Good Sport/Bad Sport. How I decide.

If you don't know by now in your life what good sportsmanship is, you missed a lesson somewhere along the line.  It's a general attitude, not a specific set of rules. It's realizing it's just a game. It's respecting your opponent and his time.  It's general decent and respectful human behavior in the context of competition. People who are constitutionally ill-equipped for decent behavior are the ones who need to have things spelled out, because the simple general idea escapes them.  Trust me, most people don't have the problem getting what good sportsmanship is that you seem to. 

thats a lot of essays

Good sportsmanship is nothing more than the good old Golden Rule. Treat people how you would like to be treated.  

Yes, I agree there is a general acceptance of what makes for good/bad sportsmanship. Even bad sports are well aware of their behavior. They just don't care. They seek negative attention.

But there are several examples that simply do not fit neatly into the narrative.

1. Rematches. Many players truly believe not giving a rematch displays unsportsmanlike behavior.

2. Flagging. Many players truly believe being flagged displays the same.

3. Mouse slips. Not giving take-backs ... displays the same

4. Failures in communication. These and many more are examples of perceiving someone as a bad sport, yet are purely subjective, and will be deemed justified in marking players negatively.

Besides, the issue is not just bad sports. The feature includes good sports. This can be as easily abused by friends supporting friends. The whole idea is to create separate pairing pools, not really anything to do with enforcing bad behavior policies.

Again, I think it would be easy to identify a habitually vindictive reporter.   It's like the boy that cried wolf.  It's a statistical thing.  We all will probably get reported from time to time. (I don't even know if you know when it happens to you.)  But they are looking for two types, I would think.  Those who get reported a lot and those who report a lot.  I would think both would be checked out.  What they are looking for is people that stand out.  Again, if you just practice being a good guy there is no reason to think you'll be in that 20% of troublemakers, unless of course you are paranoid.  I think that's exactly what they are trying to achieve, enough respect for the rules to prompt decent behavior, even from those for whom it doesn't come naturally, like pushwood. 

Thus far today 3 Million games have been played. Nearly 100,000 on line. Reportedly 29M members. I'm afraid someone is under illusions of how "easy" it would be to identify false outliers and maintain a record of those who abuse (and what makes for abuse anyway?) the feature. The time and resources are impractical.

Then you don't understand how computer statistical analysis works.  These guys can identify cheaters who use chess engines.  They are smart enough to write computer algorithms to analyze behavioral report data.  They are not just eyeballing the results.  It's automated if they are doing it.  

I understand very well how statistical analysis works. The case of cheat detection is far removed from the situation under discussion, which is that of perhaps millions of "reports" being made on a daily basis. The nature of the reports are subjective by nature. Cheat detection is an objective task, undertaken with clearly defined standards.

It does become scary, when a computer program is left with the task of decision making when the only data provided is on the most part subjective.

Nobody said it is 100% subjective, not even close. Take the time to read some examples as, rematches, flagging, take-backs ... examples of subjective values that many players truly believe is a marker for judging sportsmanship. Not to mention all the times players honestly feel they lost to a program and finish by clicking on thumbs down.

Besides, there already exists the monitoring of disconnects. After the game, a pop-up appears that the opponent has been warned ... same for letting time run out. Making a ticket is not necessary, the site already knows. Clicking on bad sport is unnecessary as the site already is aware of the behavior. Players are often convinced they lost to a program. How many of the bad sport reports are due to perception and rage, rather than any actual breach of etiquette ?

Well, in the grand scheme of my life I actually have real concerns. So I'm checking out of this conversation. Cheers. 

Well, checking out of your thread is understandable. The reasoning employed here is faulty indeed. Players feel justified in their use of the feature for many reasons,  none of which are abusive in nature. You are suggesting "bad sports" be called out? Named and shamed? Members marked with thumbs down totals? The OP gave reasons for voting one way or another. Many of them are simply guesses regarding the opponent. Maybe this, maybe that happened therefor he'll vote up here and down there. Then it becomes expected an algorithm will keep track and sort out the millions of games played every day, making judgements of valid reports vs rage ones.

Frankly, the OP makes insinuation that disagreeing with his all out support of the feature means but one thing- opponents are "afraid" of being labeled. He concludes they must be included in the same breath as those that intentionally abuse the system, as they also are acting abusively. Could this not be construed as being unsportsmanlike, making these assertions? He flat out stated disagreeing with the sites policies leaves members open for retribution by staff. He says get unfairly labeled? -just create another account. No big deal.  I'm afraid the OP is just very young, quite confused in his thoughts.

In theory, it's a great idea. Questions are raised regarding it's use. It's far from being the same as thumbs up/down in social media, where you like or dislike a tweet. The idea of labeling and then categorizing players based on data, data that is often subjective can be a troublesome idea. Especially if membership is not made aware of how it is being used and the criteria remains hidden.

Anyway the OP is right .. it's time to check out. Our opinions have been expressed, perhaps overly so. It's a polarizing topic.