Of basic fair-play.

№ 18,

  I respect you very much, and don’t wish to offend. But whereas you give the example of offering a draw while it’s still one’s turn, the aspect of the feature here in dispute is specifically that it persists even after one’s opponent has moved. And — surely you can agree — that is hardly the same thing, by any stretch of the imagination. . . .
  Therefore I can only charitably conclude that you have misread the conversation thus far.

@pawnedge

WOW! I know it was my comment. Let me break it down for you:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
If I notice your takeback request, I'm doing you a favor!(Therefore)▬► [it's not unfair not to acknowledge it!] ← the point
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

pawnedge: Even bothering to notice your comment is a favor. Your point?
The point remains as above:

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Even bothering to notice your comment is a favor. ▬► [it's not unfair not to acknowledge it!]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Since it's NOT unfair therefore ▬► "I don't complain if people don't notice my comment "

Get it now?

№ 22,

  Wow, indeed.
  “I know it was my comment.” Did I ever suggest otherwise? . . . Whose comment did you think I thought it was? (Be specific, please.) And what is the relevance of this remark?
  No one here has suggested it is “unfair to acknowledge” takebacks. (Quite the contrary, I should think.)
  “I don’t complain if people don’t notice my comment.” OK. So I suppose you are only complaining because I _did_ notice it?
  This is tedious, and off topic. It’s late where I live, and I’m going to bed now. Peace.

@pawnedge

ok now you're deliberately being obtuse.

"No one here has suggested it is “unfair to acknowledge”<<<< Then stop writing so much and learn to read. How about read the original post? or hundreds of previous threads where people complain about not being granted takebacks.

Yes it's obviously very late there because you've problem reading and processing simple English.

Takebeggars... there‘s a basic switch against this infamous harassment, right?

To summarize the main exchange so far (ignoring interruptions):

  OP: If you leave a takeback request pending without formally declining it, that is a method of exploiting the clock. Therefore it is rude at best, and cheating at worst.
  JN: If I move in the interim, this declines your request, just like with draw offers.
  Me: Actually, while it works that way for draw offers as you say, it _doesn’t_ currently work that way for takeback requests, which still stand after you move. So you are mistaken, sir: for better or worse, your move is _not_ a sufficient declination. I do not say this is your fault, but a fault with the feature, itself, as it is currently implemented on this site.

  I will just add that if the reason you left it pending was you didn’t even notice the request (as would necessarily be the case in Zen Mode), then this only bolsters my argument that the functionality of this feature is poorly conceived. The “rudeness” the OP perceives isn’t your fault, but a fault with this platform. I simply think takebacks should function the same way draw offers do in this respect, and be _auto-declined_ when one’s opponent moves. That is all; my whole contention here.

PS:
  I have no beef with you, Mr. Newst. Please calm down. From my first post, I have agreed with you that moving again _should_ suffice as a declination. But surely you can see why the OP feels it does not? And agree with me that there is an inconsistency between the behavior of this feature and that of draw offers (which auto-decline)?

@JasonNewst

Over the course of this discussion you have started to completely miss the point. You keep saying that the one who wrote the original post was complaining about not getting a takeback, which is where you’re wrong because they specifically said they’re fine with that, their only complaint is that the request wasn’t being declined either. Maybe YOU should read the original post instead of acting all smart when you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

So, back to your points: You said it is fine to not acknowledge takebacks, because you need to concentrate on the game. Alright, that’s a good point, and no one said otherwise. However, @pawnedge said that instead Lichess should auto-decline a takeback request if the opponent moves, something that doesn’t conflict with your point in any way. So what’s your problem? Why do you attack him personally by saying he “can’t understand simple English?” Especially when it seems like it would be beneficial for you to reread the posts in this forum?

Or just say you don’t care about what everyone else says, because that’s how this seems to me. In which case don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

@AcademicNinja99

OP : "...an egregious lack of fair play are people who downright ignore the request in order to cost the opponent time "

I'm sorry @AcademicNinja99 but you also need to pay attention to that part of the original post. This sentence is not so innocent, it is not directed only at the way the website works. It is an attack on chess players who do not react to the takeback request. It accuses them of having unfair motives, of winning unfairly. I think it's ridiculous to expect your opponent to bother to stop thinking about the position and take even 2 seconds to find the decline button.

