Proposed solution to the escapers problem...

[Kirby]

...

So basically, what you are arguing about is this:
Lets go into all the trouble of changing the system, writing new specs, re-training the admins, re-training the users, maybe making other folks unhappy, and so on - because theoretically it will be 'more perfect' TO YOU, while at the same time YOU YOURSELF admit that practical difference will be next to none.

Well, I believe that discussion will lead to an agreement that the system would be more perfect to others beside myself, if we were to change it such that escapers were eliminated. That's why I am trying to express my view on it.

I think that this is not something unique to this discussion, but discussions in general. If I feel that something is not as it should be, I present my reasoning, and why I believe that this is the case.

If I were not to present any reasoning for why I felt a particular way... Well, that's when there should be concern. That would mean that I am simply holding on to a viewpoint, without any rationale.

...
It seems we both agree that practically it would not make much difference.
...

I agree that escapers do not affect my rank adversely. I am simply saying that there exists, in my mind, a better implementation. Of course, it may never be implemented that way.

I am also a software developer. When I'm at work, I will argue with people if I feel that their algorithm is slower than what it could be. In some cases, the practical difference between their algorithm, and the proposed change is next to nothing. But I still feel it is worth arguing about, because the goal is to make the system as good as possible.

I'm not a KGS developer, so I have no say in how the software is implemented. But on a public forum, I feel that I can still express my viewpoint.

...
So, personally, here is what I think is actually happening:
You are angry when people escape. You cannot find it within yourself to deal with it emotionally.
So you try to force the system to deal with it for you. Right? Honestly...

And all this talk about ratings and systems and whatnot - its just an excuse and smoke screen. No offense - but this is how you come through.
Just my opinion...

You are entitled to your opinion. I know from previous discussions that you like to "dis" on people about caring about rank.

Anyway, it is true that I am angry when people escape. I do not think that it is fair.

To be perfectly clear about the matter, though, it doesn't happen to me super often. I have been making an effort to play a game a day every day (Monday through Friday) for the last several weeks. In about a month's time, I have had only one escaper. It was still frustrating to me when he escaped, but I do not feel that it affected my rank much.

But this doesn't keep me from feeling that the system could be improved with better handling of escapers.

Think of it this way: If KGS, on occasion, didn't remove captured stones from the board, it'd be annoying. Stones should be removed when they have no liberties, so if this didn't happen, it would seem weird, and a bit wrong. If that happened only once a month, it'd still be a little annoying.

That's pretty much how I feel about escaping. I think that escapers are kind of like a bug in the system. They don't affect my rank much, but the system could be improved to eliminate them.

[Kirby]

Let me just say that I completely agree with you Kirby, but I don't want to expend the effort to argue for something that I don't feel will be changed and I am not overly passionate about. That said, I'm glad people like you are pressing the issue, as the system can be done a lot better than it is now and I would like to see it changed.

Hehe. This discussion is probably due to the fact that I had a lot of free time during the last two weeks.

I'm sure I should have been more productive with my time... That's why I don't improve much at go, I guess.

[Bantari]

...

So basically, what you are arguing about is this:
Lets go into all the trouble of changing the system, writing new specs, re-training the admins, re-training the users, maybe making other folks unhappy, and so on - because theoretically it will be 'more perfect' TO YOU, while at the same time YOU YOURSELF admit that practical difference will be next to none.

Well, I believe that discussion will lead to an agreement that the system would be more perfect to others beside myself, if we were to change it such that escapers were eliminated. That's why I am trying to express my view on it.

I think that this is not something unique to this discussion, but discussions in general. If I feel that something is not as it should be, I present my reasoning, and why I believe that this is the case.

If I were not to present any reasoning for why I felt a particular way... Well, that's when there should be concern. That would mean that I am simply holding on to a viewpoint, without any rationale.

...
It seems we both agree that practically it would not make much difference.
...

I agree that escapers do not affect my rank adversely. I am simply saying that there exists, in my mind, a better implementation. Of course, it may never be implemented that way.

I am also a software developer. When I'm at work, I will argue with people if I feel that their algorithm is slower than what it could be. In some cases, the practical difference between their algorithm, and the proposed change is next to nothing. But I still feel it is worth arguing about, because the goal is to make the system as good as possible.

I'm not a KGS developer, so I have no say in how the software is implemented. But on a public forum, I feel that I can still express my viewpoint.

...
So, personally, here is what I think is actually happening:
You are angry when people escape. You cannot find it within yourself to deal with it emotionally.
So you try to force the system to deal with it for you. Right? Honestly...

And all this talk about ratings and systems and whatnot - its just an excuse and smoke screen. No offense - but this is how you come through.
Just my opinion...

You are entitled to your opinion. I know from previous discussions that you like to "dis" on people about caring about rank.

Anyway, it is true that I am angry when people escape. I do not think that it is fair.

