There are a lot of sore losers here, who let time slip by instead of giving up. it is annoying.
Since I block them every time, I was able to count that I encountered more than 1000 of them.
So the warning: “Be careful, stupid, letting time pass instead of giving up can lead to exclusion” is probably insufficient.
I guess others block them too. So a guy who's been blocked multiple times should actually be suspended by Lichess, not just read a warning he's beating his balls about.
You can only ban five hundred at a time. So while banning one guy, you are unbanning another guy.
My theory though, is that they play on a phone, and when they lose they just close the lid and go "fuck this shit".
How many games did you play to block 1000 of them? I think I experience this less then 10% of games (mostly if I am on the winning side).
Theres no guidelines on how much time you can use. I get spammed by the warning from lichess to just give up instead of trying to play but they never say how long you are allowed to use on one move. I would be perfectly happy to abide but it should be written down somewhere rather than getting spammed with warnings for breaking an unwritten rule.
Even worse is when they just auto-forfeit for you when you still have time on the clock. Whats the point of a clock if you can’t use it?
@TomMarquardt said in #3:
> How many games did you play to block 1000 of them? I think I experience this less then 10% of games (mostly if I am on the winning side).
38328 games under this pseudo and about same under another pseudo.
So it makes around 1000 blocked for bad losing upon a total of 80 000 .
So my personnel statistic is that upon 100 games , 12 players let the time pass. As i we lost about half the games , it's 12 upon 50 games; so 25 players losing upon 100 let the time pass.
Conclusion : 1 loser upon 4 let the time pass.
Other conclusion: it happened to me 1000 times, for an average 1mn of lost time to wait to hear the gong. so in total i lost 16 Hours waiting that the loser plays or resigns. And that is penible, because we must stay in alert whether he would play
@leDouanierRousseau said in #1:
> So a guy who's been blocked multiple times should actually be suspended by Lichess, not just read a warning he's beating his balls about.
Bad idea. There are people blocking others because they played an unwanted opening line. Or asked for a rematch. Or denied a rematch.
Leave it to Lichess, they do not only warn, but also do suspend notoric clock sitters.
true, but i guess:
1/ it s a minority
2/ a guy can block ONLY ONCE for a bad reason. so I preconize to exclude definitely someone only if has got blocked 5 or 10 times
2/before banning, maybe a superviser or moderator can check
4/ would it be possible to add a precision when you block someone, with different buttons : insults, personal , ...and : let time pass.
What would definitely improve the atmosphere here would be less jumping to conclusions and more familiarity with Hanlon's razor.
BtW, what I find most funny is that whenever I see one of these rants, it's from someone playing blitz or bullet almost exclusively. Which, in practice, means that the unbearably long wait they rant about is about one minute long, perhaps two. In your case, the game that triggered your rant was likely a 3+0 game where you had to wait for... full 101 seconds. The horror... You know what? Just this Sunday, I had to wait twice for 30 minutes because my opponents bailed out of a tournament without withdrawing or pausing themselves. Did I write rants to chat, asking for them to be banned for life, put into pillory or, preferrably, burnt alive? Surprise, surprise... No, I did not. Think about it for a moment...
@leDouanierRousseau said in #7:
> 2/ a guy can block ONLY ONCE for a bad reason. so I preconize to exclude definitely someone only if has got blocked 5 or 10 times
So a group of 5/10 people (or one with multiple accounts) would be able to kick anyone out of the web on a whim? A great improvement, indeed.
One other point is worth mentioning. The natural reaction for me, and I assume this applies to plenty of other players too, when I have a losing position is to spend a lot of time trying to find a way out of the mess. There is no point in playing a quick move which obviously loses. In many positions which look hopeless there can be a surprising saving resource if we can find it. That is surely the correct course of action for any player if the position is not so obviously lost that it must be resigned. Perhaps
@leDouanierRousseau you are only talking about positions in that last category, in which case I have some sympathy with what you write, but let's also note that different players will think differently about whether a position is "obviously" and "hopelessly" lost. Hanlon's Razor, as noted by
@mkubecek , may well apply.
