Why threaten bans for aborted games when you should penalize with rating points instead?

If everyone who aborted a game lost just 1 rating point, and the opponent gained 1 point, you'd have much more compliance. It's not clear you even ban anyone anyway. Just a thought.

Because you shouldn't trigger any rating variation to unplayed games, unless you enjoy having a broken rating system...

Then the rating wouldn't reflect how good you were at chess. I'd be in favour of some sort of "social standing" metric though. Aborting/timing out games could reduce that value and you could filter on it or at least be aware of it when you consider playing someone.

sometimes a game appear to be aborted when in fact its an internet issue.

especially in recent times i cant move because lichess is unreachable, then when its finally connected i lose game and points due to because i failed to move

I agree forfitting the game is more reasonable penalty

People are treating ratings as if they are some kind of money, as in decreasing someone's rating is a penalty and increasing it is a reward. Freaking weird. Using ratings this way would make them bogus in no time, how is it not obvious?

@helisss Yes it's weird. I think a lot of people don't understand what rating is really for. If people were penalized with loss of rating they would just get a couple of games where their opponents weaker than them and hence some easy wins. Which would not be fair to the opponents. There is a reason sandbggers are banned...