What are we going to do? Nova or Kaya or what?

[oren]

So basically, you are saying that people who complain about escapers don't give a hoot about lack of respect that shows to them and to the game - all they care is the rating points, right? As long as they are awarded a win, all behavior is acceptable?

No, I'm simply saying many think it should be simple and that when time runs out, the person has lost. In an ideal world I have no problem with that, but many people can take advantage of it.

There's no easy answer here which is why I always enjoy the discussion even if it repeats a lot.

[billywoods]

Well, then you will suffer a loss. So?

You read the rest of my post, and the context I wrote it in, right? Please don't just respond to one sentence in isolation. It might have nothing to do with what I actually think.

But fine, I'll bite: even if wins and losses mattered to me (but they don't), and even if absolutely the correct thing to do in the case of the abandonment of a game was to assign wins and losses (but I don't care and I think it misses the point), your wife going into hospital is not exactly the real-life equivalent of a 15-second blip in your internet connection. A far better analogy would be something like standing up unannounced in a tournament to get a drink of water, and returning to find that your opponent has got bored / got angry / decided to celebrate their default win, and gone home.

[Kirby]

For the sake of argument, you're playing a 30s byoyomi game and meet a player who refuses to end the game and plays inside his own territory and your territory for a while. What do you do?

Personally, I think it's fine to 'escape' in this case. Should I get a loss? It sounds like you think so. Would I take a loss, yes. I don't want to waste time I could be playing a good game.

Of course you should get a loss if you escape. You agreed to play the game with those settings, and the "skill level" of your opponent's moves should have no bearing on whether or not they are OK to play.

Escaping, on the other hand, reneges upon the agreement you put forth when you started the game.

[Kirby]

...
I don't like SpongeBob's solution, because abandoned games can skew the ranking system, intentionally or not. Of course, the counterargument that not counting abandoned games will skew the system is also true, which makes me think that the ideal solution is to remove serial disconnecters from the ranking system. Beyond that, I think that most of the people who get angry about escapers now will also be angry about them if they are awarded a win, though I may be wrong about this.

Abandoning games can be avoided by mutual agreement in SpongeBob's solution. If agreement is not reached, and someone still escapes, it is the same as if someone hits the "resign" button prematurely. When this rule is in place, escaping without mutual agreement is identical to hitting the resign button. So if you want to get rid of "serial disconnectors", you should get rid of "premature resigners", too.

FWIW, I don't think this scews the ranking system - the rank reflects the probability that someone will win a game that they agree to play. If they escape without mutual agreement, they did not win the game.

[Kirby]

Perhaps, but SpongeBob's solution is the best solution

Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!

[oren]

Of course you should get a loss if you escape. You agreed to play the game with those settings, and the "skill level" of your opponent's moves should have no bearing on whether or not they are OK to play.

Escaping, on the other hand, reneges upon the agreement you put forth when you started the game.

Heh, ok, I'm an escaper in your world. I just hope you never meet someone who fills in all the territory.

[Kirby]

The only argument I've *ever* heard against it

What about the (very simple) argument that someone's internet connection might go down for 5 minutes? My connection once failed for something like 15 seconds, and when I came back online, my opponent had left - and I probably suffered a loss for that.
...

First of all, connection problems are pretty rare these days compared to what they used to be, but let's ignore that fact for now.

When you sign up for a game, you are agreeing to play the game under those settings. By not finishing the game, you are not keeping your part of the agreement. Yes, you might have a connection problem. But that is something you should consider when signing up to play a game.

You can think of analogous arguments:
* My mouse is kind of flaky, so I sometimes play in the wrong spot. I should get to undo my move when my hardware fails.
* My mom called during the tournament I was playing in, and she distracted me. I shouldn't have to finish my tournament game.
* I forgot to eat my Wheaties this morning, so I'm not thinking well. I should be able to stop playing this game without losing.

When you sign up to play a game, you should be responsible for the things that might happen when you choose to play that game. If you have a flaky internet connection, play games with greater time settings - or get a better internet connection.

Why should your opponent suffer because of your technical problems?

[Kirby]

...

Heh, ok, I'm an escaper in your world. I just hope you never meet someone who fills in all the territory.

I'm fine if you're an escaper, but you should lose the games you escape from. FWIW, I have played people like this.

[Kirby]

There are cases where it seems perfectly fair not to continue the game, some examples
1. Your opponent threatens to kill your children
2. Your opponent refuses to allow an obvious misclick such as 1-1 point on move 3
3. You discover that your opponent is sandbagger
4. Some domestic incident requires your immediate attention
5. Your opponent is playing every single legal move possible purely in order to tick you off
If you meet any of those in a real life game, you would obviously be within your rights not to continue the game, and it is no different on the internet. The instigator 1,2,3 & 5 are unlikely to agree to an adjournment. I doubt escaping has that much effect on people's rating, nor do I believe people should be psychologically damaged by it.

Sure, you can leave those games. But you should get a loss for it. These issues are unrelated to the rules of the game of go. They are personal issues that are irrelevant to the win/loss state of the game.

