Either stop the problem with time wasters or I revoke my donations.

The problem with "threatening" to stop donating is that lichess doesn't actually depend on your donations, at all. *shrug*

If you don't believe me, see the penultimate section here, "How it works": lichess.org/blog/U4skkUQAAEAAhIGz/why-is-lichess-free This discussion is also pertinent: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chesscom-vs-lichessorg-time-to-decide-and-cast-a-vote?page=4

So while I understand your angst -- I have had my time wasted by others on here, too -- in future, I would recommend adopting a less hostile tone; it will get you further. :)

Of greater concern to me is why the "claim victory" button seems never to show, anymore. It used to show right away; then it took a few minutes; now it almost never appears. And no one seems to know why. Cf. lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/bug-if-the-opponent-leaves-the-match

Honestly, let their time run out and just BOOST that ego :D
If you end it off on that win, you'll feel good for a while (as horrible as that sounds).

#7 #9 Lichess moderators assure me that time-wasting jerks are already banned. Putting statistics on a banned player's profile (which isn't visible anyway) wouldn't help anyone. Like I said, I don't think a batter solution exists...

http://xyproblem.info/

#1 #11 Indeed, this experience must be frustrating and at this time the best I can suggest is carrying out the threat. Maybe someday a clone of Lichess with a "corporate" feel and customer service will form, I don't know.

Report abusers. There are automated solutions already at work, but reporting also helps. Most people don't report abusers in general.

@Toadofsky "Lichess moderators assure me that time-wasting jerks are already banned." And yet, here we are. You can't play banned players, at least, not without it being obvious they are banned. So I don't think people are complaining they're being paired with banned players. It's as if the time-waster detection isn't good enough, or that reports take too long and require too many violations to take effect.

You must have somehow completely misunderstood my suggestion if you believe I was suggesting adding some text to a hidden away part of someone's profile. I was fairly explicit about what could happen:

"...you identify these people before the game starts - like with a warning "this player has wasted time in x% of the last y games" or just "this person wastes people's time". Perhaps this message can stop appearing once they've resumed playing properly for a few games."

and

"Make it easier for a player to identify - be told - that a prospective opponent has wasted time recently and allow them to just cancel out of it and pick someone else."

Before you can fix a problem you have to accept a problem exists. Perhaps this is the problem here.

I believe you and I believe the moderators. Here's what I can conclude:

* My comments here hopefully attract a due amount of moderator attention to this topic. I don't know how much is due.
* I can't see what the moderators see, nor do I have interest in becoming a moderator. Even as a patron I see Lichess as an excellent open-source project more than a business with executives and customer service.
* If I develop software with moderator disapproval, my patch will be rejected. What moderators are telling me is that abusers are punished; what you're telling me is that it's common for opponents to abuse their opponents' time. It seems possible that both are true and yet, I'm not eager to develop a patch which is likely to be rejected.

#14,

Just to be clear, I'm taking your side here, not #1's. I would hate to see lichess "go corporate." :C I was merely suggesting (at the same time as #10) that the OP approach this topic in a less confrontational manner. As far as I'm concerned, it's a purely good thing we don't depend on his (or anyone's) donations. (FYI, Royal-Spork in that linked thread was me, on my old SN, with which I only played Stockfish. I like this name better, is why I switched.)

I think we have misunderstood each other in the past, and I am sorry for that. I try to be precise with my language, but it's hard, since English itself is inherently vague. Cf. www.quora.com/What-word-in-the-English-language-has-the-most-meanings That said, the video you linked in that now-closed thread where we first conversed, about simple engines, was fascinating & funny. And I have no desire to argue, as such; when I do so, I am only striving for clarity / trying to understand. You have aided my understanding on more than one occasion, for which I am grateful. Thanks!

Lichess should prevent people from starting a new game when another unfinished game is still in progress.
Prevention > repression.

Hi, I'm new here so forgive me if this has already been suggested before. I agree with Doofenshmirtz on the point about just providing players with the tools to make their own decisions about who they play. I'm less interested in punishing the time wasters--if a group of time wasters want to play against each other on the site it's fine with me.

Again, I have had limited time here, but I feel like there are already two ways of doing this:

(1) Right before the game, and without showing anything more about the other player, just show the completion % and ask for verification to play. This could be a setting (you don't have to verify every time if you haven't been running into this problem much).

(2) Put an optional time limit on each move, or some other setting players can agree to upon playing that limits the amount of time to wait. I have a feeling that people just get upset/frustrated and close the browser, so maybe the timer can be connected to that as well (as it is now) but with an agreed to limit.

How do other sites handle this situation?