I suggest adding option to agree to 2 games in a row, one white one black

This is a more fair and complete game because white is of course an advantage for most players.
How it could work:

2 players choose to play a double game...

- If the winner of the first game refuses the rematch, they get no win recorded (or maybe even get a loss) and no points, likewise the loser does not lose any points.

- But the loser of first game does not have to agree to rematch, in which case it is scored like a normal game. This is fair because they are not gaining from the refusal, and also they may decide they were outclassed and there's no point in playing again and just concede the one game.

        Personally, my main reason for this is if I lose a close game I want to have the option of a rematch, it seems the fair and sporting thing. I know no-one is obliged to rematch but this option is for those who prefer to have the option of trying to redeem themselves, which currently does not exist.
Also if I win and someone wants to rematch after losing, I ALWAYS accept even if I don't want to, so this puts me at a disadvantage compared to those who refuse to rematch.

I guess another feature could be that the winner is only obliged to play the second game if the loser actually requests the rematch. If there's no request, the winner gets the win and points as usual.

Otherwise the system could just be smart enough, or set a user option or setting... to "always choose opposite color for same player during next game."

That effect might only go into effect if the other playwe has it enabled as well, I haven't thought out all of the logistics.

At a basic level it would allow each player combo to consistently rotate colors.

Now that I've thought about this more....

What chess club or meetup have you ever known where 2 players only play one game without the option for loser to play again in opposite color??

It's so basic that to not have it (choosing a pair of games as described in the op) on the biggest online chess site in the world is actually quite negligent and amateurish.
It's understandable that chess.com doesn't have it because maybe no-one thought of doing it yet.

But now that I've pointed it out there's no excuse.

i like the idea, but what if youre in a hurry, forget you have it on and have to resign game #2 because they dont have time

That would be the same with any game wouldn't it? If something comes up you have to do, you might ask the opponent to give you a draw but usuallly they won't so you lose. in this double game scenario if yhou won the first game it ends up 1 each, if you lost you might go down 2 but the opponent might be mreo leiniet and give yhou the draw having won the first one.
anyway that's an issue in single games too so I dont see it as a deal breaker. when you take the option to play a set of 2, you know there's that risk so you don't have to take the risk if you don't want to.

You could also choose "casual" double game if don't want to risk points.

That's a great idea in my opinion

What would be the point of that? This bizarre double standard doesn't make any sense.

Under those circumstances no one in their right mind would choose this double game feature. And those who accept it by carelessness would be unhappy when they are scammed out of their win.

This whole thing goes against the spirit of fair play and the spirit of chess.

Yeah, Agreed.
This idea seems good, but it needs a little tweaking. Also, maybe Armageddon could be added? Both players type in the time they want to choose, between 0 and 15 minutes, and then they get the color depending on if they have a higher time then the other. White needs a win, but a draw will count as a win for black.

What if every "matchup" consists of the two games, where both players play each colour, and the loser of the first decides whether or not to continue? Overall I like the idea but I feel like it might not work online. In a chess club the other guy is right there, and he can't really refuse a rematch (unless he has something else to do oc), but online, you have no idea what your opponent has going on, and it's way harder to communicate. (But if it could work I'm all for it)

What if every "matchup" consists of the two games, where both players play each colour, and that's it?

Giving insanely strong privileges to the loser (???) is complete nonsense.

I disagree, but the "double standard" doesn't have to be included. But it isn't unfair, it just means if you enter a double game and lose the first game, you have the option to concede defeat. the winner still won but just doesn't get to win twice, and at that point statistically would be more likely to win than lose so it's actually fair for the loser to have the option to drop out. On the other hand the winner should not have the option to drop out without forfeiting his first win, that's the whole point to allow the loser the option of trying to redeem himself. If it is obvious from the first game that the winner is a lot more skillful then it's jsut sending a lamb to the slaughter to force him/her to play again.
Again it's not a penalty to the winner, the winner doesn't have to accept the second game but if he does he forfeits the first win.

oh and one more thing, the whole thing would be purely optional for anyone to agree to. If it was included and you think it's not fair then you don't have to ever use it. So how can it matter if it's "unfair" or not?

oh and yet another thing lol, there would also be the option to do it "casual" so there's nothing at stake except ego, so what's the big deal? I think the advantage far outweighs the (IMHO imaginary) disadvantage.

sure he could, I've seen it happen. If the other guy is way better he just could admit it and concede.

i don't see any reason why that couldn't be added as an option, as long as it is just an option.

Sometimes I just boot up a quick blitz game before I have to go somewhere, and if I'm forced to play a 2nd one that ain't fair.

And also I don't like to take rematches in general, unless it's puzzle battle.

Actually what you say about a chess club is so relevant. having this feature is exactly for people who want the games to be more like a chess club. It seems like most players don't want to rematch even when they lose and that's their choices, they jsut want to play completely impersonally. So this game is for the rest of us, maybe a minority but a huge minority, who DO like having that chess club-like experience. Surely chess.com would see the value of this especially given it would be totally optional.
Personally I think it's better that the 2 types of players do have the choice to play separately from each other. It p's me off when players refuse rematch after frustrating loses, I know it probably shouldn't but it does and I'm sure many feel the same way, I'm not a lone alien from outer space.