[COMMENT DELETED]
Malicious player
Sort:
sftac wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
sftac wrote:
1pawndown wrote:
If you could post his name we could all block him. Maybe he'd get the message when he couldn't get any play.
That suggestion's sounding more than a little trollish, to my ears.
sftac
I disagree. I think that this naming and shaming rule is flawed, as people who stall games like this deserve to be outed to the public, not defended. Presumably, the naming and shaming rule was to defend people who may not have actually stalled the game, as well as other people that didn't do anything (like a thread that someone made calling me a complete and utter twit).
Now that's definitely trollish sounding to my ears.
If you wish to overturn the existing establishment, I urge you to avoid disruptive behaviour and do it by private message to Support, rather than posting suggestions inciting insurrection by readers through castigating members.
sftac
Good idea, I am gonna submit one (that wasn't meant to be personal, sorry you took it that way).
checkmateibeatu wrote:
sftac wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
sftac wrote:
1pawndown wrote:
If you could post his name we could all block him. Maybe he'd get the message when he couldn't get any play.
That suggestion's sounding more than a little trollish, to my ears.
sftac
I disagree. I think that this naming and shaming rule is flawed, as people who stall games like this deserve to be outed to the public, not defended. Presumably, the naming and shaming rule was to defend people who may not have actually stalled the game, as well as other people that didn't do anything (like a thread that someone made calling me a complete and utter twit).
Now that's definitely trollish sounding to my ears.
If you wish to overturn the existing establishment, I urge you to avoid disruptive behaviour and do it by private message to Support, rather than posting suggestions inciting insurrection by readers through castigating members.
sftac
Good idea, I am gonna submit one (that wasn't meant to be personal, sorry you took it that way).
The rule should stand as is. There's too much potential for abuse. If you start "outing" people, the staff will be doing nothing but adjudicating petty quarrels. If you believe you have a legitimate grievance, I believe that the complaint should be submitted to the staff in private.
Absolutely agree, plus, for some behaviour people don't even need to be outed. They put their douchebaggery on public display for all to see themselves.
dancer42 wrote:
I just encountered a player that once he knows he lost - stalls for the rest of the clock. It was a 30 minute game he created - so my guess is he usually does that.
It's not an innocent occurance - he simply said: "You can wait 28 minutes"
His notes on personal page also suggest it. I added my own - but not going to check opponent page each time I want to play a game. I'm a mediocre player and can understand the frustration of getting beaten to dust in this site... but this is just spiteful... how can I report him or add to some kind of ignore list so that I will not mistakenly have to play him again?
For the record - here's the game, his notes on user page and the game chat:
[It is against site policy to accuse other members by name in the public forum. If you have a complaint to make, report it directly to chess.com via the Help&Support link at the bottom of any page.
Moderator]
If the time control is 30 minutes, be prepared to play the full amount or time regardless of what you think of the position. Also, games usually time out after 10 minutes if the opponent doesn't move.
iv come across more abusive players in the welcome and live chess i dont know why that is but i have nt come across a bad player in online chess
1. I was told player was warned and will have to behave from now on or loose his account without refund
2. Since this guy was clearly doing something that is strongly discouraged at the very least - I thought naming him will only save others the hassle - sorry if that is also strongly discouraged.
3. This was not some misunderstanding about a site feature or other thing - this was an intentional malbehaviour and the player openly admitted it. It was also a pattern since his personal page contained notes from quite a few of the players he lost to rescently... and I guess not 100% of those he did this to left a note about it.
4. (regarding electric's remark ) Playing a 30 min game is fine - but if I already won a game in 10 minutes (or in this case in 2) - spending 28 minutes playing a move every ~5-8 minutes is just a boring drag. 30 minutes of chess is not like 2 minutes of chess and 28 minutes of wait.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I understand your point. Tahnks for the clarification. At the time I didn't know it was against rules to - as you say "out" this guy about how he plays dirty. I just thought people should be warned not to play with him.
After I was told to go to support I went and it got dealt with through the propper channel. Personally - I find the way the site owners dealt with this satisfying - no need to go all out on the guy - it's enough to convince him that good sportsmanship is a better matter of action for everyone.
On a side note - sorry for twisted english - it is a second language to me.
+1. When you play a half hour game, you agree that the game could last an hour.
electricpawn wrote:
dancer42 wrote:
I just encountered a player that once he knows he lost - stalls for the rest of the clock. It was a 30 minute game he created - so my guess is he usually does that.
It's not an innocent occurance - he simply said: "You can wait 28 minutes"
His notes on personal page also suggest it. I added my own - but not going to check opponent page each time I want to play a game. I'm a mediocre player and can understand the frustration of getting beaten to dust in this site... but this is just spiteful... how can I report him or add to some kind of ignore list so that I will not mistakenly have to play him again?
For the record - here's the game, his notes on user page and the game chat:
[It is against site policy to accuse other members by name in the public forum. If you have a complaint to make, report it directly to chess.com via the Help&Support link at the bottom of any page.
Moderator]
If the time control is 30 minutes, be prepared to play the full amount or time regardless of what you think of the position. Also, games usually time out after 10 minutes if the opponent doesn't move.
Yeah, that is the other side of the coin.
electricpawn wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
sftac wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
sftac wrote:
1pawndown wrote:
If you could post his name we could all block him. Maybe he'd get the message when he couldn't get any play.
That suggestion's sounding more than a little trollish, to my ears.
sftac
I disagree. I think that this naming and shaming rule is flawed, as people who stall games like this deserve to be outed to the public, not defended. Presumably, the naming and shaming rule was to defend people who may not have actually stalled the game, as well as other people that didn't do anything (like a thread that someone made calling me a complete and utter twit).
Now that's definitely trollish sounding to my ears.
If you wish to overturn the existing establishment, I urge you to avoid disruptive behaviour and do it by private message to Support, rather than posting suggestions inciting insurrection by readers through castigating members.
sftac
Good idea, I am gonna submit one (that wasn't meant to be personal, sorry you took it that way).
The rule should stand as is. There's too much potential for abuse. If you start "outing" people, the staff will be doing nothing but adjudicating petty quarrels. If you believe you have a legitimate grievance, I believe that the complaint should be submitted to the staff in private.
Really, they ought to take points off you, for posting crap like that.
I don't care about points.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
If you could post his name we could all block him. Maybe he'd get the message when he couldn't get any play.
That suggestion's sounding more than a little trollish, to my ears.
sftac
I disagree. I think that this naming and shaming rule is flawed, as people who stall games like this deserve to be outed to the public, not defended. Presumably, the naming and shaming rule was to defend people who may not have actually stalled the game, as well as other people that didn't do anything (like a thread that someone made calling me a complete and utter twit).
maybe it would be good to step back and think a bit - there are many new users who think 'premove' is cheating. allowing posts falsely accusing others (by name) of cheating would be reprehensible and result in much more aggravation for all.
regards,
moderator
Yes, that is what makes this a double edged sword.