You misunderstand. It does not unfairly create work for others, like in your marathon example. You commit to the time controls by playing the game, it does not create 'extra' work for you since you would have had to wait the same amount of time if they used it in a non-lost position - that's what you agreed to with the time control.
Calling me a troll simply for disagreeing with you is quite immature. And no, I don't do it myself. I avoid long time controls because I don't like to wait at all - waiting for someone 1 move away from losing is no different to waiting for someone in the middle of the game. While I agree that it is something only douchebags do, it is their right to do it and wanting punishments when YOU agree to the time control is ridiculous.
I don't ever (at least I don't remember) have done such thing on purpose and I hate when people do this - especially in those tournaments, were it hurts my chances (they usually don't care about theirs), but I don't think there should be automatic system for this - since no-one should be forced to resign and everyone should be entitled to use their time as they like, - even in FIDE tournaments they allow players to just leave and make their opponent wait out. That would simply be to invasive. My suggestion is to not use overly large time control and when someone leaves just play in another browser tab or even open two windows side by side so that you can see and hear if the timeout troll makes a move sometimes later.
#11 I must apologize. I've gotten tired of arguing against the same flawed line of logic in these threads that I just come to the assumption that people who continue to make the same flawed argument must be trollbaiting. My analogy is likely as flawed as the logic of the argument it was framed against, and my attack against your character was indeed childish, and for that I'm quite sorry. I shouldn't have done.
The flaw in the logic of your argument (and that of several others who defend this childish behavior) comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the implicit agreement of a time control. The implicit agreement players enter into under a time control is that all the moves of a game must be made within the given time of the agreed upon control or they forfeit the game on time. That implicit agreement does not give a player an implicit 'right' to unnaturally prolong the game by chosing not to make a losing move when there is no alternative.
It does, indeed, allow them that possibility, much as it allows them the same possibility to do so after the second move of the game. However, to grant that every possible action in a situation as a 'right' is to ignore the very nature of the implicit agreement that makes up what we call a 'game' as well as the very nature of what defines a 'right.' When I agree to a time control, I agree to play the game to its natural completion within that time control. I do not agree to sit and watch a clock for 5 or more minutes when the other player has decided they want to stop playing.
This player decided to let the clock run 16 minutes. Forced checkmate in 1.
http://en.lichess.org/kepCKCxmz2BQDuring that time he played another game.
http://en.lichess.org/lqNV5NuOMy suggestion: Unsportsmanlike conduct should be punished. If such behaviour is reported as "Unsportsmanlike" and a player does this frequently he should be flagged as "Unsportsmanlike" similar how some players are flagged as "This player uses computer assistance".
Additionly an option in the preferences: do not accept seeks from players flagged as abusive.
I understand this is additional work for the mods here. Perhaps an additional mod team that deals with such requests.
Just block him. It works well for me.
It's irritating to be sure. The argument against penalising goes something like - we've saddled ourselves with the Glicko-2 system of scoring., so we're going to adhere to that.
This is Lichess - you can saddle yourself with Glicko-2.1. If a profile consistently doesn't make a move within a minute (or a percentage or whatever you choose) of the clock timing out - then why not include a penalty? It's up to the mods and developers but for sure there is enough community feeling to warrant a change. I don't think it would subtract from the game - either resign or be be deducted even more points. It might even add to the tension....
One very simple solution to this problem. Decrease the rating more if opponent wins by timeout instead of checkmate.
masdddaaassd
jjjjjjjjjjaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmjjjjjjjjaaaaaaaaa
further to static_shadow # 13:
Contract Law applied: One could look at this timeout problem using a symbolic analogy: Legal Terms. Lichess offers to each one of us, when offering or accepting a game, to enter into one of a limited number of > Standardized Contracts < with some other player ( opponent ). If some guy just wants to force points regardless of entertaiment, challenge and respect for the other player, and to achieve this task uses the breadth of the terms to his advantage, you cannot really complain about him breaching the terms of the contract, as you have agreed to it in advance. Therefore I think it is quite impossible for the programmers to counteract this legal but appalling behaviour. Any tinkering with the procedures would just create more new problems. There would be theoretical alternatives, as to offer more complicated contracts (e.g. game offers limiting the time for the next move to a percentage of time left) - but I think that should not be worth the while of our estimated adims as only very few players would use it. So one ought to live with the situation as it is and just block the blockheads.