Enforcement of stalling/quitting games

Everyone knows this issue, and I am sure everyone has had it happen to them more times than they want to think about.

If you read the title, I am of course talking about stalling and quitting games like a child instead of resigning or playing the remainder of the game out.

Here is my solution:

If one has less than 95% completion rate on their account, they are not allowed to play any rated games or sign up for any tournaments. (Unrated tournaments included)

I do not see how it is at all acceptable to have these players even allowed to play on the site, but at least this way, those players will be barred from rated play and can go play unrated games until they grow up.

Thanks for reading!

What if bad internet?

@J_SEDA_conant said in #2:
> What if bad internet?

If the player is consistently experiencing "Internet issues" in lost positions, they can go play unrated until they get some better internet.

95% is an unrealistic number, because the game completion rate is calculated from only the last 30 losses. So, it's quite easy to fall below this limit, especially as sometimes you get an abort where actually the server crashed or was restarted.

Aside from that, I think your suggestion is less sharp than the current implementation, which also recognizes players that have been waiting for a long time on their second to last move, or who resigned one second before being flagged after having waited one minute.

And the final punishment for inconvincible stallers is a total ban from the site, which is stricter than a ban from rated games.

You're way too harsh and inconsiderate. 93% GC means you recently aborted twice because you didn't like your opponent (there are valid reasons especially for high-rated players) or you disconnected etc.
You get penalties only if you show frequent and salient unsportsmanlike behavior. Taking one or two aborts every once in a while is not that damnable.
Besides, the GC is based on 30 recent LOSSES, or maybe even RATED LOSSES? so in order to raise your GC if there were a GC-based ban, you couldn't do it anyway or you had to resign casual games deliberately ...

@sheckley666 said in #4:
> 95% is an unrealistic number, because the game completion rate is calculated from only the last 30 losses. So, it's quite easy to fall below this limit, especially as sometimes you get an abort where actually the server crashed or was restarted.
>
> Aside from that, I think your suggestion is less sharp than the current implementation, which also recognizes players that have been waiting for a long time on their second to last move, or who resigned one second before being flagged after having waited one minute.
>
> And the final punishment for inconvincible stallers is a total ban from the site, which is stricter than a ban from rated games.

I do not think 95% is unrealistic. Your example would obviously be dealt with by real people and not an automated system, because if you fell below the thresh hold due to an error on the Lichess side, you should not be punished.

For me, if one cannot reliably complete 95/100 games on a regular basis, maybe some issues need to be sorted out before you end up wasting someone's time.

That being said, what would you think is a fair number for something like this? :)

I am glad you enjoy the idea! Yes, if the behavior is constant, it should result in a perma ban for sure! :)

@Cedur216 said in #5:
> You're way too harsh and inconsiderate. 93% GC means you recently aborted twice because you didn't like your opponent (there are valid reasons especially for high-rated players) or you disconnected etc.
> You get penalties only if you show frequent and salient unsportsmanlike behavior. Taking one or two aborts every once in a while is not that damnable.
> Besides, the GC is based on 30 recent LOSSES, or maybe even RATED LOSSES? so in order to raise your GC if there were a GC-based ban, you couldn't do it anyway or you had to resign casual games deliberately .

There is no valid reason to abort based on opponent. If you want to avoid certain players, or certain rating levels, there are ways to do it. (Say, block the players or set a challenge with a custom rating level)

If the aborts are for accidental game starts, I completely agree. If it is for any other reason than that or a serious IRL emergency, one deserves to be punished. Simply put, do not start a game you do not intend to finish, or face the consequences.

As per the rest of your post, obviously current systems would need to be changed to adapt to the idea, so not sure why you seem to think that is holding the idea back.

Why don't you ask this guy his opinion? lichess.org/forum/off-topic-discussion/you-will-never-force-me-to-press-that-button#1

@LinearStork said in #6:

> That being said, what would you think is a fair number for something like this? :)

I think I have a quite good internet, but even I could come into trouble from time to time with 95% GCR. 95% could be okay for me, if it was calculated from the last 100 losses, else it should be reduced to 85% or 90% max.

But having my good internet is nothing that I have sorted out. It is my pure luck to live in a region, where it is available. So I think, we lucky guys should be more patient with those who live in the wrong region.

I don't think internet has anything to do with letting time run out by not playing in a mate in 1 position.