Proposed solution to the escapers problem...

[xed_over]

If you want to play without the stress of distractions, houses catching on fire, or misclicks... Then, simply play a free game.

Humm... I can never play another rated game now, because my house might catch on fire.

[Kirby]

Yep, that's the policy that I am arguing against. Feel free to argue against time settings on games, if you'd like.

Well can you tell me what your argument is?

My argument is that it does not seem fair for someone to be able to leave a ranked game without resigning, and without getting consent from their opponent. The opponent took the time to start a game with them, and they both agreed to time settings, rules, etc., and simply leaving because you feel like it, to me, seems to be a way to avoid getting a loss counted for a lost game.

I have had people escape for me before. Despite this, I do not believe that I have ever received credit for a forfeit.

I feel that, since both players are required to agree upon time settings, rules, and so on when setting up a game, both players should be required to agree upon postponing a game.

[Kirby]

If you want to play without the stress of distractions, houses catching on fire, or misclicks... Then, simply play a free game.

Humm... I can never play another rated game now, because my house might catch on fire.

You can play a rated game, but if your house catches on fire, I don't think that it justifies escaping. You should resign the game and give your opponent the win, IMO. That's because it is your house, and you are the one that is backing out of the game that you agreed to.

Of course, if there were an option for a mutually agreed-upon postponement of the game, you could request with your opponent that you resume the game later, once you have put the flames out.

[Javaness2]

If you want to play without the stress of distractions, houses catching on fire, or misclicks... Then, simply play a free game.

Humm... I can never play another rated game now, because my house might catch on fire.

You can play a rated game, but if your house catches on fire, I don't think that it justifies escaping. You should resign the game and give your opponent the win, IMO. That's because it is your house, and you are the one that is backing out of the game that you agreed to.

Of course, if there were an option for a mutually agreed-upon postponement of the game, you could request with your opponent that you resume the game later, once you have put the flames out.

What if it is your opponent who started the fire, would the rule still apply?

[judicata]

You can play a rated game, but if your house catches on fire, I don't think that it justifies escaping. You should resign the game and give your opponent the win, IMO. That's because it is your house, and you are the one that is backing out of the game that you agreed to.

Of course, if there were an option for a mutually agreed-upon postponement of the game, you could request with your opponent that you resume the game later, once you have put the flames out.

Admirable consistence on your part, Kirby. But if my house is on fire, I am either (a) grabbing my laptop and getting the heck out (or putting the fire out) or (b) just leaving my computer. With (b), I might lose on time but, more likely, I'll disconnect when my router fries.

I honestly respect your position, and find it interesting. You fundamentally disagree with a concept of agreements and contracts: i.e., that breaking (or breaching) implied promises, or the occurrence of certain external forces ("force majeure") can excuse fully performing the agreement. I disagree with you on this point, but do so respectfully.

[Kirby]

What if it is your opponent who started the fire, would the rule still apply?

If your opponent started the fire, or if he didn't, you can still continue the game if you please. If either party wishes to end the game, they can do so, but it should cost them the game result.

If they are setting your house on fire, you might want to contact your local law enforcement.

[Kirby]

...
I honestly respect your position, and find it interesting. You fundamentally disagree with a concept of agreements and contracts: i.e., that breaking (or breaching) implied promises, or the occurrence of certain external forces ("force majeure") can excuse fully performing the agreement. I disagree with you on this point, but do so respectfully.

Thanks. I would like to clarify, though, that the breaking of implied promises, or certain external forces can lead to someone to not perform the agreement, and may be excusable. However, I feel that such a breech should come at the cost of the game.

When the game cannot be finished, somebody is punished. I think that this punishment should be directed toward the source of the interruption.

Also, again, I am in favor of a mutually-agreed upon postponement of a game.

---

To look at it another way, I don't see how this is different than the "undo" option. Maybe you have a laptop that doesn't let you place the stones in the correct spot all of the time. Maybe you misclicked. You want to undo.

But KGS forces you to request an undo, because it isn't fair to force it onto the opponent.

In go, there is the implied contract that, when you play a move, that is the move you have played. You cannot take it back.

We have made an exception with the "undo" feature on KGS because of misclick issues, but we also say that this is something that must be agreed upon by both opponents. Why make this distinction for "undo", but not for escapers? Why do we allow escapers freely without allowing undo freely?

Imagine if you did not have to request an "undo". You could argue, "well, I misclick a lot, and should not be forced to keep a move played that was a misclick". We know what would happen - a sequence goes poorly, and some player will undo until he's back to an even position. It just doesn't make sense to do this, because in go, when you make a move, that is your move. You cannot take it back.

In the same way, I think that when you agree to a game, you should see it through. You should not escape.

[Kirby]

...

Admirable consistence on your part, Kirby. But if my house is on fire, I am either (a) grabbing my laptop and getting the heck out (or putting the fire out) or (b) just leaving my computer. With (b), I might lose on time but, more likely, I'll disconnect when my router fries.

