+1
> Clearly you haven't really put any thought into this before you committed your pearls of wisdom onto this forum....
Don't treat me like I'm stupid and then harass me in my DMs.
Don't treat me like I'm stupid and then harass me in my DMs.
I am treating you exactly as you deserve Daniel. You just called the feature stupid and pointless without addressing any of the points in a constructive manner. The reason many people agree with me is because rage disconnecting here on lichess is becoming a major problem. What is worse is that many disconnect and come back in 2 minutes and start blitzing out moves to catch you sleeping, that is why I proposed the feature option. It would pair the NO ESCAPE players with others that just want to play chess, and the rest that do not want the feature can uncheck it and be paired according to their preference. Actually we can have a few options here.
NO ESCAPE -Auto disconnect is forfeiture of points.
NO ESCAPE- 5 Seconds grace period. You have 5 seconds to return to the game otherwise forfeiture
OR Normal - As it is now which allows people to come back after 90 seconds or more in 3.0
This would make the community infinitely better, would reduce the swindlers and rage quitters, and would match people accordingly. No need to sift through complete rates, etc. It would be clear and simple. I think 95% of the players here would appreciate this feature when establishing new games. It can be a default feature, and you uncheck the box if you do not like it, but I hardly think anyone will dislike it. If you have extremely poor connectivity than uncheck the option and you are magically matched with all the others that require the ability to keep on logging back on, Simple and elegant solution to a problem that is making lichess go to hell recently.
NO ESCAPE -Auto disconnect is forfeiture of points.
NO ESCAPE- 5 Seconds grace period. You have 5 seconds to return to the game otherwise forfeiture
OR Normal - As it is now which allows people to come back after 90 seconds or more in 3.0
This would make the community infinitely better, would reduce the swindlers and rage quitters, and would match people accordingly. No need to sift through complete rates, etc. It would be clear and simple. I think 95% of the players here would appreciate this feature when establishing new games. It can be a default feature, and you uncheck the box if you do not like it, but I hardly think anyone will dislike it. If you have extremely poor connectivity than uncheck the option and you are magically matched with all the others that require the ability to keep on logging back on, Simple and elegant solution to a problem that is making lichess go to hell recently.
This didn’t use to be a huge issue but is now becoming a significant annoyance. Every day I’m having 2-3 games where some asshole decides to abandon as a last ditch attempt to swindle the game.
@sheern00b Agreed. That's the thing: This has gotten significantly worse over the past year and half. I really think Lichess needs to address it with more vigor lest it become part of the Lichess culture: "Oh, if you don't like your game, just walk away. Everyone does that on Lichess."
I know Lichess has some enforcement measures in place; we often hear of them ("X many years of timeout are issued every week," or some such). But as the behavior is becoming more and more prevalent, clearly whatever is in place now isn't sufficient.
I know Lichess has some enforcement measures in place; we often hear of them ("X many years of timeout are issued every week," or some such). But as the behavior is becoming more and more prevalent, clearly whatever is in place now isn't sufficient.
Here's an update.
I just now finished playing a game where the opponent rage-quit once I'd started winning. I checked the player's history: Our game was the 27th game he's abandoned in just the past three days. Repeat: TWENTY-SEVEN GAMES in three days.
Of course, I reported him to the moderators.
But why on Earth is someone still causing havoc on this site after rage-quitting a dozen games in quick succession -- let alone 27 of them? Please, Lichess staff. This website can do so much better than this.
I just now finished playing a game where the opponent rage-quit once I'd started winning. I checked the player's history: Our game was the 27th game he's abandoned in just the past three days. Repeat: TWENTY-SEVEN GAMES in three days.
Of course, I reported him to the moderators.
But why on Earth is someone still causing havoc on this site after rage-quitting a dozen games in quick succession -- let alone 27 of them? Please, Lichess staff. This website can do so much better than this.
Is it still true, that the bans start with very short times (few minutes), and double then each time? Maybe, this is not optimal, and the first ban should be longer. Therefore the ban duration could be increased by only 25% or 50%.
@sheckley666 I've recently heard that's how the bans work; so yes, I think you're right about that. What you're suggesting seems sensible. It's clear to me that something needs to be adjusted in a significant way. Not only is Lichess not making progress on controlling rage-quitting, they seem to be losing the battle.
My preference would be for a No Escape option and, short of that, a serious overhaul of the rage-quit detection algorithm (assuming there is one) and the penalties.