Takeback is not part of a serious rated game of chess. You should not expect your opponent to give you takebacks, or even waste time noticing it! It's like the 'chat' option. It's there for players who have an understanding between themselves. Like friends. (Naturally for those players the offer should not auto-decline so that they can go back to whatever position they agree on!)
There is a paradox in the OP's complaint and yours, you all care about 'rating' and treat winning and losing seriously, and yet you want 'takebacks' . It's one or the other. Either you care about the result and you want to play serious 'rated' game, so there's no takeback don't even think about the option, even if you make the most egregious mouse-slip; and certainly don't have any expectations!
Or you treat the game casually, so you want takebacks but then you shouldn't mind not getting it. Your attitude should be much more lax, like whatever, I resign and start a new game, no big deal!

========

My problem with @pawnedge is that in his head he's carrying on a discussion from a previous thread and he is so adamant to inject that thread into this one. I didn't participate in that other thread and I'm not going to read a thread that's 10 pages long or even an old post that's like 2000 words.
It's tedious because he plays a game of switcheroo, He said : [No one here has suggested it is “unfair to acknowledge” takebacks]

Sure but why bother mentioning this? did anyone suggest otherwise?! especially since he puts that part in quotation marks as if he's quoting me!
But this is what I said: " it's not unfair NOT to acknowledge it" = "it's fair to ignore it"

  I’ve been struggling with (not) saying this, since common sense says it’s not undesirable to not feed the troll. But I couldn’t resist. 😘

  “I think it’s ridiculous to expect your opponent to bother to stop thinking about the position and take even [two] seconds to find the [D]ecline button.”

  Which is _exactly_ why I say it should auto-decline when you move. Thanks for making my point for me. 🙂
  Conversely, your use case for an instance where auto-declining is (supposedly) undesirable isn’t a good example, as friends wouldn’t have this problem, in the first place. In the worst case, they would do it twice. For friends (or teachers and their students), that’s no big deal; whereas for strangers, the perpetually pending request potentially could be. (Not to mention that, in making my case for me, then trying to make the opposite case anyway, you contradict yourself.)
  Of cross-referencing threads: Why repeat what has already been said? You owe it to yourself to catch up; or else you owe it to us to shut up. If you haven’t read what was already said in those threads about this issue (as some of us here have), then why should we waste our time repeating ourselves all over again just for your sake? Much that is pertinent has already been discussed, quite eloquently, by others more astute than either of us. (Onyx_Chess, for instance.) In pointing you to that discussion, I aimed only to bring you up to speed; in refusing to read it, you do but embarrass yourself. Your contempt for what has gone before is a sickness in today’s youth, unfortunately taught in schools (while real history isn’t), because this helps those in power brainwash those whose vote they would rely on. 😑 That is unfortunately the world we live in; and if most people adopt your attitude of willful ignorance, this can only ensure it stays that way. (One of the many problems of using popularity to determine things. Imagine if non-chessplayers were asked to vote on the next move in the World Championship? . . . And how is asking Joe Public to vote on matters of governance any different than that? But I digress.)
  Finally, a word of advice: try writing with fewer exclamation points. (You’ll notice I didn’t use a single one just now.) You may find yourself having fewer arguments, and more constructive conversations as a direct consequence of that simple typographical choice.

Peace

@pawnedge

Let me explain it in a different way so you get it . Takeback is not there so you can demand it! Takeback is there as an offer! I see you mouse-slip so I offer you takeback! That's why it doesn't auto-decline! It's stupid to expect it to be convenient for you! It is your opponent who has to decide whether you blundered or mouse-slipped. I hope it makes more sense now:
Takeback is not to be demanded, and as such its implementation should only take into consideration the convenience of the player that wants to offer it!

Draw auto-declines because 'draw offer' is a legitimate part of serious chess. If I offer you draw, and you decline and continue playing and then end up in a bad position you should not be able to invoke the earlier draw offer! But as soon as you ask for takeback that means you want the game not be so serious and you want your opponent to do you a favor. "Casual" is written all over this option, no need to turn it into something with its own set of rules. That would just legitimize it.

And please get off the high horse. You're not a professional editor. Use some paragraph spacing for God's sake, didn't they teach you that in school?!