Continuation of previous post...
I would suggest two revisions to how the Fair Play policy warning works.
1. Display the warning BEFORE issuing a seek for a new game. This gives the user time to read the fair play policy before a game actually begins.
2. Display the specific infraction that the player is being warned about.
The policy warning occurs after aborting, disconnect losses, and letting time run out in game (I believe it is a significant amount of time).
https://support.chess.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1444922-fair-play-policy
Martin,
I would appreciate if you delete your comment as it was not my intent to discuss why I was flagged but how to make the process better. The thread is a suggestion as to how to improve the process. Not on what I did or didn't do.
Regarding suggestions, I do have an additional one...
Add an option on the Seek to set a rematch limit.
I play a lot of unrated chess and very few people play unrated. Consequently I often find I'm paired against the same opponent multiple times. I will play them, but after about three or four games it gets a little old to be rematched to the same player over and over.
I will intentionally abort in that scenario. I don't consider it to be a fair play violation. I'm simply not letting a stupid machine dictate who I must play.
Either the fair play policy should look at the number of times I have played this same opponent or allow me to set a rematch limit to prevent repeated pairings.
Just pointing out that the reason is one of three things. Not sure showing the exact reason in the message is a useful addition, in my opinion. I don't know if the app links to the above but I think the website version does.
Just pointing out that the reason is one of three things. Not sure showing the exact reason in the message is a useful addition, in my opinion. I don't know if the app links to the above but I think the website version does.
It seems the Fair Play poilcy is intended to punish people for abusive behavior. If you want to do that (and I think that itself is pretty stupid), tell them what they are being punished for. Leaving them guessing doesn't change the behavior.
Regarding suggestions, I do have an additional one...
Add an option on the Seek to set a rematch limit.
I play a lot of unrated chess and very few people play unrated. Consequently I often find I'm paired against the same opponent multiple times. I will play them, but after about three or four games it gets a little old to be rematched to the same player over and over.
I will intentionally abort in that scenario. I don't consider it to be a fair play violation. I'm simply not letting a stupid machine dictate who I must play.
Either the fair play policy should look at the number of times I have played this same opponent or allow me to set a rematch limit to prevent repeated pairings.
Its not feasible to expect programmers to create an error message for every exact instance. This is why we have messages like: "Error 908" which is a netwrok error. Now that could mean anything from the network cable is unplugged, bad, a router is down, a hub is down, the NIC card went to sleep, and on down the line. You cannot expect a personalized error message for each of those instances. Its the same here. If you abort to many games, you cannot expect a message deciphering whether your network went down, you simply didnt want to play the same peron 3 times, you had a phone call, your cat walked across your keyboard, etc. The rules are clear. Abort to many games, and there is a penalty.
I disagree. It's one thing to run into an unexpected error and issue a generic error response. It's entirely different to be monitoring some behavior and flagging the user for a specifc violation. The programmer CAN manage that issue. I know - I'm a programmer and I deal with it often.
I disagree. It's one thing to run into an unexpected error and issue a generic error response. It's entirely different to be monitoring some behavior and flagging the user for a specifc violation. The programmer CAN manage that issue. I know - I'm a programmer and I deal with it often.
Thats part of the TOS, monitoring and flagging behavior.
and your point is what?
The suggestion is to inform the user which part of the TOS he is violating.
It seems the Fair Play poilcy is intended to punish people for abusive behavior. If you want to do that (and I think that itself is pretty stupid), tell them what they are being punished for. Leaving them guessing doesn't change the behavior.
You think flagging people for unsportsmanlike behavior (frivolous aborts, disconnection when in a losing position or making people wait instead of resigning or playing) is stupid?
I get your argument that you don't want to play the same person over and over so abort in such cases, apparently enough to get flagged. There probably is a solution for a similar situation, such as the one you provided, or maybe a temporary, limited blocking a player could use.
Again, it is just my opinion that having the exact reason spelled out in the message isn't needed. I'm just a player like you when it comes to ideas like that. 
