I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There is probably no totally satisfactory answer. To you, it's important to punish jerks who deliberately ruin games by escaping and if some people get marked as escapers through no fault of their own then that's unfortunate collateral damage. To me, a game ruined by a shonky connection is worse because a game played by two good-faith players is more valuable than a game between a good-faith player and a jerk. And making it worse by stigmatizing people as "escapers" for having bad connections is not really fair; IMO it's better to let the jerk get away* with it than to punish the innocent. But that's just my opinion and I certainly see that other opinions are as valid as mine.

*haha

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

You could also look at it this way: the effect of escapers is limited to how much emotional investment you have in the outcome of the game. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about escapers. Or, as you said:

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Of course, there could be a special "chronic game dropper" character just like there's a tilde for people who play twice as many games against stronger players than against weaker players.

Then, if you have a strong emotional response against people dropping the game, you could avoid those players. Then it's neutral. They're not "escapers" as much as "people who, for whatever variety of reasons, sure drop a lot of games".

_________________
Central Mississippi Go Club
http://www.cmgo.org

I like this. This is a sensible idea.

Alright. I see your point.

At a stretch I can use an analogy of "verbal abuse vs physical abuse". The former is merely saying mean things, and the actual harm is caused by your emotional investment in it. The latter is taking actual physical control over your body to cause you pain. THe former depends entirely on an emotional reaction - while the latter is harmful no matter the circumstance.

Here, we have verbal abuse (i.e. rudeness) and escapism. The first one consists of someone saying mean things to hurt you - but, the actual harm is dependent on your emotional response. However, the other one is actually blocking you from your enjoyment of KGS. One is subjective; the other is not. One can be fixed on a personal level; the other can not.

And, as I have said, playing games is the primary function of a go server. So, if one is blocked from playing games, the go server no longer performs its function. It is useless. Automatically, then, anything which inhibits this function is more "severe" (for lack of a better word) than anything else.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? By turning my arguments back on me, you are implying that both issues are equal and interchangeable - I am showing you that they are not. But I know what you are saying,

Was this worth it? I highly doubt it. It really is a trivial issue, and I should really stop caring about it.

There is no character, but "chronic escaper" exists in the server. It requires being the first person to leave an unfinished game somewhere between 13 and 20 times (depending on circumstances). Once you get it all games you leave are immediately resigned. There's no need for a character for it, because the opponent will simply see a resignation window if their opponent leaves.

@ Annihilist - I do see your point - I just disagree with it. I've also given the exact same advise to people who have been the subject of verbal abuse that you give: it's in your power to not let it get to you. Unfortunately, some people can't find that power, and being verbally abused is for them a terrible experience. I think you are dismissing this possibility. At the same time, you are exaggerating the severity of the thing that gets under your skin. By even comparing being escaped on to physical abuse, you are blowing it way out of proportion. It doesn't block you from playing games - it just prevents you from finishing that one game, and in no way prevents the server from functioning.

I also think you are dismissing the possibility that if a server does nothing to protect its users against verbal abuse, it might also do harm to the server. I am a Kaya fan, and as you probably know, they have a simple system that effectively prevents escapers. To combat the problem of verbal abuse, they have a muzzle system. Unfortunately, since the server is young, there have been times when too few people are online to muzzle an offensive jerk, and more than once, I've found myself wishing for things that many dislike about kgs: a restrictive TOS and a ban-hammer wielding admin. If Kaya were to become a place where haters could freely spew their vile, I'm sure it would wither away and die.

You continue to claim that the one problem other people have is subjective and the problem you have is objective. I don't see it that way. Both are real problems, and a server has to find a balance to assure that it's members prefer to play there rather than elsewhere. KGS, its makers and operators, have come up with a system that addresses the concerns of people being verbally abused, people with bad connections and people being escaped on, and objectively, they don't seem to be on the brink of disaster. You may feel that their escaper policy is inadequate, but if your argument is that other people's concerns can easily be dismissed, then I don't think it should come as a surprise when others say the same about yours.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Yeah, I'll concede you make more sense than me here.