How to fix the bad "fair play" policies.

You said peer review, which I presume meant other users.  What you're proposing is only if the result is "Blah-blah won, game abandoned"?

Think your rebuttal fails at the fact that you took it seriously, definitely was taking the piss. Terrible idea by OP, get mad.

p.s. ThebeJohnston: if the reason you did not see fit to address the actual content of the OP is that your true goal is simply to put a rude poster in his/her place, it would work better with a less patronizing tone. :)

I wish text carried sarcasm, I figured you were trolling back at the OP.

ThebeJohnston: if it's the OP ideas you are speaking to, as you seem to suggest, then speak to them, rather than simply spouting vitriol.

I bet you're real fun at parties.

LongIslandMark: In my opinion, it is really quite easy to tell by reviewing a game if it has a high probability of being an abusive disconnect.

That probability, coupled with a requirement to fail this test at a certain rate (games over time), seems to me an entirely fair measurement that I'd be willing to subject myself to. 

Hmmm. I don't think that how "fun at parties" really seems to be what you were shooting for either. Not sure how that's related to the discussion.

The staff barely respond to customer complaints/messages etc, they're not going to review each game checking if it the disconnection is intentional or not, and they're not going to program something that could with V3 just arriving.

Artful, you deserve a skippy badge for the amount of effort you're putting into try and shut down a harmless joke I made, props to you Killjoy.

At least I stuck with it Kaynight.

wanmokewan: ugh, I was just responding to you, clarifying at length, and it ate my reply. is it already clear?

yes, peers = community members. games are offered for random review, probably only for those abandoned on time. Or perhaps any game already flagged in some way (perhaps opponents can request reviews of a limited number of games, in addition to those flagged by timer expiry). reviewers are selected randomly, either from those visiting a certain site location (live chess) or from those who have played a certain number of live games, from those who offer to be game reviewers, from those who enjoy looking at end-games, etc.

do you see an unworkable issue with it?

Yeah alright champion, if this gets implimented in the next 10 years, I'll give it to you.

ThebeJohnston: your argument, then, is that the idea is a bad idea because chess.com hasn't implemented it yet? or that no one should desire that they implement it because they may not? or that I shouldn't suggest the idea because it probably wont be implemented?

I'm not sure I follow. 

You're so boring Artful, you can't take a joke and you have a weird attatchment to such a useless issue, go get a coffee and wake up to yourself.

ThebeJohnston: your sole intent is to argue/attack, rather than actually discuss the fundamental viability/value of my suggestion.

Why would that be your stance, when you have correctly pointed out that I've suggested the idea in good faith?

Are you simply trying to be a tool? 

These threads appear every day or so and I'm yet to see a chess.com staff member reply to one, or better yet, become actively involved in the discussion. I agree that the behaviour is annoying, the general community agrees it's annoying... But this thread would do little to change anything I'm afraid.

You're calling someone else a tool, now you're the one telling jokes.

I made my sarcastic remark to a stupid issue that will never ever be resolved because a) the staff don't care and b) it's not a serious enough issue.

You're still trying to impress everyone on this forum with literally no-one cares, hence why I've ignored your attempt to suggest that I'm ignoring it because you're correct? No, it's because I do not care, do not flatter yourself, and neither will the staff.
Go use your wits on something a little more clever than a chess.com thread which will die because there's been 1000 before it and nothing has changed.

Was that a serious enough response for you, you absolute joke? 

Disgruntled_Sheep: I'd generally agree with that.

However, I do know that 95% of the defects and suggested resolutions I offered a year ago to the mobile chess client were addressed in the latest release. I also know that someone brought my defect list to the development team.

I figure it doesn't hurt to make the suggestion. 

+1, staff don't respond to anyone enough as it is, they're not going to monitor games, and Erik won't trust people from the community to do it because it will be abused, just like the report abuse button that was removed.
People are idiots, Artful being a prime example.