It seems the Fair Play poilcy is intended to punish people for abusive behavior. If you want to do that (and I think that itself is pretty stupid), tell them what they are being punished for. Leaving them guessing doesn't change the behavior.
You think flagging people for unsportsmanlike behavior (frivolous aborts, disconnection when in a losing position or making people wait instead of resigning or playing) is stupid?
I get your argument that you don't want to play the same person over and over so abort in such cases, apparently enough to get flagged. There probably is a solution for a similar situation, such as the one you provided, or maybe a temporary, limited blocking a player could use.
Again, it is just my opinion that having the reason spelled out in the message isn't needed. I'm just a player like you when it comes to ideas like that.
If i ran into the same person over and over i would temporarily block them. Problem solved.
If you don't tell the user why he is being flagged, then neither you (as support staff) or he can't go to customer service and explain why he should not be penalized.
I think the whole philosophy of forcing a user to comply with how you expect them to behave is fundamentally flawed but that's not my core issue.
It is a concern to punish someone for behavior and not know for what specific cause.
you can't block people from the android app.
problem NOT resolved.
Yeah, blocking from the app is something that probably should be added. Not sure why it's not there.
That said, if you feel you have been unfairly flagged you can open a ticket and discuss with support. It is possible the exact policy variation is tracked on the back-end and they can see it.
That said, most abort scenerios are due to people not wanting to play a certain color, certain rating, certain flag etc. It is impossible to detect motive but if the site didn't flag such behavior and start limiting it, as it does now, then it would be even more prevalent.
You think flagging people for unsportsmanlike behavior (frivolous aborts, disconnection when in a losing position or making people wait instead of resigning or playing) is stupid?
It is perfectly legitimate to have a TOS that specifies how a user is granted permission to use the service. What I think is "Stupid" is when a service permits a negative behavior to exist when steps could be taken to prevent or reduce it.
Depending on punishment as a negative reward to control preventable behavior is a bad idea. The better answer is to implement controls that prevent the negative behavior in the first place.
For example - allowing a user to specify a rematch limit gives him control of how many games he plays and reduces the negative behavior of excessive aborts or permanent blocking of other users.
I should add, that a FP violation here or there should not cause any problems. Players still get the message (though from your description, the timing could be better on the app), but if the occurrences are a small percentage of completed games, the message is all that will happen.
It is perfectly legitimate to have a TOS that specifies how a user is granted permission to use the service. What I think is "Stupid" is when a service permits a negative behavior to exist when steps could be taken to prevent or reduce it.
Depending on punishment as a negative reward to control preventable behavior is a bad idea. The better answer is to implement controls that prevent the negative behavior in the first place.
For example - allowing a user to specify a rematch limit gives him control of how many games he plays and reduces the negative behavior of excessive aborts or permanent blocking of other users.
Yes, in your specific scenerio, there is likely a technical way to prevent you from getting constantly paired with the same opponent. For most cases, the general unsportsmanlike behavior, there are no technical controls to prevent it in the first place, and a reactive process has to be relied on.
Also, some reasons for aborting are not valid and trying to cater to everyone's reasons with filtering options is not feasible. Your particular case, does sound more reasonable.
I should add, that a FP violation here or there should not cause any problems. Players still get the message (though from your description, the timing could be better on the app), but if the occurrences are a small percentage of completed games, the message is all that will happen.
Not quite true. Most of the time when an abort occurs, the opponent takes the hint that you want to play someone else.
However, I find that some people like to use the Abort option as a weapon against you.
Occasionally I run into people who will persistently rematch you - even if you delay seeking a new game by five minutes in hopes they move on. They force the issue. You either play them or else get flagged for FP violations.
So, yes - the FP policy can be abused in the opposite direction - as a weapon to coerce someone into restricted services.
I'm currently being pinged for a fair policy violation and I don't know why. Regardless of whether it's deserved or not it seems that this warning is not displayed at the proper place. The Android app waits for the game to begin before the warning is issued. I'm sorry but I'm simply not going to take the time to read the fair play policy when I have a live opponent on the other end waiting for me to make my first move.