No. Making your next move is a reply.
Sigh. Was so and so a good sport?
Sort:
Perhaps it is a coincidence, but since that question has been added I have had zero negative people. By negative I mean the ones that either immediately start trying to insult you or start doing so as soon as they are in a lost position. Also, the number of people leaving after a blunder has dropped too.
It has made for a more pleasant playing experience.
Bit on the naive and childish side from Chess.com or an honest attempt to get feedback? Obviously, sportsmanship needs to be promoted ... the only question is "is this the way to do it?"
HowFaresTheKing wrote:
Speaking of being a good sport, is it considered rude if I don't reply to a draw offer other than making my next move?>>
Quite honestly, people need to stop worrying about what others consider to be polite and just try to act well to others. After all, judging others by your own cultural standards isn't exactly a completely friendly act.
lạ thật !
Jul 21, 2019
0
#67
Find the question very annoying and I notice that I'm less inclined to type a "gg" spontaneously than before... should be an option that you can switch off in settings...
Jul 22, 2019
0
#68
I don't mind this at all since you are not forced to use this functionality. I usually give people a thumbs up because most people ARE good sports. I give thumbs down on people who quit when behind. Frankly I have not run into much trash talking bad sportsmanship for a while... maybe because of this feature? If you don't like it, ignore it.
Competitors are often the sorts
Who qualify most as bad sports
Not only they lose
But oft with a bruise
And even take one in the shorts
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
It would be a lot easier to ignore were it not quite so prominent.
In what way is a line of average size text and two emoji-size symbols prominent?
lol thx
this is all just a waste of time
haha
Harry Potter books vs Harry Potter movies
1-0
Jul 23, 2019
0
#75
Pretty much everything is a false positive or false negative. It's just a game of online chess. For the most part there's no such concept as being a good or bad sport.
Jul 23, 2019
0
#76
Here's what I think and what I think matters because I have spent 30 years designing all sorts of software systems and ALL of them worked. So you know I'm not one of those 60-80% computer systems failues idiots who cause companies to lose money and/or go bankrupt. That said, this rating thing with no way to access the data makes me feel like I'm going to end up on chess.com "no fly" list. The whole thing is ridiculous. The old system worked fine where if people abandoned a game too many times, they got restricted. Also, I give just about everyone a thumbs up unless they were a total prick. But am I getting any thumbs up in return? PLEASE GET RID OF THIS RATINGS NIGHTMARE. It's distracting and - to put it bluntly - stupid. It's also probably not even legal if the data were analyzed and there were trends where people of certain nationalities got fewer good ratings than others. Capice?
Manatini wrote:
There is already a report function. Plus, reports and humans who read them are 1 to 1. You got 1000 reports today? Hope you have 10 full time employees who do nothing but read them.
But using simple thumbs up vs thumbs down type data is immensely more efficient. Have 1000 "good/bad sport" votes? It may not even require 1 person, just an algorithm that dumps the worst offenders into the abuser bin.
And before the nervous Nancys bring it up, no, you're not going to be punished for 1 down vote. Chess.com has a huge incentive to avoid false positives, and there are lots of easy and effective strategies to do so.
For example, the votes of people who vote all the time will be worth less, and even if you get 10 thumbs down and zero thumbs up in a single hour, that may not matter if the worst offenders are getting 10x that... which is to say even people who are never rated as a good sport may not be punished and the system would still work as intended.
I think people must be massively unimaginative to not understand how easily a system like this could avoid false positives.
Now whether it's ultimately worth it, I don't know, but it's hard to believe it would be less efficient than simple reporting.
who is doing the analysis? is it the algorithm you mention? yeah, that'll go over like a lead zeppelin. the help and support topics rarely see posts from staff responding to issues now.
sh!t like this leads to sites becoming automated with no interaction between those that run the site and those that use it. in other words, another facebook.
The only real way someone can be a bad sport is intentionally drag a lost game (for you) out and basically either make sit there like a wounded bird or resign. (Which has happened to me) Or they could BM and smack talk you on the in-game chat (yes, this has happened to me too). I basically just use the chat for "Nice Sicilian Defense", or "oops, i just dropped that D Pawn. lol" Honestly i don't see WHY exactly people BM.
if your view is that what i wrote amounts to "nuh-uh" you will have much success here making friends with children and the like.
reread my post, and tell me where the "false dichotomy" is, 'cause it doesn't seem you know what the term means.
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:
forked_again wrote:
If it is so bothersome to you, (meaning anyone in general), maybe you need an attitude adjustment?
lol
I suggest that chess.com set up an "attitude adjustment team" which would travel around and physically remind people to adjust their attitude if they got enough strikes from chess.com users
Speaking of being a good sport, is it considered rude if I don't reply to a draw offer other than making my next move?