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

[hyperpape]

And what do you mean by the rules of go? viewtopic.php?p=139756#p139756

I can understand why someone would prefer an absolute system, but it just seems like you're inventing "agreements" and "rules" as a way of ignoring the reality that what we're doing is trying to create a system that best satisfies a wide range of preferences and senses of etiquette that vary among players.

Citing your earlier post isn't really effective if it just begs the question.

[billywoods]

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

If I choose to play a half-hour game, and have a 15-second connectivity blip, I should have 29 minutes and 45 seconds left. What actually happens is that my opponent is allowed to leave the game and refuse to resume it, and should they choose to do so, they get a free win as a bonus prize. Doesn't that seem bizarre to you? You say that rules and etiquette are two different things, but i don't understand the distinction - shouldn't specific club / server / tournament rules exist (and change as necessary) precisely to uphold good etiquette, stop unfair play, and prevent people from ruining everyone else's fun? If not, what are rules even for?

[Javaness2]

If not, what are rules even for?

trolling on forumswith?

[Tami]

If I choose to play a half-hour game, and have a 15-second connectivity blip, I should have 29 minutes and 45 seconds left. What actually happens is that my opponent is allowed to leave the game and refuse to resume it, and should they choose to do so, they get a free win as a bonus prize. Doesn't that seem bizarre to you? You say that rules and etiquette are two different things, but i don't understand the distinction - shouldn't specific club / server / tournament rules exist (and change as necessary) precisely to uphold good etiquette, stop unfair play, and prevent people from ruining everyone else's fun? If not, what are rules even for?

That should be easy to sort out. If you get disconnected and come back, and offer to resume, and your oppo declines to resume, then the game remains adjourned without penalty. If you get disconnected or disconnect deliberately, and you refuse offers to resume, then you get penalised.

I guess that, whatever system you create, it will be open to some kind of abuse. It`s very sad, though, that go players cheat. It is a shame When I started playing go, I imagined it was a game in which honour and mutual respect were the highest priorities, but sadly the reality of it, at least online, is different.

Possibly it is not the taking away of the odd game that hurts so much, as being confronted with the reality that some go players cheat.

I think Javaness2`s arguments earlier are all good defences for the KGS policy, and I had not previously thought of them all. However, it`s also nice to know Nova has a different approach. That means choice, and it`s easier then to like both servers on their own terms.

The same goes with other bones of contention. KGS does have good arguments and some weak ones for its policies, and the same will apply to other servers, but the more choice, the happier we all will be.

[leichtloeslich]

This thread reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Gb4lJeXqI

(Ivan Cheparinov refuses handshake during 2008 Corus chess tournament)

Oh, the drama!

[billywoods]

Oh, the drama!

On the one hand, it is ridiculously overdramatised. Cultural norms, and their associated faux pas, often are. On the other hand, did that guy really just refuse to shake someone's hand? That has never happened to me. How childish do you have to be to refuse to acknowledge your opponent's existence? How arrogant do you have to be to forget that you're still just a person interacting with another person?

[Kirby]

...

Citing your earlier post isn't really effective if it just begs the question.

Rephrasing what I've already said is not effective, either. I think that post #55 pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter. People don't usually agree with me anyway, and it's just a waste of time if I post a bunch saying the same thing in 15 different ways when nobody is going to really be affected by what I say anyway.

To rephrase one more time, since I'm posting already, the purpose of the ranking system is to discretely capture the probability of someone winning the game at a given handicap. As there are a number of influences that effect this, they should also be captured in that probability. If this means your rank drops because you have a poor connection, it has an accurate effect on the probability. If you're someone that has a flaky connection, you will have a lower probability of winning against other people in a given time period since your connection always drops. Therefore, your rank should go down.

To say that escaping should not be accounted for in this type of situation abuses the entire concept of time settings. Further, from personal experience, I don't recall a time I've ever had a connection problem. And I don't remember a time that I've ever lost because of an opponent playing "rudely". But I can remember escapers. So from my personal set of data points, this solution is superior to the others that have been presented.

This is not a matter of my personal preference. It is a conclusion obtained by looking at what has happened in my actual games, interpreting the meaning of time settings, and what it even means for something to be a ranked game.

You speak as if I am arguing based on my own values. But I sincerely do not see this to be the case. I feel wholeheartedly that this position is more logical than the alternatives that have been presented.

