Lately a lot of people i am playing against are letting their time run out (or leave) in obviously lost positions. The FAQ states that if you abandon/leave too many games you will get a temporary ban, which will be longer for recidivists and that it can lead to a permanent ban eventually. I was wondering how many games you can leave until you will get that aforementioned temporary ban and how long those bans are, since a lot of the accounts leaving games are fairly old (and i dont believe that they exhibit that behaviour exclusively against me), so it appears to me that the punishments are not strict enough.
Feels to me like its just a policy that's not enforced.
If a Dev replies to you and states "QTY" of Banned profiles for Abandonment.
Then you would have an answer. This means that some of the below is in play:
You could put an "Enhancement" request on their 'GIT'.
Because to enforce this:
1. They would have to track the metadata on players profiles that contain the count of abandoned flag. This meta costs space and automation.
2. They must "Categorize" the abandon "Type". (Just to start: dropped internet, ran clock down, playing multiple games at once, device type mobile, and more...)
3. They would have to put a script in play to 'auto-cap' this behavior.
4. Then make it 'Extremely Difficult' to remove the cap. Example: Email with written explanation. Force survey the player, they cannot play another game until they fill the survey as to 'Why' the game was abandoned.
Approve the penalty:
1. Place 'capped players' on probation.
2. Develop probation rules and host the "Environment" for them. Like the Cheaters Environment, they can only play other players who are on probation.
-- Example: Limit to games, Cannot analyze games you abandon, Flag on the profile, and more.
3. Make METADATA 'PUBLIC' and allow users to run stats on player profiles with Metadata OTHER than just "center-pawn loss" and other rudimentary stats.
If a Dev replies to you and states "QTY" of Banned profiles for Abandonment.
Then you would have an answer. This means that some of the below is in play:
You could put an "Enhancement" request on their 'GIT'.
Because to enforce this:
1. They would have to track the metadata on players profiles that contain the count of abandoned flag. This meta costs space and automation.
2. They must "Categorize" the abandon "Type". (Just to start: dropped internet, ran clock down, playing multiple games at once, device type mobile, and more...)
3. They would have to put a script in play to 'auto-cap' this behavior.
4. Then make it 'Extremely Difficult' to remove the cap. Example: Email with written explanation. Force survey the player, they cannot play another game until they fill the survey as to 'Why' the game was abandoned.
Approve the penalty:
1. Place 'capped players' on probation.
2. Develop probation rules and host the "Environment" for them. Like the Cheaters Environment, they can only play other players who are on probation.
-- Example: Limit to games, Cannot analyze games you abandon, Flag on the profile, and more.
3. Make METADATA 'PUBLIC' and allow users to run stats on player profiles with Metadata OTHER than just "center-pawn loss" and other rudimentary stats.
>Feels to me like its just a policy that's not enforced.
Well, your feeling is wrong. It is enforced and the system is automated.
The number of games also depends on various factors, like have the account been play banned before, how long ago and so on.
Well, your feeling is wrong. It is enforced and the system is automated.
The number of games also depends on various factors, like have the account been play banned before, how long ago and so on.
@bufferunderrun said in #3:
> Well, your feeling is wrong. It is enforced and the system is automated.
> The number of games also depends on various factors, like have the account been play banned before, how long ago and so on.
So is there any hope for the parameters of this automated system to be adjusted in such a way that the punishments will come in quicker/harsher in the future?
> Well, your feeling is wrong. It is enforced and the system is automated.
> The number of games also depends on various factors, like have the account been play banned before, how long ago and so on.
So is there any hope for the parameters of this automated system to be adjusted in such a way that the punishments will come in quicker/harsher in the future?
Sometimes it also isn't done deliberately. And even though their connection is the reason, they still get a play ban.
You see a lot of posts where people complain that the play bans are not quick enough and then a lot of posts where play banned people complain that the ban was too harsh and unfair. So it's probably balanced.
It would probably be better to ask developers whether the algorithm or parameters can be adjusted in the future.
You see a lot of posts where people complain that the play bans are not quick enough and then a lot of posts where play banned people complain that the ban was too harsh and unfair. So it's probably balanced.
It would probably be better to ask developers whether the algorithm or parameters can be adjusted in the future.
There are definitely differing levels of this though. I'm not sure if the punishments are dependent on the level.
