Terminating a Game

+1

Your opponent is simply an introvert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

Hopefully you will now see that this person is not "lonely" or "not normal".

After reading all this thread I find I have to applaud the lady who blocked conversation at once if this is the sort of conversation she could expect.

If you make a few friends while playing chess that is great.  But don't expect to make friends by playing.  Most of us are simply looking for a game.

I guess it really should come as no surprise, when we consider human nature, that there will always be those who want to demand their right to say something stupid.  I have no quarrel with that; just go say it somewhere else.

I can anticipate that now some other genius will weigh in to reflect on my draconian stance of labeling any position which does not agree with mine as stupid.  In fact, that it not what I said, nor do I feel this way at all.  It is all a matter of how it is said.  At the very least, I have a valid point, and if you cannot see that, well, then yes, you are an idiot.  Now if you can see my point, and still disagree with it, then that is fine, but since you can see my point, you will at least disagree in a respectful manner, to try to arrive at some mutual understanding.  If you disagree just to disagree, without trying to clarify the issues involved, then I will block you.

•  I challenged a player to a game  - So far so good.
•  she declined but sent me a message asking if we could play 14 days per move instead of the three in the challenge I had sent and she sent me a challenge with 14 days per move. - No problem here.  
• I accepted. - Good for you. 
• The first thing I noticed was that chat had been disabled. - Perfectly fine. Maybe she doesn't like to chat. Maybe she's not allowed. Maybe ...
• Now I have had no prior interaction with this member, so the full extent of my input to her was 1) my sending her a challenge and not with any objectionable game title (I kept the default, "Let's Play"), and 2) accepting her challenge. - It's all good so far.
•  OK, so she's new, maybe she hit the wrong button. - Maybe she didn't. Either way, what's the problem?
•  I sent her a message to find out.  Only then I got an error message because she does not accept message unless they are sent from friends.  I glanced at her page and noticed that she has no place to post notes, either.  Obviously, no point in trying to add her as a friend. - If she only accepts messages from friends that is fine. She's using the options chess.com provided in a way that suits her.
• So I played a move or two in the game, and realized that I am perfectly capable of taking on a computer, if that is what I wanted to do.  The fact that I sent a challenge to an actual human (or at least to someone I thought was human at the time) suggests that this was not my objective, and now I could see little point in carrying on this "witness protection" game.  Only I could not figure out how to abort the game.  Happily, she did it for me, and so that is the end of that sad saga - If you don't like to play someone who disables chat and only accepts messages from friends that's fine too. So where's the sad saga?

IMHO

 Sorry but I don't agree with RDR75, we suppose to be playing with humans....and not with a computer.....I think we have some kinds of feelings (at least hope we still have !!!). We don't have to chat but if one of us want to say : "Ooops I did a mistake or...what a great move...or GG..."I think we can do it...even if our playmate doesn't answer (as often happen ...) ...How many times I've started saying :" Hello or Hi...and didn't receive any answer???..... many

Yes you are right in saying we are here for playing a game...But is nice showing a kind of respect for our partner ....The problem is not the chat but the feeling of the hostility of the player...How can you play a game like that...we are here for having fun...and not for having the same problems of every day!!!!!

p.s. sorry for my weak english

As much as I've tried, I really can't see your point. So block me if you must, but bear in mind the irony is getting thicker with every block. 

Thank you Paula, your English is fine!

There is a forum and you post an opinion.

As far as i can tell, the forum is for debating, showing someone a game or something like that.

Someone disagrees with you.

This is to be expected.

After a while a few more people come and disagree.

Yay, looks like you might have a nice debate.

You block them.

What was the point of that?

If you state an opinion and someone challenges it, then you are supposed to defend it. If you can't, then you have no right to state your opinion.

Oh, please block me for this.

Wow, enlightening, thank you so much for clarifying.

Why must we do this? The OP has made a statement or/and question, valid or not. What we don't need is the blocking and insulting statements from both sides.

that was entertaining read, though i dono don't find it weird your oppent disabled chat, i'm always rather quiet even when no one knows who i am for the most part and i adjatate (how the heck do i spell it??) the pitying or lack of i suppose in the forums case

A member of World Friends who disables chat right at the start of the game, before there even is any chat at all?  And who does not accept notes or messages?  Something is a bit off.

Thank you Padman, finally the voice of reason!

What is the difference between being ignored and disabling the chat prior to the start of the game?  disabling the chat makes it clear that you would prefer to not chat and just play its the persons personal choice so why does that mean they are "mute" or "weird" and frankly how could it even be considered rude because they don't want to talk.  However i would find it more rude to be ignored then just have the chat disabled prior to the start, but would i go and call them "mute" or "weird" no once again it is thier personal choice and both options basically are saying the same thing..."lets just play".  whats wrong with that?

I think this has already been covered, but at the risk of repeating myself, there is nothing wrong with just playing, and in no way am I suggesting that every game needs to have chat.  Furthermore, I also agree with you that ignoring a message is worse than disabling chat from the start.  But both are hostile.

Wheev, I am unblocked (thanks!). We agree that ignoring a message is more hostile than disabling chat - in principle. But the latter can have good reasons (there are so many cases in this world) and should be honored. Even though (I agree) the human connection (and chatting) is a very nice part of "chess", it is still secondary to the main thing.

Yes, there can be a good reason.  But wouldn't that good reason usually be based on what has already been said in the chat?

why does this "good reason" have to have been something that has been said in chat.  maybe the person doesn't have hands and can't easily chat so disabling it is easier then explaining why it takes so long to respond or maybe they just don't like talking to people.  i don't see how any person could take the fact that a chat box on a chess site is hostile in any way shape or form, now if they said go truck yourself and then did it maybe or sent a message along the same way i might be able to see that but just because a person doesn't have chat enabled makes them "mute", "rude", "hostile" or anything other then somebody who doesn't want to talk to people they don't know.  maybe they are uncomfortable talking to new people and if you had've played a few games against her MAYBE she would've opened up. just saying you never know what can happen and most times its better not to rush to a "hostile" judgement.

But the action clearly comes across as hostile, even if that was not the intent.