My opponent in a game I played not too long ago held the clock down, it was one of the old one's. So I have to ask:

1. Is it worth to complain for small offences ?
2. Is it worth to commit small offences ?

In my opinion, the answers to these questions are the pessimistic ones, 1.No and 2.Yes (at least in the short term). Therefore someone has to search a solution.

IMO again, the only possible solution is to apply incremental punishments, on a game and why not, on a tournament basis, or even on a longer period of time.

Translated into chess, the first time my opponent commits a small offence he should be punished with a 10' decrement (with 1' left on the clock as a limit, which can be changed by an increment to the opponent), but the 2nd time it can be 20' without limit for losing the game, etc.

Of course the concrete method should be perfected but my ideal concept is the incremental punishment (and incremental benefits, only on a game basis).

Is that applicable to chess? Probably not, because keeping a record of offences needs some software which not all tournaments could afford, but why not in tournaments like Chess Olympiads or national Championships?

This reminds me of the time Nigel Short offered to shake a player's hand and the player refused. Nigel kicked up a fuss about rules being broken and the player who refused was deemed to lose that game.

Moral of the story is this. It is up to the player affected to scream bloody murder over the rules being broken. The DOP should then have wide discretion to take appropriate action.

ages ago I refused to shake a guys hand due to all the scabs and blotches on his arms, I was afraid of contagious diseases - is that refusal allowed in the rule book on medical grounds?

Girls attract boys.

more girls playing chess = many more boys playing chess