How can chess.com pretend to be enforcing fair play policy?

My opponent disconnected on me the moment I got a decisive advantage, and the offender's notes shows he has a history of this behavior.  A lot of players like him seem to be repeat offenders.

Conversely, if I were to start a challenge, check the notes out of the opponent, and then preemptively abort before the first move to avoid being cheated, *I* would be dinged as the perpetrator, so I'm then stuck being the victim.

Chess.com can you please after all these years of seemingly meaningless gestures and warnings, figure out a system to deal with this better?  I get disconnected on or have people run away on the clock multiple times a day, and it's obvious that it's the moment it becomes virtually assured the opponent will be defeated.

Couldn't you retroactively analyze games for people with higher-than-normal disconnect and stall rates to detect a pattern of coincidental disconnects approximately or exactly at the point of the game when the offender's position becomes virtually unredeemable?

@kaynight - I know exactly what happened. You're the one who seems confused. I'm asking chess.com to find a way to enforce the policy  they frequently remind members about that you seem to be unaware of.

I had to read the first sentence again to understand that your oppenent disconnected not that you were disconnected. Way to make things clear zen. But yeah, that must be annoying as hell.

I improved the wording of the opening sentence, but by the second sentence it was pretty clear what I meant, contextually. I started the thread when frustrated by the disconnect and tired, hence the oversight.

Way to derail the point which overall was contextually clear.  I've corrected the first sentence, which while awkward was clarified with only a little further reading.  Let's hope your grammatical and syntactic fixation to a fault ton't detract from the intended message and hopefully solution by the chess.com staff.

I'm all for this problem getting fixed I see a lot of complaints regarding things of this nature. I almost never play live games so it's not of huge importance to me personally but you seem rather miffed about it.

TL;DR summary: "Sorry I wasn't more clear - I've since fixed it"

On to the main point of the OP. I've never seen the point behind shoving this fair play policy in the face of every single usage of the abort button, or every time the opponent disconnects. Hey - I get it - you're working on it. But if you're not giving me real actual information, like what their "chess.com credit rating" is, then don't just give me boilerplate.

And I share the OP's frustration with the "uh should I just wait and have them abort or should I abort myself". Personally, I don't abort very often, except when I need to, but I can understand those who do. Further, there's a new breed of people, let's call them the "waiters", who accept a challenge, then seemingly click their stopwatch, and then make their first move 29 seconds later. Egads.

Also your new first sentence is as clear as one could hope for, so good on ya

I hate it when people disconnect or let the time run when they are losing. But typically if someone just lets the clock run, there will be a message after the game saying that the player may have violated fair policy.

I don't care if someone disconnects.  Guaranteed win.  Don't understand why others get so worked up over this.

Becuz it makes you late for stuff.

I don't care either. Resigning in my presence doesn't beef me up and I don't get to be late coz I watch tv while playing.

The opponent resigning is a gauranteed win for me too and has the advantage of not wasting my  time. A lot of them run away on the clock, which can make for a much longer wait.  So I have to waste at least 2 min sitting on my hands, to collect my win, lest the disconnector show up at the last moment, make a move and try to steal the win by a cheap shot.  Why am I being punished by the jerks that get away scot free, or otherwise risk the misfortune of getting dinged by the policy that never seems to be applied to the truly deserving?

It is surely within the means of this chess.com to detect a pattern of illegitimate stalls and disconnects.  A combination looking at the disconnect rate and a post-mortem of the associated games and even checking note history should give a pretty good idea of who's violating the policy.

If people knew the policy was really being enforced, they would be less inclined to mess with it.

You misspelled wasting.

And usually several games in an evening of playing 5 minute chess, adding up to maybe 10-20 minutes of just sitting around when I pay to play chess, not be jerked around by idiots and losers and bogus policy assertions.

Yeah, I definitely have seen some repeat offenders.  It is so common, I just expect it.  If I sign up for a 30 minute or 15 minute game, well, I just have to expect the opponent will take the whole time running the clock.  Instead of being upset, now I just laugh about it.  Take the time they are running out the clock to dance around and gloat ;)  My favorite is the folks that wait until the clock is nearly out and make a last desparate move hoping that you've moved on and aren't paying attention.  At the same time, I appreciate that a) there might be folks that actually are trying their hardest to think of the next move to save a losing position, and b) there are some countries with bad internet, bad power outtages, and a well-meaning player can sometimes suffer from disconnections.  Thus, I think it is pretty tough to enforce the Fair Play Policy.  At the same time, I guess the OP's point that there is a representation of an existant Fair Play Policy without any apparent meaningful enforcement is valid though.  It would be interesting to hear from chess.com staff about examples where repeat time-out players have been banned.

same

I have seen some offenders too.