Escapers

[Kirby]

I would prefer a request system where you could request to postpone the game. The opponent should consent to it, kind of similar to how the opponent can consent to adding more time.

Good idea! But then your opponent might refuse to postpone and you'd be forced to escape anyway.

...

The opponent should not be obligated to postpone (because you two agreed to the game settings), so if you request to resume later and they deny it, you should continue to play the game you agreed to. If you've committed to some time setting, play it through to the end.

On the topic of weak internet connections, having a small time limit for players to return in the event that their connection dies still eliminates the escaper problem.

[cubesmith]

If you've committed to some time setting, play it through to the end.

but if someone knocks on the door?!
(this happened to me a couple of times, i HATE it!)

stranger: hello sir, would you be interested in... *insert product here*
me: NO! *SLAMS DOOR*
..aaand back to the game

[Kirby]

If you've committed to some time setting, play it through to the end.

but if someone knocks on the door?!
(this happened to me a couple of times, i HATE it!)

stranger: hello sir, would you be interested in... *insert product here*
me: NO! *SLAMS DOOR*
..aaand back to the game

Same as in a go tournament: your clock keeps running. You can answer the door if you'd like. You can ignore it, if you'd like, too.

Though, admittedly, I don't see that many door-do-door salesmen at go tournaments.

[danielm]

If you've committed to some time setting, play it through to the end.

but if someone knocks on the door?!
(this happened to me a couple of times, i HATE it!)

stranger: hello sir, would you be interested in... *insert product here*
me: NO! *SLAMS DOOR*
..aaand back to the game

And what if I want to pause the game, so I can analyse it without running out of time? This reasoning doesn't really work. If you explain the situation, your opponent may believe you and agree to add time or adjourn / pause the game. It would also be nice if running down the clock would not automatically win the game, but only if the opponent claims the win (perhaps giving the option to add extra time instead, or to pause the game).

I would like the system to be one that promotes lenience, but does not allow abuse.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I had someone escape on a free game last night.

[Kirby]

I had someone escape on a free game last night.

Yeah, I don't understand the thought process.

[hyperpape]

I had someone escape on a free game last night.

I think pride and anger are more the issue than trying to game the rating system.

[snorri]

I had someone escape on a free game last night.

I think pride and anger are more the issue than trying to game the rating system.

Excuse me? Are you all mind readers or something? There are many reasons why your opponent may leave that have nothing to do with intention. Kids may be playing and their parents pull them away for dinner. Maybe they are in a library and are getting kicked out. Internet connections do get flaky. People's machines crash. All kinds of stuff happens. And not everyone cares to comment or is capable of writing a message to you in your native language explaining why this is happening beforehand.

[TMark]

My only complaint (more of a whinge, really) is that it takes six months to clear the games from the stored list. 30 days should be more than adequate.

Best wishes.

[Bantari]

While I appreciate the mature attitude and more relaxed way of handling this (after all that is a big part of what sets KGS apart), I also do feel that the current system promotes aggravation too much. Aggravation leads to stress, and that leads to heated tempers.

Generally, you cannot really escape aggravation by measures enforced on you from the outside, I think.
If your temperament is such that you get aggravated by such unimportant things as escapers, if the system deals with escapers to your liking, you will find something else. I think its just a human nature... this is why I always said that to deal with that is to adjust your own attitude.

Some people want to talk and shout and chat - some want silence (i.e. the EGR fiasco)
Some people want to make funny kibitz remarks, some don't want to see it....
Some people want to be able to escape, some want to force them not to (current issue, very minor.)
Some want more rules and regulations, some want less...

Consider the IGS situation: The have a stricter anti-escaper policy in place, from what I recall, but people were getting so aggravated they had to disable public chat! And now a lot of people are unhappy about that.

People will always find something to get angry about when they want to.

How do you make everybody happy? I don't think you can... so the discussion is only about: "how do i push the regulations which make ME happy, that's all I want."

[Kirby]

I had someone escape on a free game last night.

I think pride and anger are more the issue than trying to game the rating system.

