I think your argument, Bantari, is that "getting bent out of shape over a silly game on a silly game server" is not worth bothering about.

It seems to me that it would be more convincing if you gave a reason why. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with you, but since we are talking about the logical structure of your argument, I think that this is the core of the issue.

_________________
be immersed

Sure.
There are two reasons, really.

1) The one already implied - There are so many so much more important and serious things to worry about and to get bent out of shape because of. I will not say much about it, this is not the right place, but I guess we all know this to be true.

2) Futility. Let me elaborate:

As long as there were servers, there were issues. Some servers handle escapers 'badly', so people worry about that. Other have people talking too much, so people worry about that (KGS and the EGR fiasco.) Others are too quiet (like the IGS) and people complain about that... and so on... There will *always* be something to nitpick, and something to get bent out of shape about. And the moment one issue gets solved, another will appear or get into the forefront of attention.

Why? Because we are all different, and there is no pleasing us all at the same time. A developer has to pick some middle-ground to sort-of placate the worst problems, but this is usually done at the expense of other things. So I repeat again - there will always be things to complain about.

So, in practice, you have two choices:
1) Let it bother you, bitch about it, and be generally unhappy, or
2) Find it in yourself to raise above such pettiness and enjoy what you are given a little more.

Also, the specific issue of escapers is especially unimportant, I think. Because it is rooted in a particular moment and very fleeting. Tomorrow you'll laught about it, the next day you forget it altogether. A player escaping rather than admiting defeat will have absolutely no impact on your development as a Go player, not now, not ever.

The only way escaping can impact you is - if you let it!
And then it will impact you negatively, make you get angry, spend your energies on complaining and moaning and groaning and being generally unhappy. Instead - I find it much more productive to shrug it off and just play another game.

These are my reasons.

However - I do agree that there is always the impulse to get upset about such things. It is human. But so is escaping itself. It is up to us to give in to such weaknesses or not. Escapers give in. The rest of us should not.

That's all.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone who has gone through something horrible. However, the point of reductio ad absurdum is to get to something absurd. Seeing your response, I see that I succeeded here.



Also, please don't flame.

I've also edited my earlier post so that it no one will suppose it to be a real quote.

Hi,

Serenity prayer:
God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things that I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.

(This ain't a religious post, just meant as a piece of wisdom.)

In this context, a changed version would be more appropriate which distinguishes between things which are worth the effort to change them and things which are not worth the effort. Now you need the wisdom to know the difference.

Cheers

hackinger

Well, thanks.
Why not do it right to begin with?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi,

since we are being funny here:

Reductio ad absurdum does NOT translate to absurd reasoning!

EDIT: somebody expressed it even in latin

Cheers

hackinger

Redundant: reductio ad absurdum is not the same as reductio absurda.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

If I remember correctly, you got quite involved in a thread on GoDiscussion discussing the quoting style of Robert Jasiek.

But this cannot be compared, I guess.

_________________
Stay out of my territory! (W. White, aka Heisenberg)

My Latin is as good as my Klingon (that is, nonexistent), so I'll guess that what you're saying is that my response was too absurd to be relevant, so let me give a straightforward account of what I was trying to say:

What I tried to do was to show that apathy is not a solution to problems. Apathy does nothing to fix the issue. One may decide the problem too small to be worried about, which in the case of escapers is a totally valid response, but one must not conflate apathy as a response with apathy as a solution.

Any system with flaws is worth bothering about.

But the issue here is that many people assume the KGS escaper policy is flawed, while others do not. And this is where Redundant's reductio ad absurdum falls down, his argument assumes the policy is flawed. But if its not flawed, then it can't be compared in the same way, and we should learn to live with it, as Bantari suggests.

KGS escaper system, as far as I understand, is by design. And so, by design, it is not flawed. It may still have its pros and cons, but its still by design.

Other server systems are designed differently and have their own set of pros and cons.

And learning to live within the current design parameters, is not the same as being apathetic.

I'd like to think that there's at least one possible other reason why the KGS system was designed the way it is, and that is that it also allows the ability to adjourn games and continue them later, even to the point of playing like a turn-based server. I kinda like having that option, even if I don't use it.

There may even be more unspoken reasons for the current design.

Could the current design be improved? Perhaps. Does it need to be? Maybe, maybe not. Its just different. Its not like IGS (and maybe that's another reason for its current design).

I think this thread is getting out of hand. It was another rant against the escaper system at KGS, which wms has stated over and over that he doesn't want to change.

Any serious proposals should be started in another thread?

Anyone else, please calm down before posting.

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

Maybe that design is antiquated by now. People have stable internet connections nowadays, even in asia. Most unfinished games will be escapes. So maybe the design became flawed over time, the trade-off becoming bad.

If the escaper system was opt-out (i.e. per game setting for escape handling), escaping would die out very quickly, and the last four people on earth with a modem would lose 2 more games a year.

And regarding adjourning games that's a completely separate matter, which could remain regardless of escaper handling.

But we all know KGS is for kibitzing, so game results don't matter anyway.

First, thank you for disagreeing with my by attacking my argument's premises and inferences.

I concede the point that my argument assumes the system is flawed. This is a debate in and of itself. However, I don't think Bantari was arguing that those who think the system is fine need to learn to live with it. He was responding to those who don't like the current system, by telling them to stop caring.


