Player Reputation System? (Feature Request / Discussion)

Remember Fisher said a lot of rubbish.

To the point, it is suggested a reputation system be implemented, based on how sportsmanlike players are - presumably there would be a filter to enable people to utilise that system by only choosing to play opponents of a certain minimal reputation.

That may be inapplicable to tournaments, but admission rules of the tournaments themself could take care of that.

There may be other uses to the system; e.g. OP suggests incentivising sportsmanship through ranking etc. (trophies come to mind) - great idea which would constitute both a use of the system and an element supporting it.

@15 et. al. with all due respect to libertarianism and all, the behaviour described here can and need be prevented.
If by "rules" you refer to Lichess's, then consider that rules can be changed.
If you refer to FIDE's, consider that there is no personal shame (of others!) associated with habitually behaving in such ways online, as there is in OtB. The system suggested would create something to simulate that self-restraining shame, and have other uses as mentioned above.

And as to the problematic voting method, #6 suggests a way around it.

Sense-able people understand "downvoting" will easily turn into a tool for abuse and would carry absolutely no meaning or weight.

Giving awards or "atta boys" is frivolous, many would say "cheeky".

Some here have suggested that it is acceptable for players to let their time flag out, up to the full amount of time at the start of the game, as there is no "specific rule" in writing prohibiting this behavior. They are under the impression it is their time to use however they please. They go so far as to admit it is poor sportsmanship, but Lichess should not be in a position to sanction such behavior. After all, it is their "right" to use their time as they darn well please.

Sadly, this misguided view is seen on more occasions than the vast majority of players would like. Lichess states poor sportsmanship is against the rules, in it's terms and FAQ's and has every right, in fact an obligation, to enforce and sanction unwanted behavior.

I signed on to play chess, my favorite hobby. It is reasonable for me to assume a chess game to take place after seeks are matched. It is unreasonable to expect , in a 10 minute game, to have my opponent make a single move and then flag out. Those who think otherwise, that it is their right to act as such have a lot of growing up to do.

All sense-able players realize this "minority" view stems from those who are rebelling against authority, who proclaim things as "can't tell me what to do". All I got to say is... sure you have the "right" to behave in such a manner, once. Receive your warning. Either accept and abide by the sites policy (which is identical to other reputable chess sites) or leave and go elsewhere.

NeverBeenTimid edited1 week ago #18
@Toadofsky how would you determine between those who are using their time to try and think their self out a position even though it may be hopeless and those who are doing it maliciously?
Also even if opponents are doing it maliciously, it is not against the rules. You have agreed when you accepted the game to give your opponent the same amount of time as yourself. What's next, moderators forcing players to resign when a piece down? Nonsense

Above is an example.
The poster writes: "even if opponents are doing it maliciously, it is not against the rules".
How anyone thinks malicious behavior is not against the rules is mind numbing.
There is a way to tell the difference and distinguish between letting the time run out or using the time thinking of the best response. A very clear example is when a player is in check and only a single, legal move can be made. Many examples exist that people using common sense and reasonable judgement can make.

Specific rules attempting to cover all situations can not be written. An attempt to do so would lead to ambiguity, subjective arguments. Leave it to the arbiter (Lichess) to make objective and fair decisions. This is the only solution. Poor sportsmanship is a broad term. What constitutes it can be debated. However, there are many examples which are so cut and dry, examples that 99.9% of all players would all agree on which leave no room for debate.

#23 so lichess should hire a team of people which would look into every downvote if it is by the rules or not?

#23 #24 I've already conceded it can't be fairly done (or at least I don't have a suggestion and am of a similar mindset but am also open-minded that I haven't thought of everything)

@Toadofsky

With statistics done properly across a large number of games, and with very conservative thresholds, it should be possible to detect malicious flagging of the clock with a very low false-positive rate, even if it is done by keeping a relatively high false-negative rate.

In other words, it should be possible to detect many such instances with high confidence, while deliberately allowing many such offenders go scot-free, just so that the rate of falsely marking innocent players is minuscule.

Some signals to pick on could be:
- Player disconnects or lets clock run down in hopeless situations (blundered queen, or imminent mate)
- Rate of disconnection very low when position is good
- A large fraction of the clock was allowed to run down
- Sudden worsening of evaluation (i.e., a blunder), instead of a gradual one
- In case of browser (as opposed to app), tab lost focus, while connection still present. Something similar could be detected for apps, I suppose.
- On the other hand, if tab hasn't lost focus, and mouse is not completely motionless, then the player could be given benefit of doubt
- In case of disconnection, connection quality was good just before disconnection

#23 I like that "leave no room" at the end there. Subtle.

The last thing Lichess needs is a Reddit-style reputation system. I've seen the reputation system used on Reddit, and it doesn't work at all. Popular opinions get upvoted, and anything remotely controversial get downvoted to the point of actually being near-removed from the entire page. I prefer to make rules based on how they'll turn out, not on what the intention is, no matter how noble.

Reddit's reputation system was meant to inspire debate, and comments that were controversial did just that, inciting people to debate and converse on the subject. Popular opinions or mindless posting that didn't inspire any conversation were supposed to be downvoted, yet the opposite remains true.

Frankly, I don't really care if a player runs down his 10 minutes against me when he's in a lost position. That's his time to play with. If I'm really that angry about it I just open up another game or get some coffee or literally anything else, thanks to the power of multiple tabs in my web browser. I don't want Lichess turning into a cult of personality, where people on the forum who are popular end up (intentionally or not) silencing the rest with some arbitrary point system. Maintaining the peace and cleaning up the forums should be left up to the moderators, not the tyranny of the masses.

Definitely an inciting post, though, seeing I replied to it, so have an upvote of some sort. ;)

I think a reputation system is not necessary. What we need is a good team of moderators who respond well to reports with acute sense of judgement and developers who find ways and means to confidently pick out those people with unsporting behaviour.

A reputation system is not only easily abused but perpetuates something more insidious - overemphasis on reputation points (as if rating points are not enough). This may result in cases of self-censorship where people are afraid to voice out controversial suggestions for fear of bad reputation. Also, higher rated players are likely to be upvoted more than lower rated ones but that doesn't mean that they have a more superior sporting behaviour.

For those who are unsportsmanlike, they could be dealt faster via reporting or lichess' algorithms (I have just received news that timing out purposely is punishable now: lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/bans-should-be-imposed-for-deliberate-disconnections-from-games?page=2 ). On the other hand, it will take tens to hundreds of games before reputation points take effect.

Purposely timing out has always been against the rules and sanctioned by warnings leading to possible punishment.