Warnings for not resigning

So today I have played a few blitz games, most notably 2+1, which is a fast time control anyway...

I came to positions at the end of the game where I could not find a good move, but I didn't just want to resign - I wanted to spend my time looking in case I found something.

In both situations, I ended up losing on time - I just couldn't find a move quick enough, and I didn't want to just make a bad move...if that makes sense.

I received warnings both times.

I understand that if a player is flagrantly doing this (ie comes to a losing position and constantly allows time to run out)...but in a way, my situation today was similar to that - except I was being honest.

I was honestly spending my time trying to find a move.

Can the system chill a bit on this warning? It is kind of aggravating, especially if you are trying to find good moves, to read that you may be temp banned all because you took extra time trying to find a saving plan?

They are just automatic, so take it with a grain of salt. They aren't trying to comment on your game. It's just an automatic deterrence; the warnings are super common. If you get banned then you really have a reason to bring out the pitch forks.

@BirdBrainf4

There is going to be a grey area here where:

1. People, for logical and legitimate reasons, may feel as though it still isn't set strictly enough.

2. People, for logical and legitimate reasons, may feel as though it's set too strictly.

This is a very good indication of the parameters being set right in the middle of the Goldilocks zone.

Assuming that everything that you've said is accurate, this is probably the first post that I've seen that formulates a legitimate argument towards the latter; therefore, ironically, you've actually provided logical evidence that I would use in order to argue that the line should not be moved any further and that it's probably just about perfect exactly where it is.

On the other hand, if nobody on your side of the position ever posted in the forums, then I would raise that lack of feedback as evidence that the parameter could probably be relaxed at least a little bit.

"If everyone complains that the water is too cold, and nobody complains that it's too hot, then maybe we would add some hot water; however, if some people complain that it's too hot and others complain that it's too cold, then it's a good guess that the vast majority might find the temperature to be just about right." - Functional Logic

In an optimal world, programming a functional algorithm would be an easy 'one size fits all'.

But this issue is extremely dynamic depending on the rating bracket, depending on the time controls, and depending on the instance and type of misuse.

I imagine that if I shed 400 points, I would experience x10 the amount of nearly non-existent clock-runners that I do now.

I'm confident that if the same amount of clock-runners that I experience at a +2000 standard rating bracket were pervasive through every time control and every other rating bracket, that we wouldn't even have a need for the warning, because it's simply so rare.

The amount of clock-runners that I experience at the +2000 standard time control could easily be attributed to babies crying, household emergencies, forgotten-then-remembered appointments, irritable bowel syndrome, etc.

At the end of the day, if we're arguing an algorithm that is set at 'xx% of the time should earn a warning', and we're saying that 'xx% +/-2% of the time' or 'xx% +/-3% of the time' would be a better parameter to set, then ultimately we're talking about a judgment call that perfectly competent people have already looked at and adjudicated.

Given the amount of complaints on both sides of that algorithm, I'm sure that they've also visited and revisited, adjusted and readjusted those parameters, and I assure you that it's something that is being handled in a "best possible" variation.

I am not a mod, they might have their own answer for you, but I hope that this perception helps highlight the scope of the issue. One thing is for certain, they've never proven themselves to be sloppy, and we can probably rest assured that they're doing the best that they can.

No one ever won on time by resigning