The KGS is dead, long live the KGS ?

[Fenring]

Its a good thing, when you create a challenge, and you have to choose between two weaker players, i can give a preference to the guy who play a "minimum" against weaker player too, and so create a virtuous circle.

[BlindGroup]

Its a good thing, when you create a challenge, and you have to choose between two weaker players, i can give a preference to the guy who play a "minimum" against weaker player too, and so create a virtuous circle.

That's the beauty of the idea of turning it around in my opinion. If KGS had a special distinction for people how played at least X percent of their games against weaker players, then the negative stigma would be gone, but you could still privilege players that make a point of giving games to weaker players. Same incentives, but avoids the human reaction against being "punished".

[schawipp]

Instead of letting the server decide, how about letting the user decide? [...]

Yeah, why not implement a "customer feedback system" after each game, which would be definitely an innovative idea for Go servers, as especially the comments after crushing defeats will be an entertaining add-on and attract new users...

[Kirby]

Its a good thing, when you create a challenge, and you have to choose between two weaker players, i can give a preference to the guy who play a "minimum" against weaker player too, and so create a virtuous circle.

The idea of having a hero mark is similar; you can give preference to the guys who go out of their way to help weaker players.

Maybe the difference is, you don't want to play against the guy that didn't play *any* weaker players. I don't think these guys should be called out, because I don't feel they are doing anything wrong.

[Fenring]

But from a server point of view, playing too much with weakers is as bad than not play enough. So its a nosense to invert the mark.
play ranked and help, its not the same.

[Kirby]

But from a server point of view, playing too much with weakers is as bad than not play enough. So its a nosense to invert the mark.
play ranked and help, its not the same.

Hmm, I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding your viewpoint. Perhaps it's best to just accept that some people like the current ~ behavior, whereas some people do not

[Fenring]

Yes, the ~ do something wrong: he destabilize supply and demand market.
Cause of his behavior, it becomes harder for all to find a game against stronger player, he cant feel the impact, because if the benefit go to only one person,the consequences are divided among all other players.

Its like a waiting list:if you overtake 30 people.
You have big benefit, when the 30 other lose only one place.
With the ~ its the same: i take the benefit, small impact on others,so its OK.
But its not, its a vicious circle you have to stop.

The perfect behavior is 33% vs stronger,33% vs weaker.
No sense to give a hero mark to someone far from this.
Ans its a bit strange to give symbolic distinction to people and let the egoistic minority take all the practical benefit.

[ez4u]

Yes, the ~ do something wrong: he destabilize supply and demand market.
Cause of his behavior, it becomes harder for all to find a game against stronger player, he cant feel the impact, because if the benefit go to only one person,the consequences are divided among all other players.

Its like a waiting list:if you overtake 30 people.
You have big benefit, when the 30 other lose only one place.
With the ~ its the same: i take the benefit, small impact on others,so its OK.
But its not, its a vicious circle you have to stop.

The perfect behavior is 33% vs stronger,33% vs weaker.
No sense to give a hero mark to someone far from this.
Ans its a bit strange to give symbolic distinction to people and let the egoistic minority take all the practical benefit.

You seem to assume that everyone other than the ~ people seek to play a balanced blend of opponents. Thus in your version of the server there are no heroes. I think we do not actually know. But personally I tend to believe that there are all sorts of people around, including both those who want to play most of their games against stronger opponents and those who want to play most of their games against weaker opponents. Hence I do not see this balance that will be disrupted by the ~ more than by the teachers. As always though, YMMV.

[Mef]

If memory serves from back around when it was implemented, the idea behind the tilde was something like this:

- Many in the community had requested a way to know if their potential opponent only played stronger players
- wms wanted a way to encourage people to play players with a ? rating

Hence the tilde was borne out of a compromise.

Once it was in place, the fact that many with tildes did not like the tilde seemed to suggest that it was effective in discouraging an unwanted behavior and encouraging a wanted behavior. Those who were apathetic about the tilde could remain apathetic.

[Fenring]

The Teacher help with pedago and friendly games,not ranked.
When i say egoist/bad thing,its from the ranked games system point of view.
No moral judgement, the ~ can be a teacher.

[Solomon]

Yes, the ~ do something wrong: he destabilize supply and demand market.
Cause of his behavior, it becomes harder for all to find a game against stronger player, he cant feel the impact, because if the benefit go to only one person,the consequences are divided among all other players.

Its like a waiting list:if you overtake 30 people.
You have big benefit, when the 30 other lose only one place.
With the ~ its the same: i take the benefit, small impact on others,so its OK.
But its not, its a vicious circle you have to stop.