Finding and punishing rage-quitters should not be that hard. As many others have pointed out, you can check the game evaluation at the time a player suddenly disconnects. If that player was evaluated as -10 or worse every single time a disconnect occurred, and this has happened 10 times or more consecutive times in a 10-day period, it's pretty clear what's going on and the account should be automatically frozen and an auto-generated email sent to the offender. This can be coded and would work without human intervention.
If a player thinks the account freeze is unfair, he or she can file a report with the moderators.
But think of this from a statistical standpoint:
1. If the player has a valid rating and is playing opponents who are roughly his rating equals, he should be in a winning position in his games roughly half the times. Similarly, the probability of him being in a favorable or unfavorable position in a game at any given time is roughly even.
2. Ergo, the probability of a non-rage-quitting player being evaluated at -10 or worse at the time of 10 disconnects in a row is even lower than the probability that a flipped coin will land heads-up 10 times. (Lower because, unlike a coin toss where there is only one other possible state, a chess game disconnect can occur when the game is in one of three states: disconnector clearly winning, disconnector clearly losing, and neither player with a significant advantage.)
3. Based on the above, the possibility that a non-rage-quitting player will be evaluated at -10 or worse at the time of disconnect for 10 consecutive disconnects is less than one in 1,024 (or 0.09765%).
4. This means that for every one thousand accounts frozen in this manner, you can expect fewer than one of them to be players who were innocent of rage-quitting and were simply victims of badly-timed, non-player-initiated disconnects. Those are odds I can live with.
Again: All of the above could function automatically. It wouldn't catch the once-in-a-blue-moon rage-quitters, but it would most certainly sideline the habitual offenders, like the player I encountered tonight who has rage-quit 27 games in just three days.
My preference would be for a No Escape option and, short of that, a serious overhaul of the rage-quit detection algorithm (assuming there is one) and the penalties.
Finding and punishing rage-quitters should not be that hard. As many others have pointed out, you can check the game evaluation at the time a player suddenly disconnects. If that player was evaluated as -10 or worse every single time a disconnect occurred, and this has happened 10 times or more consecutive times in a 10-day period, it's pretty clear what's going on and the account should be automatically frozen and an auto-generated email sent to the offender. This can be coded and would work without human intervention.
If a player thinks the account freeze is unfair, he or she can file a report with the moderators.
But think of this from a statistical standpoint:
1. If the player has a valid rating and is playing opponents who are roughly his rating equals, he should be in a winning position in his games roughly half the times. Similarly, the probability of him being in a favorable or unfavorable position in a game at any given time is roughly even.
2. Ergo, the probability of a non-rage-quitting player being evaluated at -10 or worse at the time of 10 disconnects in a row is even lower than the probability that a flipped coin will land heads-up 10 times. (Lower because, unlike a coin toss where there is only one other possible state, a chess game disconnect can occur when the game is in one of three states: disconnector clearly winning, disconnector clearly losing, and neither player with a significant advantage.)
3. Based on the above, the possibility that a non-rage-quitting player will be evaluated at -10 or worse at the time of disconnect for 10 consecutive disconnects is less than one in 1,024 (or 0.09765%).
4. This means that for every one thousand accounts frozen in this manner, you can expect fewer than one of them to be players who were innocent of rage-quitting and were simply victims of badly-timed, non-player-initiated disconnects. Those are odds I can live with.
Again: All of the above could function automatically. It wouldn't catch the once-in-a-blue-moon rage-quitters, but it would most certainly sideline the habitual offenders, like the player I encountered tonight who has rage-quit 27 games in just three days.
@GSP0113 The point against any solution requiring game evaluation has always been too much server load.
Sure, it's annoying to have to wait, but if you join a 3+0 game, that opponent has 3 minutes in the end. Say my internet went out, for a second. Then, from the time it takes to reconnect and disconnect I lose another 4 seconds, and reload in one. Then, I lose? Sometimes my laptop dies, so I have to put it on a charger that takes about 15 seconds. That's why you have 90 seconds. Finally,
> I am treating you exactly as you deserve Daniel.
Stating my opinion makes me subject to harassment?
There are so many smarter alternatives, such as lowering the time to reconnect, making the time proportional to your completion rate or even to the position on the board.
> I am treating you exactly as you deserve Daniel.
Stating my opinion makes me subject to harassment?
There are so many smarter alternatives, such as lowering the time to reconnect, making the time proportional to your completion rate or even to the position on the board.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.