Neat side note: I actually think the KGS system is not deeply flawed, only somewhat sup-optimal. I dove into this mostly because I don't like the idea that one should give up on trying to fix a system they feel is broken.

PS: KITTEN

I have no opinion on which way to deal with the escaper problem, however it does seem there's a minor fix which would help with the specific situation SpongeBob had: don't let escapers start a new game for <insert some time period here> while their old game is still open.

Nice! We go from escapers to Rwanda to tortured Latin to religion to Robert Jasiek to Klingons and then to kittens.

Works for me.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

All roads lead to Robert Jasiek. You should have seen that coming

I am with Bantari here: I don't let it bother myself.

Apart from that: Playing on IGS is fine, too. Why bother with KGS if you don't like the escaper rules.

That's not very good for me. I NEVER escape, but I have had as many as 7 or 8 italic games at a time, often within the same week. This is because when I get the time, I play a good number of games within a one week span, and the EGR seems to be filled with 4k-8k escapers.

This is the reason I am primarily playing Automatch games lately. I have found far fewer escapers doing that.

The escaper policy issue is an interesting issue, even if it is a bit over-discussed. As with many issues it seems to evoke a strong emotional response from many of the participants. While this is one of those issues where there is nothing new under the sun, I for some reason feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents (after all, it's a slow day at work...). Based on what's been said here and what I have seen stated other places, I may end up making assumptions and guesses as to the meaning of the posts of others, so I apologize in advance if I put words in anyone's mouth, or do not accurately describe someone else's intent.

When looking at how one wants an escaper system to operate, there obviously must be some core values and assumptions. I think it's differences in these values and assumptions that lead people to disagree on this subject*. For the KGS escaper system, I would reckon the main tenants are something like this (note: I number them for reference sake, not for any sort of priority)-

(1) The system should be completely objective and automated: There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, having an individual or individuals regularly changing the results of rated games allows too much room for mistake, abuse, and outside criticism, and this is an option best not explored. Also the sheer volume of work this task would require to implement, monitor, and quality control, puts out outside the range of practicality.

(2) The vast majority of all actions taken by players on the server are made in good faith: If you are to approach a situation on the server with no background knowledge of the people involved, all other things being equal you should assume whatever they have done their aim was to play an enjoyable game of go. I include this first of all because from my experience in KGS this is true; most people are there to have fun and play go. Further, this type of person would presumably be the target audience of a go server such as KGS (the aim of the server first and foremost being somewhere to play and watch go), so one would imagine designing the system for one's target audience.

(3) When possible, the implementation of the system should minimize negative impacts on other aspects of the server: The first thing that comes to mind here is the rating system. The goal of a rating system is to accurately estimate the probability of a given player winning should they play a game against another. When looking at potential systems you will want to choose one that will not negatively impact this estimate.

(4) The system should minimize the effort required on the part of the user to obtain the desired effect: The more work one must do in order to make a system operate, the less likely that system will operate efficiently or properly. Likewise, the more work the average user must do in order for a system to work, the more they are inconvenienced by the addition of that system.


When looking at these criteria, I would say the KGS system works quite well. The 1st is fairly easy to achieve and in fact most suggested alternate systems use it. The 4th is quite straightforward as well, and just about goes hand-in-hand with (1) as automated systems generally require little user input. I believe it's that 4th point that Bantari was referring to with the KGS system in that as an average user, in order for the system to work, the best thing to do is simply continue playing games and let it work. The system is designed to work without additional effort from the user, and operates quite smoothly when it is allowed to work things out on its own. There are a number of behavior patterns I have always found quite puzzling in watching how people deal with escapers, some of which are even listed in this thread, for example: Keeping a list of known escapers in your profile, looking at others profiles in advance to see if they are an escaper, and announcing to chat rooms that users are escapers. All of these behaviors work toward minimizing the number of games played with escapers, yet that is the exact condition under which the KGS system will not work. If all escapers play (and escape) a large number of games, the net result is that all escapers resign the games as soon as they leave (an outcome generally stated as desirable by critics of the KGS system), yet all of these behaviors listed work toward actively decreasing the likelihood of that outcome. If instead players put no effort into "combating" escapers, the system would work as designed and all would be well.


There is a common counterargument here stating that regular escapers will simply make new accounts, and continue escaping-- thus never resigning their escaped games. This however fits perfectly in line with points 2, 3, and 4. By constantly creating new accounts, the escapers will have difficulty creating a solid rank, therefore any effect their games may have possibly had on the ranking system will be minimized. Furthermore, requiring the constant generation of new accounts means that a much larger effort is required on those who wish to fall outside of KGS's target audience (those acting in good faith), while the effect on those who simply have connection problems (and are still acting in good faith) is minimized. Likewise, the tendency of this system is to exclude data points where the appropriate outcome was unclear, again reducing any bias introduced into the rating system.

I have a feeling it is points (2) & (3) are where most people differ in their opinions compared to KGS. At some point you have to just agree to disagree. Hm, that got a little longer winded than I expected, oh well.... Wms or Bantari if I've misstated or misinterpreted something either of you was saying (or what I've seen said in the past), feel free to correct me.

*I really think the main disagreement had to do more with emotional involvement, and the desire to have an extra win tallied up in a profile, rather than a rational disagreement over values.


[edited for grammar]

It's interesting that I guessed the conclusion of your post before I read it.

I'm just kidding, though. I agree that a lot of the debate may be due to emotional aspects.

_________________
be immersed