You're not considering players like myself who like to play stronger bots of which there are plenty to go around. I take White in a lot of my games on KGS against humans, but because I had a streak playing only against a stronger KGS bot, I got a "~", so how exactly am I destabilizing supply and demand market? This is not an outlier case. Analysis of handi games from KGS Gosquares on my KGS account below:

[Kirby]

Once it was in place, the fact that many with tildes did not like the tilde seemed to suggest that it was effective in discouraging an unwanted behavior and encouraging a wanted behavior. Those who were apathetic about the tilde could remain apathetic.

You make a leap here that overlooks a different perspective:
1.) The idea that playing only stronger players is "unwanted behavior" is debatable. I personally encourage others to seek out stronger players, and don't see anything wrong with a player that wants to play only stronger opponents in an effort to challenge himself. In my experience, ~ players are actually often stronger than their counterparts of the same rank.
2.) It's not uncommon for players getting ~ to play weaker bots to get rid of it. This does nothing to promote so called "wanted behavior".

Look, I get it: in theory, if everyone plays many games against both weaker and stronger players, we have a community where people play many games.

But in practice , the ~ just gives stronger players another reason to decline game challenges.

The server can try to impose its own opponent philosophy on the go community, but this thread is evidence that the viewpoint is by no means universally agreed upon.

[Fenring]

...

I dont know what is with H and against H, it mean handicap game where you are black and handicap where you are white?
Anyway, you have to understand than play of majority of your games against a bot, its not expected behavior on go server as you can play bot offline.
So the problem will normally soon disappear,if you play less ranked games against bot.

You make a leap here that overlooks a different perspective:
1.) The idea that playing only stronger players is "unwanted behavior" is debatable. I personally encourage others to seek out stronger players, and don't see anything wrong with a player that wants to play only stronger opponents in an effort to challenge himself. In my experience, ~ players are actually often stronger than their counterparts of the same rank.
2.) It's not uncommon for players getting ~ to play weaker bots to get rid of it. This does nothing to promote so called "wanted behavior".

Look, I get it: in theory, if everyone plays many games against both weaker and stronger players, we have a community where people play many games.

But in practice , the ~ just gives stronger players another reason to decline game challenges.

The server can try to impose its own opponent philosophy on the go community, but this thread is evidence that the viewpoint is by no means universally agreed upon.

I think you totally wrong.
1) play ranked only against stronger players is in fact good in your self-interest. But its in fact not a wanted behavior from the server's interest,because if a non-negligible part of players do this. It become harder for other who have classic behavior to find a game against stronger people. So, it become harder to find a game for all.

for the 2) ,yes the ~ is not perfect.
but "the ~ just gives stronger players another reason to decline game challenges" is just a Trump's fact. Because in reality the stronger player will always have challenge from no ~ weaker player,so its not even a question.
And for player like me its a reason to accept challenges from weaker as i have the insurance to contribute to a virtuous circle,so its too a reason to accept challenges.


I see too someone say "player who like play against weakers compensate ~behavior", the answer is no, you just have to check in challenge list, if you answer ton one challenge of a stronger then a weaker,then a stronger,etc,you will be in majority cases against a weaker player.

In conclusion, the ~ systems is not perfect, but he work well: in others server the challenge list is less efficient(many deny),so you have to use the automatch,and ofc the automatch do a policy much more restricting than ~ system.

[Kirby]

Fenring, I can see neither of us will change our minds about this, which is more reason for the server not to dictate a particular philosophy. Since we are somewhat repeating ourselves now, you can re-read the comments I already left if you are interested in understanding my viewpoint.

Anyway, I'll just comment on the one point:

But its in fact not a wanted behavior from the server's interest,because if a non-negligible part of players do this. It become harder for other who have classic behavior to find a game against stronger people. So, it become harder to find a game for all.

For every game where a weak player plays a stronger player, it's also a game where a stronger player is playing a weaker player. It is not possible for everyone to only play stronger players - just some players that either play weaker more often or stronger more often.

The only way this ever loses a problem to the server is if it results in fewer games being played, for example, because there are no stronger players to play for a given player. In this case, that strong player is free to play a game with a weaker player.

But what has happened, in effect, as a result of the tilde, is another reason for players to decline games.

Anyway, you clearly do not agree, which is fine. But I personally don't like the feature since it puts a stigma on behavior that I don't find to be bad.

[Kirby]

For what it's worth, here's the argument I see FOR having the tilde.

Let's say I'm 1d on KGS, and I'm in the mood to play a weaker player - say a 2k player. Let's also say that I'm the only 1d player online at the moment. There are two 2k players that are interested in challenging me. One is solid 2k, and one is 2k~.

The argument for having the tilde says that, as the stronger player, I should be aware that one of these players doesn't play weaker players that often. I should account for this in my decision of who to play. This argument only makes sense if playing weaker opponents makes a given player more deserving of getting a game against a stronger opponent.

Therefore, I think a person's viewpoint on the tilde discussion hinges on how they personally feel about the question: "Does playing weaker opponents give you more right to play games against stronger opponents?"

I personally don't think that there's a universal consensus on the answer to this question.