Leaving the game, on the other hand, indicates your decision to discontinue playing the game thereby giving up your efforts to win the game, and should be treated as such.

[Kirby]

As some of these arguments are similar, perhaps my position can be summarized as follows:

• There exist situations where it is not "morally incorrect" to leave a game (eg. connection problems, threats from the opponent, etc.).
• In spite of these situations, you have agreed to play a game under the given settings, and leaving the game for any reason (including the above) reneges on your previous agreement.

So while you might still be a "nice person" when you escape under these circumstances, you did not hold up to the agreement that you would play the game to completion and should be given a loss.

Addendum: Arguments about this skewing the ranking system don't hold, because the ranking system can be skewed at any time by resigning prematurely or by playing poorly, for example.

• The ranking system is simply a reflection of the probability that given people will win under given settings.
• Premature resignation, escaping, connection problems and the like all affect this probability, and should be included in the ranking score.

P.S. I've been trying to hold off on unproductive arguments, so I'll try not to keep feeding this discussion since I think my positions are stated clearly in this post (that, and the fact that we've discussed this time and time again).

That being said, I feel strongly that this position is the most rational that I've encountered after debating this topic many times.

[Bantari]

Well, then you will suffer a loss. So?

You read the rest of my post, and the context I wrote it in, right? Please don't just respond to one sentence in isolation. It might have nothing to do with what I actually think.

Yes I did, and I agree with that. This is why I did not comment. I feel the same way - if I *was* bothered by escapers, it would be not because of ratings but because of pretty much the reasons you give.

The sentence I did comment upon was directed not at you personally, but at the sentence itself - I heard it many times, in all kinds of context. People saying 'omg, my connection is bad and i cannot get back online, or my power went off, i just cannot be forced to lose because of that, its so unfair'... and stuff like that. I just disagree with this general idea.

But fine, I'll bite: even if wins and losses mattered to me (but they don't), and even if absolutely the correct thing to do in the case of the abandonment of a game was to assign wins and losses (but I don't care and I think it misses the point), your wife going into hospital is not exactly the real-life equivalent of a 15-second blip in your internet connection. A far better analogy would be something like standing up unannounced in a tournament to get a drink of water, and returning to find that your opponent has got bored / got angry / decided to celebrate their default win, and gone home.

We are *not* talking here about '15 sec blip'. We are talking about giving a 5 min grace period. So real-world analog would be if, in the middle of the game, you went for a nice chines dinner with some friends while your opponent is sitting there waiting for you to move. Or something along these lines. The on-line idea is to give a grace period, we can discuss exact length (5 min, 10 min, whatever) after which you lose the game.

There will still be people unjustly losing games because of bad connections, but there is no perfect solution. I think that if we *must* change the way KGS (or whatever) is handling escapers so people finally stop whining about it - this is a pretty good idea. And I hope the bad-connection people will be less whiny than the current small but persistent group of anti-escapers.

And, like you, personally escapers do not bother me much. Unlike the whining.

[hyperpape]

For the sake of argument, you're playing a 30s byoyomi game and meet a player who refuses to end the game and plays inside his own territory and your territory for a while. What do you do?

Personally, I think it's fine to 'escape' in this case. Should I get a loss? It sounds like you think so. Would I take a loss, yes. I don't want to waste time I could be playing a good game.

Of course you should get a loss if you escape. You agreed to play the game with those settings, and the "skill level" of your opponent's moves should have no bearing on whether or not they are OK to play.

Escaping, on the other hand, reneges upon the agreement you put forth when you started the game.

I read this, and I think you're ignoring all kinds of bad behavior, as if escaping is the one and only issue that matters.

Look, I get why people are mad at escaping, and I can see why you might think cases like this are not worth abandoning a general rule, but this person is abusing the rules. In real life, anyone would be ashamed to act like this, and if they did, they'd get a talking to from the people at the club.

And you know what, if someone who knows better pulls this crap at the club, no one is gonna call it a win when their opponent stands up. There's no agreement to ignore bad behavior.

Edit: mildly toned down the first line of my response.

[hyperpape]

you did not hold up to the agreement that you would play the game to completion and should be given a loss.

What agreement? I can understand why you think Tygem has such an agreement, but why does KGS have one?

[Kirby]

you did not hold up to the agreement that you would play the game to completion and should be given a loss.

What agreement? I can understand why you think Tygem has such an agreement, but why does KGS have one?

I don't think Tygem has such an agreement. Tygem does not have the ideal escaper policy.

[Kirby]

...

Look, I get why people are mad at escaping, and I can see why you might think cases like this are not worth abandoning a general rule, but this person is abusing the rules. In real life, anyone would be ashamed to act like this, and if they did, they'd get a talking to from the people at the club.
...

Rather than repeating the same argument again and again, I will just refer to post #55, again. I think the distinction between "good/bad behavior" and "wins/losses determined according to rules" is important. The former should not have an effect on the latter.

Note: In the case of KGS, the "rules" are that escaping is allowed. So any escaper policy, by definition meets this. But I think the ideal ruleset should be matching with the rules of playing a game of go. Real world situations should not effect this.