Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Create a game Tournament Simultaneous exhibitions
Chess basics Puzzles Practice Coordinates Study Coaches
Lichess TV Current games Streamers Broadcasts (beta) Video library
Players Teams Forum Questions & Answers
Analysis board Board editor Import game Advanced search
Sign in
  1. Forum
  2. Lichess Feedback
  3. Player Reputation System? (Feature Request / Discussion)

It seems that the problem of timing down on tournaments and other unsporting behavior has no solution yet. I did a quick search on the forums and found no similar suggestion yet (although I did expect to find one!), so please forgive me if this is a duplicate topic.

I believe it would make sense to launch an experimental system where every player could exactly once "vote" on another player, to either increase or decrease their reputation. Increasing may give two points, decreasing would reduce the reputation of the voted player by two (again), and the reputation of the voting player by one, to discourage pointlessly doing it.

This would hopefully result in a decent reputation system, where a player may be categorized by their behavior.
This would allow excluding "bad" (in the sense of behavior, not chess skills) players from joining your games, sending them warning messages below certain thresholds, and for unusually bad reputations, the player may be automatically flagged for moderator review and/or excluded from joining tournaments.
On the other hand, "good" and friendly players would be valued by the community. This could be a strong factor in awarding LM titles, maybe even a reason to introduce some sort of reputation based award or a new ranking list. Their votes could have a larger effect on the voted player, perhaps they could get additional privileges.

Hopefully this would help fight unsporting behavior, but it would at least give anyone a scale whom they are playing against, and what they can expect from their opponent.

Also, I am willing to help developing this, should it ever be implemented. I have some experience with HTML, CSS, JavaScript and PHP.

What do you think? Does this make sense? Are there flaws, or things that I missed?

The down vote is something that a player should not be punished for giving. Perhaps to block the effect of some players giving down votes for no reason, the scores should be "graded on the curve" or be put into a percentile format so that we see their reputation compared to other players, not an overall score. But yes, this might be a neat idea.

I suggested something similiar already in this thread:

Oh, yes, it would definitely good to have only upvotes and no downvotes available.

How to prevent players downvoting other players just because they lost a game against them? Or because they dont like the country they come from? No, i dont support any form of downvoting. We have the block button, that is enough.

However, agree with @Jacob531 #4, We have that heart button in studies already, could have it in other places as well. I support proactive upvoting.

Maybe a machine voting system would be better. Creating a number using the number of times a player used unwanted words in the chat or forums... or a player not resigning and leaving others hanging or using assistance but cannot yet be proven. The computer would assign a number to all players.

If it is the players that say I like this guy so I will up vote them or I don't like his forum posts so I will down vote this guy. The out come is not going to have any value. Imagine if I down vote this guy today just because they are too quiet or too chatty or I decide to up vote all my friends and team mates.

The reputation system needs a formula, so it can become emotionally bias.

The reporting system and blocking players should be part of the formulas.

No reputation systems. Thanks.

Everybody, do not forget the advantage of not trying to regulate everything:

Maybe the number of followers is a good indication already.

The initial goal of what I suggested was a way to fight unsporting behaviour.
Downvoting players would be a possible solution, and adding a slight cost to the downvoter themselves might discourage downvoting for no reason.

This is, by the way, similar to how the StackExchange sites work, although this is probably a bad comparison, as they are very self-regulating.