steger, you are absolutely right, instead of complaining about game-breaking IDIOTS, we shall just ignore and furthermore block them! Everytime they get attention, they win.
___ Three cheer for steger & PRACTICALITY! Excellent reasoning -- I am now following you... We can simply create our own culture & the boneheads (they will always be with us) can drift to another site or grow up....
morid, while we do agree to the time control, I think we do so with the understanding that we will be playing chess in that time. from that point of view, it is incredibly rude to force your opponent to win on time rather then simply resigning. they could spend that time in another game, or doing something else.(i'm not saying you do it, of course, but I don't think it should be defended.) i am fine with long thinks, but if you simply won't play at all, you should just resign (or make a draw offer, of course).
Steger, your argument is interesting, but I've already argued against what you said. You are discussing the explicit contract. I already discussed this by stating that "just because it's possible doesn't make it a right." Just because the explicit contract says you can, doesn't make it acceptable behavior. This is because there is an implicit layer to the social contract, a layer of gaming ethics. That layer is what is being violated, regardless of what the explicit contract allows.
That being said, I don't support a punishment. I've had this discussion with Clarkey in IRC and I think punishment is the wrong approach. I have stated numerous times that not only is it far too complicated of a solution, it's also a solution to a problem that exists at the social level. I feel that this is a community issue, and it is the community itself that has to push for change. Blocking is one way. Discussing the subject civilly like we are doing here is another. I think if anything, some way of rewarding players who are good sports is yet another. It's also been suggested to leave notes on profiles...notes if they are a bad sport, and notes if they are a good sport.
Sure, these suggestions aren't going to solve all the issues. Maybe there are even more ways to promote good sportsmanship on this website. Come up with your own. But saying that "the rules say..." is not an acceptable line of argument, imo, because this is something on a level deeper than the rules, but a matter of ethics in gaming and promoting a welcoming environment. In that regard, it's a matter of marketing.
That being said, I don't support a punishment. I've had this discussion with Clarkey in IRC and I think punishment is the wrong approach. I have stated numerous times that not only is it far too complicated of a solution, it's also a solution to a problem that exists at the social level. I feel that this is a community issue, and it is the community itself that has to push for change. Blocking is one way. Discussing the subject civilly like we are doing here is another. I think if anything, some way of rewarding players who are good sports is yet another. It's also been suggested to leave notes on profiles...notes if they are a bad sport, and notes if they are a good sport.
Sure, these suggestions aren't going to solve all the issues. Maybe there are even more ways to promote good sportsmanship on this website. Come up with your own. But saying that "the rules say..." is not an acceptable line of argument, imo, because this is something on a level deeper than the rules, but a matter of ethics in gaming and promoting a welcoming environment. In that regard, it's a matter of marketing.
> krauzand #15
> Just block him. It works well for me.
Yes. Thats the best way. There are that much players here, i dont need these timetrolls.
> Kartikay #17
> One very simple solution to this problem. Decrease the rating more if opponent wins by timeout instead of checkmate.
That makes no sense for me. Time is a part of the game and in bullet a big part of endgamestrategies, like trade material in lost endgames if the opponent is lacking of time, because he can not mate you as fast as he has to if he needs a lot of move to promote pawns.
> Just block him. It works well for me.
Yes. Thats the best way. There are that much players here, i dont need these timetrolls.
> Kartikay #17
> One very simple solution to this problem. Decrease the rating more if opponent wins by timeout instead of checkmate.
That makes no sense for me. Time is a part of the game and in bullet a big part of endgamestrategies, like trade material in lost endgames if the opponent is lacking of time, because he can not mate you as fast as he has to if he needs a lot of move to promote pawns.
> static_shadow #24:
I think it would be quite difficult to code and implement algorithms to promote moral behaviour. Also that would most probably lead to ambiguities. And possibly to even more frustration with players.
And then again, one could just give up and loose some elo points - what the heck! You're going to regain them anyhow.
I think it would be quite difficult to code and implement algorithms to promote moral behaviour. Also that would most probably lead to ambiguities. And possibly to even more frustration with players.
And then again, one could just give up and loose some elo points - what the heck! You're going to regain them anyhow.
I'm torn between steger and shadow's perspectives.
I agree with shadow, in that it's poor sportsmanship and an abuse of rights to time out, but I can't see any reasonable solution to this problem.
But the petty act of running down the clock doesn't bother me. I usually start another game while I wait. *shrug*
I agree with shadow, in that it's poor sportsmanship and an abuse of rights to time out, but I can't see any reasonable solution to this problem.
But the petty act of running down the clock doesn't bother me. I usually start another game while I wait. *shrug*
> Dionysus_god #27
You're right with *shrug* - I couldn't agree more with 'taking it easy'.
But: Ask any advanced Chess-AI engine on the problem. He wouldn't care less, and just wait the opponent out.
On a second thought, I appreciate that the topic lead me think about programmable 'moral enforcement'. Though that's not very much a subject in this here forum, I shall follow that up. - !?:The internet not only pressing 'Stanislav's Laws' on bots but also on humans.
You're right with *shrug* - I couldn't agree more with 'taking it easy'.
But: Ask any advanced Chess-AI engine on the problem. He wouldn't care less, and just wait the opponent out.
On a second thought, I appreciate that the topic lead me think about programmable 'moral enforcement'. Though that's not very much a subject in this here forum, I shall follow that up. - !?:The internet not only pressing 'Stanislav's Laws' on bots but also on humans.
I got this problem, too, today.
Dont play " tima2005". he is a 10 year old kid?, who asked for takeback in a rated and after decline, let my lifetime run for 4 minutes.
FICS solves this problem like this:
report him, 3 times, banned!
Dont play " tima2005". he is a 10 year old kid?, who asked for takeback in a rated and after decline, let my lifetime run for 4 minutes.
FICS solves this problem like this:
report him, 3 times, banned!
#26 - Which is why I said, have been saying, and will continue to say that this is not an issue that should be solved by implementing some sort of code solution, especially one that involves punishment of the moral offender.
Just because I think there is a moral obligation for an opponent to play for the whole game or forfeit, doesn't mean I support coding some sort of punishment. I think it's an unrealistic solution at best and equally immoral from a coding ethics stance at worst. This is why I say something like this is best dealt with by the community itself, i.e. blocks, notes, reports against multiple offenders, etc. It won't solve the issue, but there is not a "solution" to be had here. The best we can do is promote good sportsmanship.
Just because I think there is a moral obligation for an opponent to play for the whole game or forfeit, doesn't mean I support coding some sort of punishment. I think it's an unrealistic solution at best and equally immoral from a coding ethics stance at worst. This is why I say something like this is best dealt with by the community itself, i.e. blocks, notes, reports against multiple offenders, etc. It won't solve the issue, but there is not a "solution" to be had here. The best we can do is promote good sportsmanship.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.