Excuse me? Are you all mind readers or something? There are many reasons why your opponent may leave that have nothing to do with intention. Kids may be playing and their parents pull them away for dinner. Maybe they are in a library and are getting kicked out. Internet connections do get flaky. People's machines crash. All kinds of stuff happens. And not everyone cares to comment or is capable of writing a message to you in your native language explaining why this is happening beforehand.

I agree that unexpected events can happen, but I do not feel that this is justification for leaving your opponent hanging without giving closure to the game.

If you must go, you do not have the ability to win the game within the time constraints, so you should lose the game. In such a case, I feel that resignation is appropriate.

[Bantari]

If you must go, you do not have the ability to win the game within the time constraints, so you should lose the game. In such a case, I feel that resignation is appropriate.

I think KGS punishes such events rather severely.
I know - I tried. Was not pretty...
Admins were peeved. Brr...

[topazg]

If you must go, you do not have the ability to win the game within the time constraints, so you should lose the game. In such a case, I feel that resignation is appropriate.

I think KGS punishes such events rather severely.
I know - I tried. Was not pretty...
Admins were peeved. Brr...

QFT

[Kirby]

If you must go, you do not have the ability to win the game within the time constraints, so you should lose the game. In such a case, I feel that resignation is appropriate.

I think KGS punishes such events rather severely.
I know - I tried. Was not pretty...
Admins were peeved. Brr...

True. However, whether or not other people agree with me, I typically try to do what I feel is right.

[danielm]

While I appreciate the mature attitude and more relaxed way of handling this (after all that is a big part of what sets KGS apart), I also do feel that the current system promotes aggravation too much. Aggravation leads to stress, and that leads to heated tempers.

Generally, you cannot really escape aggravation by measures enforced on you from the outside, I think.
If your temperament is such that you get aggravated by such unimportant things as escapers, if the system deals with escapers to your liking, you will find something else. I think its just a human nature... this is why I always said that to deal with that is to adjust your own attitude.

I completely agree with that. Aggravation is part of the game (even more so on the anonymous internets), and cannot be solved by means of rules or mechanisms. What I am saying is that details of the current system actively promote aggravation, making matters worse.

Why does the wording have to be ambiguous? Do you think the current system would work any less well, if the popups would clarify the situation and not insinuate that you are doing something wrong if you close a game where your opponent has quite obviously quit in rage (e.g. right after losing a big group)?

More importantly, can you explain to me the importance of being able to join a different game (or do anything else on the server really), when the opponent you just escaped from is still waiting for you on the board? All the heart-warming stories about computers breaking down or pizzas being delivered simply don't seem to be relevant in this case.

Some people want to talk and shout and chat - some want silence (i.e. the EGR fiasco)
Some people want to make funny kibitz remarks, some don't want to see it....
Some people want to be able to escape, some want to force them not to (current issue, very minor.)
Some want more rules and regulations, some want less...

While I don't disagree, frankly I don't think that those are good examples at all. Anybody should have a choice of how much chatter they want to be exposed to, and in a well developed system I have rarely seen this to be a problem. Judging by the regularity of complaints about the escape system, I would hardly classify that as a "very minor issue", even if that is your subjective evaluation.

I do agree in general with wms' stance on the matter, just not that it should be beyond consideration. The trick is to find ways to improve the system and make even just a few people happier, without upsetting anybody in the process. It's never easy, but also never impossible.

Consider the IGS situation: The have a stricter anti-escaper policy in place, from what I recall, but people were getting so aggravated they had to disable public chat! And now a lot of people are unhappy about that.

As far as I can tell I am not advocating for a stricter anti-escaper policy at all, and the more relaxed philosophy on KGS is why it has become my favourite server. This is not just about philosophy though, KGS scores in many ways by providing a better, less stressful user experience. All I am saying is that a few things are amiss and could (probably should) be improved.

I get the feeling that these discussions have been going on for so long, that some people have turned on auto-pilot, defending their corner of the argument without thinking about whether the system could still be improved without changing its fundamental purpose.

The reason this is so important to me is not that I can't possibly live with the situation as it is, but that I am somewhat obsessed with user interface design, and I don't think that its power to affect user behaviour and emotions is given enough credit here. Just because others don't do it better either, is not ever a reason to stop evolving.