@casualr:
I totally agree. The possibility of giving likes/dislikes would be a good thing to support the motivation of fairplay.
Best wishes
Nada
@Nadastar #112: But then there must be something that stop trolls.
Like people making lots of accounts and downvoting.
And some people (Like me) Don't show empathy Whilst Flagging someone. This can also lead to lots of downvotes.
@DaanNoordenbos:
Thats a good point. I know chess-sides with like/dislike possibility and if you gave someone a dislike he will dislike you as well (for revenge, even if he has really deserved it) and so people tend to give likes most of the time and only dislike people if its really worth to get a dislike as well.
The result of this is that some players have many dislikes and you can filter that you - for example - only want to play against those with not more than 50% dislikes. I made good experiences with this possibility I have to admit.
Best wishes
Nada
But this won't solve the problem in tournaments
#115 has a great point, and cheating is far more prevelant in tournaments where you're still forced to play everyone. So while I definitely support the idea of some kind of reputation system, the main problem is tournaments. And the current best solution is to report players you are pretty certain are cheating after analyzing many games.
I still say the best solution for tournament cheaters is to restrict the larger tournament entry to players with a low variance in that variant (less than +/- 80 maybe? 100? I don't know what the best would be). It would limit players to those who have plenty of games under their belt and if they've been in the hourly tournaments cheating their way through to secure a rating, they'll likely be flagged before the daily or weekly or whatever starts.
Also, Nada, for someone who has said at least 6 or 7 times now that you're just going to stop talking you sure do post a lot. And yes, I am very aggressive, at least I'm forward about that rather than hiding my aggression beneath a mask of passivity.
That said, I'm sorry that you are oh so offended by my remarks, because if you read them carefully nothing you have said in response is even justifiable. I have stated clearly that I don't support cheating, and I don't disagree that discussion of how to limit cheating isn't important. What I do disagree with is having this same topic come up week in and week out, and that topic devolving into a "see, these people are cheating" thread. We need to discuss the root causes of the problem and find solutions. Pointing out games of cheaters (even those who have already been flagged as cheaters) to the masses is not the best solution. The best solution is to cut off the ability of cheaters to impact the site. Everyone will eventually play a game with a cheater, this is true on every chess site on the internet. It's when that game matters for titles, ranks, etc. that it is truly more than an annoyance and where the focus needs to be in this thread I think. So rather than whining about how no one wants to talk about cheating, or pointing out how people cheat, maybe start working on solutions? Otherwise you just come off as whiny and entitled.
Imagine how low life a tournament cheater can be.
Probably they are minion's from
chess.com or other sites.
@Fenris1066:
I never said that I will "just stop talking".
Its easy to say that "the best solution is to cut off the ability of cheaters to impact the site". Thats in my opinion no solution, thats an ideal solution based on a never-never land.
What I did is giving concrete advice. You are free to state that this is not the best solution (which is probably true) but at least you have to offer a good reason for this statement and a plausible way to make it better and not just a washy rhetorical phrase.
Hope that was active-aggressive enought for you this time. ;-)
Best wishes
Nada