Originally posted by AudioRapture
This is just as likely a scenario as the dreaded "is it right to torture a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb going off in x minutes, killing y people" scenario.
You have to apply a solution that is fairest to the most amount of people on the site, as individual adjustment based on each game are impractical due to volume.
Again, what are the asn't a fair setup under the terms of service, and as such should indeed be null and void.
AudioRapture seems to object to the phrasing of my question
(which I had put in that form for dramatic effect), which I shall
revise as follows:
If you had a clearly winning position against a higher rated player
who suddenly was banned, then would you consider it perfectly fair
and be happy that you would gain no rating points from your game?
In my view, AudioRapture's hyperbole about terrorism and torture
is out of place here. The upsets of much higher rated players are
more common than AudioRapture seems to believe. Indeed,
in an open tournament with many games, one can practically
predict that there will be some upsets of higher rated players.
For example, a friend of mine (who has no FIDE title) defeated
a GM in a slow OTB rated game as part of a team match.
AudioRapture claims that 'individual adjustment based on each
game are impractical due to volume'. I did not assert that RHP
should automatically adjudicate the games of all players who have
been banned. But under the 'Fair Play' ticket system, RHP is ready,
at least in theory, to examine individual games for evidence of
cheating when a player has made the effort to submit such evidence.
Likewise, I would submit that RHP should be ready to examine
the individual games of banned players for evidence of clearly
winning or drawn positions (perhaps my game with Stephane
would not yet qualify as a 'clearly drawn' position) when a player
has made the effort to submit such evidence. When referring
to such 'clearly winning' or 'clearly drawing' positions, I am thinking
of, for example, a position where one player has an overwhelming
material advantage and the other player has no counterplay or of
a position that's a routinely drawn book endgame.
So if a player's ready to make the effort to explain in analysis
why his or her position is clearly winning or clearly drawn, then
RHP should be ready to consider it, just as RHP should be ready
to consider evidence that one's opponent has been cheating.
I suppose that some moderators should be strong enough players
to assess that evidence, if it's really clear enough, without having
to spend too much time on it. If the evidence's not obvious to
the moderators after, say, five or ten minutes, then the player
did not submit a clear enough case for a win or a draw against
the banned opponent.
By the way, in its ratings calculations GameKnot uses the maximum
of a player's ratings at the beginning and the end of games.
Therefore, if a player at GameKnot were to resign (or lose on
time) many games on the same day, then the order of losses
would have a much less significant influence on the opponents'
ratings than what would be the case at RedHotPawn.
AudioRapture writes "this is a 'just for fun' site". Judging by the
tone of his other comments, AudioRapture seems to be implying
that I should not be taking a concept of 'fairness' in ratings seriously
at a 'just for fun' site. Look, if this is a purely 'just for fun' site,
then why should it have any ratings system at all? Why should
not everyone play 'just for fun' without caring at all about ratings?
Given that RedHotPawn has decided to have a ratings system,
however, RHP should attempt to uphold at least a minimal standard
of perceived fairness in ratings. I suppose that's why RHP has
a 'Fair Play' ticket system to report suspected cheating players.
In my view, RHP has fallen short in fairness with regard to how
it treats the incomplete games of banned players.
As far as I can tell, AudioRapture disagrees with me.
On one hand, AudioRapture likes to say that RHP's policy is fair.
On the other hand, by making his comment about a 'just for fun'
site, AudioRapture seems to imply that players should not be
concerned about fairness in ratings because they should be playing
here 'just for fun'. Either fairness in ratings is important or it's
not--you should not be able to have it both ways and switch from
side to side when making your arguments.
I believe that RedHotPawn should improve how it handles the
incomplete games of banned players. I have made what I hope
is a constructive suggestion about how this could be done.
I don't expect perfection at RedHotPawn. I do expect RedHotPawn
to listen with interest to how some improvements could be made.
As far as I can tell, AudioRapture objects to my belief that
something about this issue could be improved at RedHotPawn.
AudioRapture's entitled to his opinion. But I have to say that I
have found his tone rather unpleasant, and I am discinclined to
engage in any further discussion about this with him.