---

That being said, I'm just rephrasing what I've already said on the matter. So I think it was much more concise to simply refer to what I said earlier, because it encapsulates the way I feel in as simple of a way as I know how to communicate.

So, again, to avoid repeating myself, I will leave this discussion as it is. Perhaps some people disagree with me. I do not understand why. But there is not much value in reiterating the same argument over and over again.

[wineandgolover]

This thread is amazing. Like watching a car-crash.

[jts]

Citing your earlier post isn't really effective if it just begs the question.

People don't usually agree with me anyway, and it's just a waste of time if I post a bunch saying the same thing in 15 different ways when nobody is going to really be affected by what I say anyway.

The idea actually isn't to repeat the same thing, but to change it - make explicit connections that were implicit, remove ambiguities and replace them with claims that can only be taken one way, replace arguments that other people think are dubious with new arguments that dispose of their objections.

To rephrase one more time, since I'm posting already, the purpose of the ranking system is to discretely capture the probability of someone winning the game at a given handicap.

I agree with you!

As there are a number of influences that effect this, they should also be captured in that probability.

This sounds good, but I'm already curious - how could an influence that affects whether you win a game not be captured by a ranking system that discretely captures the probability of winning a game? How could the ranking system be smart enough to break down tesuji, endgame, reading, and ignore some of these influences?

If this means your rank drops because you have a poor connection, it has an accurate effect on the probability.

Aha. Here we see the problem. You've started by stating something about how a ranking system works: then you've assumed that you can lose a game by having a bad connection, and drawn the (valid) conclusion that the ranking system should reflect that loss, and finally concluded that the ranking system cannot reflect this influence properly unless the people subject to it are awarded losses.

We can try a similar argument: If your rank drops because you have an offensive odor, this has an accurate effect on the probability. You will lose games when you are disqualified for poor hygiene. Your rank should go down to reflect this. Therefore, the AGA needs to disqualify people who smell bad so that their rank accurately reflects the games they've lost. (Do you see how the argument "works"? Do you understand that whether or not we want to award DQs for hygiene has nothing to do with the formal definition of a ranking system?)

To say that escaping should not be accounted for in this type of situation abuses the entire concept of time settings.

quod erat something something

Further, from personal experience, I don't recall a time I've ever had a connection problem. And I don't remember a time that I've ever lost because of an opponent playing "rudely". But I can remember escapers. So from my personal set of data points, this solution is superior to the others that have been presented.

This is not a matter of my personal preference. It is a conclusion obtained by looking at what has happened in my actual games, interpreting the meaning of time settings, and what it even means for something to be a ranked game... You speak as if I am arguing based on my own values. But I sincerely do not see this to be the case.

You seem to vacillate a little bit about how much your own standpoint matters here. You understand that you are having a gut reaction based on your experience on both sides of connection issues, escaping, and so on. But you want to insist that even if the gut reaction is based on your personal experience, it's not a personal preference.

Would it be easier for you to think about this if we said there are two levels, a more general level of principles and a more specific level of practical cost-benefit analysis? You can imagine this for a political issue like, say, bridge construction. A group of citizens might have a high-level discussions about the goals of urban transportation policy, the role of various levels of government, and how to balance transportation priorities against the municipality's other projects. But even if you hash out those arguments and agree on some general principles, your views on how those principles apply to a specific bridge-demolition project are going to be hugely biased by your own life - do you drive, do you bike, are you mostly a pedestrian, do you live in the city or commute into/around it, etc.

The best way to keep a clear mind in such discussions would be to be clear about whether you are arguing about principles or simply stating which way your gut is leading you and, if the latter, try to be as clear as possible about what empirical assumptions your gut is leading you to make, so that other people have a chance to change your mind. If you are very clear that you just have a gut feeling that escapers should be taken out back and shot, no one will argue with you (and no one will care very much). People object to your opinions because you often make heart-felt, interesting points that are vitiated by a smidgen of obscure thinking and so on. They hope that the objections will either help you formulate a stronger case, or else help you see the other side of the question.

I feel wholeheartedly that this position is more logical than the alternatives that have been presented.

I hope you understand why I feel that your argument derived from a general analysis of the ranking system is circular (i.e., question-begging, illogical). I don't think you are lying or trying to confuse us: you often post as though you've been accused of dissembling. Nothing could be further from any of our minds. If we criticize, this is purely because we think you are an earnest and intelligent proponent of a view whose advantages we would like to learn more about.