disconnection issues, etc. The incentive needs to be "just right," but I think that it's going to have to be something enforced by chess.com (perhaps unfortunately).
ICC has a feature called judgebot. When a person disconnects in a rated blitz, standard, or bullet game (not any of the pools) a bot run by stockfish evaluates the position and awards a win if it's +3. Unfortunately, chess.com has many more members on at one time than ICC so that might be unrealistic. But, it's a start..
Anybody remember the warn feature on aol chat? Just have a button appear when the notice of the 'fair play policy' comes up and click it. If a player completes enough games w/o doing that, the number goes down. In short, punishment for negative behavior, positive reinforcement for good behavior.
I admit that I have rage quitted like that before a couple of times. Probably everybody has. Doesn't make it okay though :)
I have never rage quitted.
@Prudentia They wouldn't be banned because the alert box would only come up for a period of time (say if you have 5 FP violations in the last 14 days or whatever the numbers might be...after a few days go by without a FP violation the box stops coming up and hopefully the person starts behaving).
@jurassicmark Wouldn't the suggested Alert Box system solve the problem you mentioned in your last post?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/suggestion-to-deal-with-fair-play-violators
This would work all too well. But, nobody would want to play the person with the "Alert Box" system. So, the violator of the fair play policy would be affectively banned, which is clearly not what chess.com wants to do. I would revert back to killthehorsie's questions: "...when someone violates the Fair Play Policy and has their account restricted, how long is it restricted? And what are the restrictions?"
If those restrictions are too lax, then the violator has no real incentive to play fairly. If the restrictions are too harsh, you run the risk of banning somebody with legitimate disconnection issues, etc. The incentive needs to be "just right," but I think that it's going to have to be something enforced by chess.com (perhaps unfortunately).
ICC has a feature called judgebot. When a person disconnects in a rated blitz, standard, or bullet game (not any of the pools) a bot run by stockfish evaluates the position and awards a win if it's +3. Unfortunately, chess.com has many more members on at one time than ICC so that might be unrealistic. But, it's a start..
I don't really have a problem with people who disconnect. If they're gone for five minutes, they lose the game. I'm not concerened with five minutes here or five minutes there. I'm interested in chess.com enforcing some kind of restrictions on people who clearly violate the fair play policy by letting their clock run a significan amount of time in a lost position. We have to agree on some amount of time that is egregious, but I don't think it can be five minutes.
In all honesty, it doesn't negatively impact my emotions when a person disconnects. It never hurts to take your eyes off the computer screen and get a couple minutes of rest. I just block people after the game and be done with it. I was just posting the above things as a possible deterrent. Either way, it's a part of internet chess and it will never go away.
It would be nice if CC kept track of disconnection-in-lost-positions. They can add this as a "jerk-percentage" number on someones profile. That way , you can have a look at someones profile to see if (s)he is an "asshole-type" , the type you're talking about.
Next , it would be nice if you can set a "filter" in your opponent-selection . Say you only play against people with a jerkfactor< 2% or so. Just like you can set a filter for your opponents rating.
I can understand OP's motivation. I just don't think his way of solving it is the right way to do it.
It is a serious problem and although I hardly ever play rapids , I've had my share of bad loosers letting me stare at a dead screen for minutes.
For once I have to agree with Pelly. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.
A function that would never be implemented by cc, for three reasons. First is that disconnections happen-cc is world wide, and, not everyone has the capabilty to play games with no disconnection-even though they'd like to.
Second is that it's a feature that would be abused even if everyone had the same access.
The third reason is that, even if it were a good idea, cc would have to spend the time (read: $) to make this a feature. cc is more interested in promoting the millions of members they supposedly have to advertisers.
It would be nice if CC kept track of disconnection-in-lost-positions. They can add this as a "jerk-percentage" number on someones profile. That way , you can have a look at someones profile to see if (s)he is an "asshole-type" , the type you're talking about.
Next , it would be nice if you can set a "filter" in your opponent-selection . Say you only play against people with a jerkfactor< 2% or so. Just like you can set a filter for your opponents rating.
I can understand OP's motivation. I just don't think his way of solving it is the right way to do it.
It is a serious problem and although I hardly ever play rapids , I've had my share of bad loosers letting me stare at a dead screen for minutes.
I like pelly13's idea about the "filter".
Perhaps this thread (or a new thread) could be about new/better ways of dealing with this annoyance.
I can imagine what Microsoft would do with this one: there would be a pop-up box giving you your potential opponent's "jerkfactor" and asking you, "Are you sure you want to play this individual?"