Timeout for aborting games with big rating gaps

@Toadofsky Like I said, I tried the Custom button for 2300+, got paired up with a 2300+ in one game, then after the game selected "New opponent" from the pop-up menu and got paired with a 2300- opponent. Are you saying that after each game I have to go back to the home menu and select Custom game again?

And in general, I don't feel it's particularly user-friendly to ask players to use the Custom button each time if they want to put a rating restriction on opponents. This is a basic feature which many sites handle properly via formulas or filters or whatever, and here it seems overly complicated.

@Chuck_Fess It's a matter of principle for me - if I get banned for doing something which I feel I should be allowed to do, I will not stop doing it only because someone tells me to. Either I want to be convinced this is the only solution or the problem should be addressed.

So apparently, according to @thijscom 's description the "New opponent" feature does not consider the custom settings that were used to get the initial pairing. Probably this can be considered a bug and not a feature request. At least I would have the same expectation as him with respect to how the "New opponent" feature should behave.

On the other hand, as long as this behavior is not changed, I think it is rather rude to continue aborting games. Please remember that there is a player on the other side as well. So now as there seems to be an understanding of how the pairing works right now, I think using it accordingly is not too much to ask for.

@M0r1 Whether aborting a game before it even started is "rude" is debatable. No one suffers, and if the rating gap is 500+ surely the other person understands there is no fun (or value, ratingwise) for me in playing him.

Are you also saying it is rude for grandmasters to not play in small local club tournaments? Or that most tournaments have different sections, to guarantee that people don't get paired up with much weaker/stronger players?

And FYI, in the US many tournaments have a "play up fee" if players wish to play in a higher rating section than they qualify for, to compensate the higher-rated players who are now forced to play against these weaker players. I am not asking for financial compensation, just for understanding.

" It's a matter of principle for me - if I get banned for doing something which I feel I should be allowed to do, I will not stop doing it only because someone tells me to."
Most amazing delusional thing I have seen all day. I feel I should be the King of England, the Windsor family better fork over my crown or else.

So just to summarize, I guess there are two bugs/feature requests here:

1. Make sure that "New opponent" after a custom matchup respects rating boundaries.

2. Have the option to "tweak" the big buttons on the homepage to also respect rating ranges.

And opinions seem divided, but I would like to add:

3. Do not issue time bans for aborting games randomly assigned by the system with big rating gaps.

#25

1. I fully agree, "New opponent" should continue applying the custom rating range restriction https://github.com/ornicar/lila/issues/6049
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment

2. That somewhat sounds like feature request https://github.com/ornicar/lila/issues/5721

3. I defer to moderators on anything ban-related; my focus is on software, not server policy.

@Toadofsky Note that if 2 is implemented then 3 is not necessary anymore. I'm just saying that as long as 1 and 2 are not fixed, to be a bit lenient with these bans.

(As for why it only became an issue for me now: I moved to the US recently, and the servers are not as busy in US evenings as in European evenings. And the less busy the server, the more likely it seems to be that I get paired with a much lower-rated player.)

And if you need a concrete case of bug 1: just now I played a custom game with filter 2300+, and after playing against lagifle (2303), after finishing I clicked "New opponent" and I was paired with bulbizar (2161). Maybe you cannot see all user actions in detail, but if so you should be able to see in the system that indeed I clicked New opponent, yet got paired with a 2200- player.

To reply to #23 and clarify my statement in #22:
First of all I should probably not have used the word "rude", but rather something like "impolite". English is not my native language and maybe I got the nuances wrong. In any case, I do think that games should be aborted only in exceptional cases and this should not be considered as part of the normal process to find a suitable opponent. Consequently, I think it is acceptable if people get banned if they abort games too often, and there should not be exceptions to that.

However, regardless of my wording, I did not want to say that it is rude (or impolite) if someone does not want to play players in a certain rating range. But knowing about how the pairing system works right now, knowing how "New opponent" works right now, and knowing that there is a way to ensure the desired pairing behavior I am still considering it impolite to use the functionality that does not work as expected, and then leave the game. If a player has restrictions regarding acceptable opponents, that player should make sure that the pairings are done according to those restrictions, even if that requires extra (and unnecessary) steps when setting up the game.

To use your comparison to OTB tournament situations in the light of what I have written above:
Of course I do not think it is rude if GMs do not participate in local club tournaments. Also, I do not think it is rude if GMs are asked to participate in such a tournament and decline or just ignore such a request. However, if a GM enters local club tournament (for whatever reason), gets paired and then refuses to play the assigned opponent and leaves instead, I would think that this is rude.

The same is true for all the other situations that you described. Rating sections and/or fees to play in higher sections are not rude. People are free participate or not. But once they agree on the rules of the pairings, they should not refuse to play certain opponents based on their rating.

#27 I'm discussing 1 with other developers; right now it sounds like 1 is a bug with the app, so since I can't do anything about that, until it is fixed I do recommend your workaround (not using "New opponent"): https://github.com/veloce/lichobile/issues/1089

2 is a popular feature request which I'm not publicly commenting on until I better understand it; any public argument I can have about it right now won't end well.