Question about on-line go etiquette

[BlindGroup]

I recently started playing on KGS and have had a series of very negative experiences. I don't think that this is unique to KGS, but I think I'm more aware of it on KGS because more people on KGS speak my language.

Its all the normal stuff -- verbal abuse from losing players, losing players letting their time run out, disconnecting, etc. And my two favorite examples:

1. Verbal abuse from an opponent for playing too slowly. Started very early in the game and amazingly continued even after opponent was at a 30-40 point deficit. (Shamefully after the umpteenth instance, I couldn't resist pointing out to my opponent that he might benefit from taking more of his own time to reflect on his moves.)

2. Asked an opponent if he would like to review a game (as I often do) only to be told something like, "Of course YOU want to review the game -- you won!".

I reported the most egregious violators to KGS, and the staff responded surprisingly fast. But of course, admins can only police the most serious instances.

Enough venting. Here is my question -- is this always part of online go? Or does this kind of behavior start to become less common once one advances to say the lower or middle dan levels?

[swannod]

1. Verbal abuse from an opponent for playing too slowly. Started very early in the game and amazingly continued even after opponent was at a 30-40 point deficit. (Shamefully after the umpteenth instance, I couldn't resist pointing out to my opponent that he might benefit from taking more of his own time to reflect on his moves.)

The opponent agreed to the time controls if they don't like the pace of play that's their problem not yours. KGS has the feature to censor players, whenever I encounter someone rude they go on the censor list so I don't get Automatched with them again.

2. Asked an opponent if he would like to review a game (as I often do) only to be told something like, "Of course YOU want to review the game -- you won!".

I believe it's proper etiquette for the loser to request the review?

Enough venting. Here is my question -- is this always part of online go? Or does this kind of behavior start to become less common once one advances to say the lower or middle dan levels?

Bad behavior seems slightly more common in the DDK range. However after a hundred games or so on KGS as an SDK I think can count the really bad experiences on one hand.

[BlindGroup]

I believe it's proper etiquette for the loser to request the review?

Does anyone know the answer to this?

If I'm unintentionally being rude -- that might explain the rude replies! As I see it, I often review my games regardless of the outcome. So, when I have time for a review, I always invite my opponent -- out of both politeness and selfishness. Even if I won, I'm sure that my opponent had ideas that did not occur to me.

And if this is the norm, this seems odd to me -- reviewing your game is generally useful. So, why should there be an asymmetry in who gets to extend the offer? In fact, my initial thought on this was that excluding my opponent from a review would be rude.

Bad behavior seems slightly more common in the DDK range. However after a hundred games or so on KGS as an SDK I think can count the really bad experiences on one hand.

I'm guessing that I've gotten a bad initial draw of opponents. I'm also SDK on KGS (7k), and I'd estimate that about 5-10 percent of my games in the last couple of weeks have gone this way. Glad to hear this is not representative.

[Bill Spight]

2. Asked an opponent if he would like to review a game (as I often do) only to be told something like, "Of course YOU want to review the game -- you won!".

I believe it's proper etiquette for the loser to request the review?

If so, it shouldn't be. It is a good idea to review every game, if time permits. It should not matter who makes the request.

[gowan]

I've noticed that pros always review their games, it's taken for granted. Weaker amateurs may be likely to take losing a game as a blow to the ego and view reviewing it as reviewing the pain as well. Online we often know little about our partners in games. Some might be young people unschooled in proper behavior, and these opponents might be more found in the weaker ranks. As the cliche says, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. The existence of censoring suggests that impoliteness is at least frequent enough to require censoring. If you, as the winner, want to ask for a review, it might make it more appealing to the loser if you say you know you yourself made mistakes and would like to have a look at them to learn from them. Have you noticed anything lacking in greetings before the game and thanks after? Omitting to thank you for the game could be a signal.

[BlindGroup]

Weaker amateurs may be likely to take losing a game as a blow to the ego and view reviewing it as reviewing the pain as well. Online we often know little about our partners in games. Some might be young people unschooled in proper behavior, and these opponents might be more found in the weaker ranks. As the cliche says, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. The existence of censoring suggests that impoliteness is at least frequent enough to require censoring.

If this is in fact a generally followed norm, then I suspect you are right. That said, I'm not sufficiently put off by a negative response to let a sore loser dictate my behavior. Seems more valuable both to me and the general community to make the offer regardless of outcome. That said, if it is a norm, I'll have to adjust the language of my offer to try to assuage any potential offense.

And these:

If you, as the winner, want to ask for a review, it might make it more appealing to the loser if you say you know you yourself made mistakes and would like to have a look at them to learn from them. Have you noticed anything lacking in greetings before the game and thanks after? Omitting to thank you for the game could be a signal.

Are excellent suggestions for doing that. Thanks!

I guess at the end of the day what really worries me about these instances is how children or more sensitive players might react. My skin is fairly thick, but not everyone's is. I worry about people forgoing what could be a good experience for them because of the uncontrolled negative behavior of a few. But these are hardly new or unique concerns when it comes to modern life on the Internet...