...

Sure. I would, too. I simply think that, in such a scenario, I should also lose the game (unless I am able to contact my opponent and request to resume later).

[danielm]

I honestly respect your position, and find it interesting. You fundamentally disagree with a concept of agreements and contracts: i.e., that breaking (or breaching) implied promises, or the occurrence of certain external forces ("force majeure") can excuse fully performing the agreement. I disagree with you on this point, but do so respectfully.

This is a straw man, Kirby does no such thing.

First of all, "force majeure" of course doesn't apply in the vast majority of the cases. To quote Wikipedia:

Force majeure (French for "superior force"), also known as cas fortuit (French) or casus fortuitus (Latin),[1] is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, or an event described by the legal term "act of God" (such as flooding, earthquake, or volcanic eruption), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract.[2]
However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (for example, predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

However, even if it does, there are two further problems with your conjecture:

1) Even in such cases, the burdon of proof would be on the party that fails to deliver. Allowing anybody to just claim annulment due to external forces would put any contract system ad absurdum.

2) If you don't deliver a service that was paid for for whatever reason, you still owe the other party. If a betting or sports company fails to pay out winnings, what they owe their customers is not the entry fee, but the winnings.

When you start a game on KGS, your opponent commits to granting you a win if he loses. If you leave the game when you are about to lose, you still owe your opponent that win.

If you leave the game when it is far from being decided (and not because you got into a disadvantage), the situation is admittedly more complex. But few people have a problem with that in the first place.


Now, there is no reason to be 100% correct and pedantic about playing casual games of go on the internet with random strangers. But from a purely legal point of view, I would say that Kirby is more correct than most others. It becomes quite clear when you pretend that we would be playing games for money.

The only reason the lax escaper policy works, is that we decided that we just don't care about the possible abuse. Which is quite fair enough, but let's be clear about it to avoid talking in circles.

[karaklis]

I understand Kirby very much. If you start a rated game within specific time constraints, both players agree that after a certain time the game ends, and that it has influence on both players' ranks. That is the condition that you want to play the game. Now the escaper violates this agreement when he recognizes that he has lost the game. The one being escaped has all the right to feel deceived.

Escaping is not that rare as some people here seem to suggest. I would estimate that every 6th to 8th user has a list of escapers in their profile. I suppose that a single-digit percentage of games is a case of escapism. In contrast to that all the cases of force majeure are so rare that they should be neglected.

KGS says that it punishes escapers after they have escaped (maybe) 10 times, which in most cases will never happen, since they simply create a new account after 9 escapes. So in practice there is no punishment.

For those who don't care much about rank and being escaped, they should feel fine as well, if the win is awarded to the one being escaped, if the escaper doesn't return within a few minutes. They should feel fine with any escaper rule.

[judicata]

This is a straw man, Kirby does no such thing.

First of all, "force majeure" of course doesn't apply in the vast majority of the cases. To quote Wikipedia:

Woohoo! This could be a fun debate. I don't have time to respond now, but I will. But first, while I'm analogizing to contract principles, this is by no means a debate within the context of a legal system. Burden of proof has no bearing. And, of course force majeure doesn't apply in most cases--out of the hundreds (thousands?) of games played on KGS each day, I suspect far fewer than 1% are abandoned due to external and unforeseen (or unforeseeable) circumstances beyond one's control.

To be clear, I wasn't trying to set up a straw man, and I do not think Kirby is crazy (I was sincere when I said I respect his position).

Finally, the Restatement might be a better source than Wikipedia .

[hyperpape]

KGS says that it punishes escapers after they have escaped (maybe) 10 times, which in most cases will never happen, since they simply create a new account after 9 escapes. So in practice there is no punishment.

No punishment aside from constantly creating new accounts?

[hyperpape]

Again, disconnections can be handled by providing a short time limit for users to return. This still eliminates escapers, and also aids people that are playing with poor connections (if such people still exist these days). (emphasis added)

This is a bit stubborn--you've talked to such people on these very boards!

[oren]

KGS says that it punishes escapers after they have escaped (maybe) 10 times, which in most cases will never happen, since they simply create a new account after 9 escapes. So in practice there is no punishment.

They will still escape and create new accounts even if the system gives you the victory. The benefit to your rank will still be nil.

[judicata]

What is the point of all this arguing?
If arguments could change wms mind on this matter, do you not think that would have happened long ago?

The solution to the "escaper problem" is easy. If you don't like the KGS way of doing things, then don't play there!

Even accepting your premise as true, some of this is either interesting or entertaining for some people. If you don't mind me borrowing your admonishment: If you don't like the discussion in this thread, don't read it .

EDIT: I know I sound like a broken record (unless you're too young to know what that means), but I just want to reiterate that I don't see a significant escaper problem, and I play serious ranked games on automatch quite frequently. I just find some of the good-spirited debate fascinating. If it starts becoming personal, I'll duck out.