It's super annoying for the opponent to hang a queen and spitefully time down in a blitz game but in a classical game, you could be waiting for 30+ minutes.
I remember reading a couple of years ago in the forums, there was a strong player (~2200 classical) who was playing a long time control of something like 45+45. They had mate in 2 and their opponent was just running down the clock.
20 minutes later, they figured their opponent wasn't going anywhere. So they loaded up a study in a new tab and thought they might as well learn something while they're waiting. Anyway, plink-plonk notification: original game said "cheat detected" due to the study and gave the victory to the opponent. It was an honest mistake.
I've looked and can't find the original thread, but it really stuck with me and I remember it vividly...
I don't know if you already have a system in place for this @bufferunderrun but timing down 20+ mins in classical is surely far worse than the odd 3 minute blitz game and warrants a stronger response.
It's super annoying for the opponent to hang a queen and spitefully time down in a blitz game but in a classical game, you could be waiting for 30+ minutes.
I remember reading a couple of years ago in the forums, there was a strong player (~2200 classical) who was playing a long time control of something like 45+45. They had mate in 2 and their opponent was just running down the clock.
20 minutes later, they figured their opponent wasn't going anywhere. So they loaded up a study in a new tab and thought they might as well learn something while they're waiting. Anyway, plink-plonk notification: original game said "cheat detected" due to the study and gave the victory to the opponent. It was an honest mistake.
I've looked and can't find the original thread, but it really stuck with me and I remember it vividly...
I don't know if you already have a system in place for this @bufferunderrun but timing down 20+ mins in classical is surely far worse than the odd 3 minute blitz game and warrants a stronger response.
@Schtaeve said in #6:
> I remember reading a couple of years ago in the forums, there was a strong player (~2200 classical) who was playing a long time control of something like 45+45. They had mate in 2 and their opponent was just running down the clock.
>
> 20 minutes later, they figured their opponent wasn't going anywhere. So they loaded up a study in a new tab and thought they might as well learn something while they're waiting. Anyway, plink-plonk notification: original game said "cheat detected" due to the study and gave the victory to the opponent. It was an honest mistake.
I wouldn't go as far as call this an honest mistake. You have an ongoing game, you run an engine... come on.
Hopefully the lesson was learned by both players there.
> I remember reading a couple of years ago in the forums, there was a strong player (~2200 classical) who was playing a long time control of something like 45+45. They had mate in 2 and their opponent was just running down the clock.
>
> 20 minutes later, they figured their opponent wasn't going anywhere. So they loaded up a study in a new tab and thought they might as well learn something while they're waiting. Anyway, plink-plonk notification: original game said "cheat detected" due to the study and gave the victory to the opponent. It was an honest mistake.
I wouldn't go as far as call this an honest mistake. You have an ongoing game, you run an engine... come on.
Hopefully the lesson was learned by both players there.
@bufferunderrun said in #7:
> I wouldn't go as far as call this an honest mistake. You have an ongoing game, you run an engine... come on.
> Hopefully the lesson was learned by both players there.
Ah, I found the original thread. I knew I wasn't crazy!
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-cheated-3#1
But yes, I agree. It was a little silly.
Though to my original point, I'm not sure if you have systems in place which consider how much time people are running down. I'm simply guessing as it seems to be an x amount of strikes thing.
I'd argue running down 30 mins (if it's following an obviously losing position) should warrant a firmer response. You might already have this in place — apologies if that's the case. :)
> I wouldn't go as far as call this an honest mistake. You have an ongoing game, you run an engine... come on.
> Hopefully the lesson was learned by both players there.
Ah, I found the original thread. I knew I wasn't crazy!
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/i-cheated-3#1
But yes, I agree. It was a little silly.
Though to my original point, I'm not sure if you have systems in place which consider how much time people are running down. I'm simply guessing as it seems to be an x amount of strikes thing.
I'd argue running down 30 mins (if it's following an obviously losing position) should warrant a firmer response. You might already have this in place — apologies if that's the case. :)
....
There are two other possibilities as to how one can stall with no intent to do so:
1. If they are tired/not well and fall asleep in the middle of the game.
2. Emergency in the middle of the game - for example, they are playing in the passenger seat and meet with an accident unfortunately.
1. If they are tired/not well and fall asleep in the middle of the game.
2. Emergency in the middle of the game - for example, they are playing in the passenger seat and meet with an accident unfortunately.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.