first: i think that when we send reprimands to players, requiring that they write back acknowledging they understand what we are saying, we will probably see some good results, and won't need any further policing of the matter. thus, we will maintain the policy of asking members not to name+shame.
second: in echess, yes, you can use conditional moves so that you don't need to check back in on a winning game. in live, it will only work if you can set up a string of premoves that you are confident of, eg: rook on b1 and king on c1 and pawn on a2 vs king on g7, you premove a4-a5-a6-a7-a8, and go get that iced tea.
thanks, dpruess, that is good to know.
but i don't see why we're not allowed to name and shame players here. i understand that even good people sometimes erroneously give negative feedback -- in addition to those bad apples who falsely do so to satisfy their sadistic urge to get even with people for honest wins or whatever they're frustrated about -- but blocking someone just for myself doesn't satisfy my drive for altruism. i would like to be able to share people's handles with the community here so that others can be warned of players who engage in this sort of poor sportsmanship, instead of just relying on the staff to police these matters. the readers of such name-and-shame posts could look me up and decide for themselves whether to believe me.
also, IMHO if a live moderator censures someone with bad feedback, that should be visible to all.
and on another note, can that "conditional moves" thingy be used to set up an automated response chain in the event that someone is stalling/killing-the-clock? because even when things are changed around here to allow paying members to play multiple live games simultaneously, they'll still have to go back to that game to check in on it. the automated response would add the same kind of convenience that is available to bidders on ebay, though in a somewhat different manner.
PEACE