I know a game that has exactly that system (atWar) and users game the system really easily but just asking people to upvote them. A vote means absolutely nothing.
At the end of the day, you're still mostly going to be playing strangers in the lobby, not people you're very familiar with. The last thing we'd want to do is to dissuade you from playing against players new to the site.
"Maybe we need an "ethics" or "like" rating. Before you start playing you know whether a player is going to be nice and resign, or tends to do things like walking away."
Reputation rating.
I have a friend here called cafestream. Whenever he encounters people who walk away from games, he posts a note on their profile that says "abandons losing games".
If someone you're following posts a note on someone's profile, you will see on the main page that they left the note.
But all of that is a sort of private reputation system, and I guess you want a public one.
Hellball is right. Most people will be strangers.
I still stand by my original argument for dealing with "bad behavior": If you don't like them, block them.
Block them, and leave a note on their profile exposing what they do.
Problem solved.
yeah, but it happens with people i play a lot, that never do anything bad otherwise. i'd would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.
i can't block everyone in 960, because there are so few players to begin with.
my post is not about players that abandon losing games, but rather about the site not being so quick to display "the player may have left the game"
it happens that every so often, i have to reboot, and my browser says "are you sure you want to leave the page?"
maybe there should be a buffer, because i reboot in less than a minute, but immediately it show to my opponent that i left the game.
oh, and another thing i hate is when players abandon a game and start playing another one, but that deserves a separate thread.
oh, and another thing i hate is when players abandon a game and start playing another one, but that deserves a separate thread.
"The other player may have left the game. You can claim victory, call the game a draw, or wait."
I am missing something! My opponent left on move 2. Obviously he had PC problems. I can not ABORt the game, which would be the fair action.
"Obviously" is the problem.
The server knows 1 or 0, but obviosly 1 could also be a unlucky 0. I call this phenomenon "easy for a human". It looks pretty simple, but to teach it a progam is a massive problem.
allthough this thread is a bit older, i want to revive it...
i have two locations from where i play online chess, one with a fast steady connection (work) and one with an unstable connection (home). if i play in a tournament, where, besides winning, the number of games played will play an important role on the outcome of the tourney, i can perfectly see, why there is a loss by disconnection...
that being said, i cannot see why this should apply to regular games outside tournements. if my internetconnection breaks and takes 1-2 minutes to reconnect, im handicaped allready, because i have less time to make my moves !? if two people agree to play a game with, for example, 10+0 time control, they agree that the game could take 20 minutes...so if i leave to grab a drink from the fridge for 2 minutes and come back afterwards to make my move, or even just think for 2 minutes, its not different from waiting for reconnection...
from another angle: if i play over the board chess and my opponent decides to let its clock tick down, i have to wait...either if hes on the board or away, if his time runs out, i can claim the victory or draw...
i guess what im saying is: if someone agreed to a x-minutes long game, he/she should be able to wait x-minutes for any reason...
btw: i dont say that it isnt enerving or frustrating to wait x-minutes for a move, but hey, thats chess!
best
nizzle
ps:
just an example:
http://de.lichess.org/8fh8JAs2i have a winning position after 6! moves, my internet breaks, i have more time on my clock then i started with, but he claims a victory...