[Shoreline]

Weaker amateurs may be likely to take losing a game as a blow to the ego and view reviewing it as reviewing the pain as well. Online we often know little about our partners in games. Some might be young people unschooled in proper behavior, and these opponents might be more found in the weaker ranks. As the cliche says, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. The existence of censoring suggests that impoliteness is at least frequent enough to require censoring.

If this is in fact a generally followed norm, then I suspect you are right. That said, I'm not sufficiently put off by a negative response to let a sore loser dictate my behavior. Seems more valuable both to me and the general community to make the offer regardless of outcome. That said, if it is a norm, I'll have to adjust the language of my offer to try to assuage any potential offense.

And these:

If you, as the winner, want to ask for a review, it might make it more appealing to the loser if you say you know you yourself made mistakes and would like to have a look at them to learn from them. Have you noticed anything lacking in greetings before the game and thanks after? Omitting to thank you for the game could be a signal.

Are excellent suggestions for doing that. Thanks!

I guess at the end of the day what really worries me about these instances is how children or more sensitive players might react. My skin is fairly thick, but not everyone's is. I worry about people forgoing what could be a good experience for them because of the uncontrolled negative behavior of a few. But these are hardly new or unique concerns when it comes to modern life on the Internet...

Negative behavior online is not surprising. I doubt this is going to change any time soon. By the way, I know pro does have this review tradition after game. But for amateurs, game is just a form of entertainment, I doubt that many people have interest in review. I myself do not. I grew up in China and played a lots of games when I was young in China, very few people at amateur level wanted to review game at amateur level.

[BlindGroup]

By the way, I know pro does have this review tradition after game. But for amateurs, game is just a form of entertainment, I doubt that many people have interest in review. I myself do not. I grew up in China and played a lots of games when I was young in China, very few people at amateur level wanted to review game at amateur level.

Thanks for the feedback. While I have had some very positive experiences reviewing games with some opponents, the vast majority turn me down. So, I think you are correct. If you do not mind my asking, why do you dislike reviews?

[Bill Spight]

By the way, I know pro does have this review tradition after game. But for amateurs, game is just a form of entertainment, I doubt that many people have interest in review. I myself do not. I grew up in China and played a lots of games when I was young in China, very few people at amateur level wanted to review game at amateur level.

I learned to play in Japan, and IMX amateurs almost always reviewed their games. That was also the case in Hawai'i. Elsewhere in the US I was surprised to find that Westerners did not usually review. IMO, that is one reason that go in the US remained weak for a long time.

[swannod]

Thanks for the feedback. While I have had some very positive experiences reviewing games with some opponents, the vast majority turn me down. So, I think you are correct. If you do not mind my asking, why do you dislike reviews?

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

[Shoreline]

Thanks for the feedback. While I have had some very positive experiences reviewing games with some opponents, the vast majority turn me down. So, I think you are correct. If you do not mind my asking, why do you dislike reviews?

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

Correct. Same opinion from me. I would love to review with a much stronger play or a teacher level occasionally, on limited schedule. no interest, nor have time to review with a similar level player for most of games. We are too busy to have both in normal life.

This was same in China when I was young. Play and review were two different actions, they did not necessarily go together.

[Shoreline]

By the way, I only played 2 games at IGS. The second player (with japanese flag, I think) with solid 15k real rank lost big to me and escaped a game. Very rude behavior. Luckily,
I waited 5 minutes, and won the game. But it was very bad taste. But, this happens, not too surprising online.

[Pio2001]

It is very rare to have this kind of problem on kgs for me. When it occurs, I immediately add the user on my ignore list.
I nearly always play 25 minute games. maybe it is a bit different with shorter games.

[BlindGroup]

In general if I'm not familiar the opponent or playing over a real board - I'm not interested in reviews between myself and someone who is the same level as myself. No personal connection and too few insights.

Correct. Same opinion from me. I would love to review with a much stronger play or a teacher level occasionally, on limited schedule. no interest, nor have time to review with a similar level player for most of games. We are too busy to have both in normal life.

This was same in China when I was young. Play and review were two different actions, they did not necessarily go together.

Makes sense. At the end of the day, we all do what is most productive for us with the limited amount of time we have!

For the record though, I don't see this sort of review as a substitute for review with a stronger player. I see my own reviews and those with opponents more as study exercises -- what mistakes did I make that even people at my level can see are mistakes: moves that are slow in retrospect, connections that I misread, misplayed attempts to settle/kill a group, misplaying a joseki, etc.. For me, reviewing these kinds of things immediately makes me more likely to remember them the next time they come up. I see the opponent more as a study partner. That said, I have found that at my level, we often have very different skills. So, I have learned valuable things in these reviews.

I guess the other part of it is that I just enjoy the process of reviewing and thinking through the moves.

[sybob]

Sorry to hear you had some bad experiences.
I play on KGS too, and am far from dan level. I hardly encounter bad behaviour.
I suppose it was just bad luck you met those guys (girls?).