To be perfectly clear about the matter, though, it doesn't happen to me super often. I have been making an effort to play a game a day every day (Monday through Friday) for the last several weeks. In about a month's time, I have had only one escaper. It was still frustrating to me when he escaped, but I do not feel that it affected my rank much.

But this doesn't keep me from feeling that the system could be improved with better handling of escapers.

Think of it this way: If KGS, on occasion, didn't remove captured stones from the board, it'd be annoying. Stones should be removed when they have no liberties, so if this didn't happen, it would seem weird, and a bit wrong. If that happened only once a month, it'd still be a little annoying.

That's pretty much how I feel about escaping. I think that escapers are kind of like a bug in the system. They don't affect my rank much, but the system could be improved to eliminate them.

Well... what you say is fair.
We both have an opinion... and I can understand your anger.
I have been where you are long time ago, and i have found that, really, the only way was to adjust my own attitude. Being a crusader and stomping ones feet is satisfactory in the short run, but ultimately it leads to a serious disease - beatingthedeadhodseitis! The disease is caused by approaching the issues from a perspective which is overly emotional, even if the emotions are understandable, even justified.

The way I look at it is thusly:
Each system designed by people will be broken by people. They will implement different escaper handling on KGS, but people will still escape, and it will still make you angry. You think now that this anger will get less when you see them immediately losing a game... or maybe you think this will stop them. Well, guess what - it will do neither! And so you will stay frustrated.

Overall, I think that the KGS has a good, flexible, and lenient approach. It assumes players are mature and balanced in majority, and the few jerks who thinks its ok to mess up are looked upon with pity and slight amusement. Alas, the bell-curve of human behavior is what it is - and there will always be those who mess up and those who get angry.

I tried to help, but I think I am falling for the abovementioned disease myself.
No hard feelings, I hope.

[Kirby]

They will implement different escaper handling on KGS, but people will still escape, and it will still make you angry.

Is it not the case that escapers will be eliminated with the proposed system? If people do not return within the allotted time limit, they lose. There is no longer a need for the term, "escaper".

...
Well... what you say is fair.
We both have an opinion... and I can understand your anger.
I have been where you are long time ago, and i have found that, really, the only way was to adjust my own attitude. Being a crusader and stomping ones feet is satisfactory in the short run, but ultimately it leads to a serious disease - beatingthedeadhodseitis! The disease is caused by approaching the issues from a perspective which is overly emotional, even if the emotions are understandable, even justified.

What harm does it do to discuss what I feel is a better implementation on the forum? The only real harm I can see is that I am not spending my time in a more productive manner. For example, I'm not studying go, which would probably have a better long-term effect.

But provided that I will not spend my time in a better way, anyway, what is wrong with discussing what I feel is right?

[Bantari]

Is it not the case that escapers will be eliminated with the proposed system? If people do not return within the allotted time limit, they lose. There is no longer a need for the term, "escaper".

Well, they will still escape, and you will still be upset.
Trust me... I often play on a server which has exactly the implementation to talk about - and people still escape, and I still have to watch my emotions.

What harm does it do to discuss what I feel is a better implementation on the forum? The only real harm I can see is that I am not spending my time in a more productive manner. For example, I'm not studying go, which would probably have a better long-term effect.

But provided that I will not spend my time in a better way, anyway, what is wrong with discussing what I feel is right?

No wrong at all.
But... how many times you can say the same thing?
We all understand how you feel and what you suggest.
Some agree, some don't. Some (like me) just don't care and think it is not important.
At this point - I think everybody who reads that pretty much has their mind made up, and that's that.

Do you really think that you have any more to add above what you already said? I don't really mind your initial contribution, even if i disagreed, but I see when people object or suggest different things, you just basically keep repeating the same thing in different permutations. Not very constructive, if you ask me. As I said - I understand how you feel and why you feel the way you do. I might even agree with you that what you suggest is a better system. But I do not agree that it will make much difference, overall, better or not, and from the silence on the part of KGS I assume they agree with me.

So - where are you going with all this?

[Kirby]

...

Well, they will still escape, and you will still be upset.
Trust me... I often play on a server which has exactly the implementation to talk about - and people still escape, and I still have to watch my emotions.

How will they escape? They get a loss for leaving the game. I play on Tygem regularly, and Tygem has the implementation that I propose, minus the mutually agreed upon postponement of a game, which I think would be a nice addition.

I've played on Tygem where somebody left the game. A timer shows up, indicating how much time they have to return to the game. After it runs out, they lose.

I'm fine with that. They left the game, and lost it. I don't consider them an "escaper", because I was awarded a win for the game.

...
So - where are you going with all this?

I simply think that the other system works better.

[Bantari]

How will they escape? They get a loss for leaving the game. I play on Tygem regularly, and Tygem has the implementation that I propose, minus the mutually agreed upon postponement of a game, which I think would be a nice addition.

I've played on Tygem where somebody left the game. A timer shows up, indicating how much time they have to return to the game. After it runs out, they lose.

I'm fine with that. They left the game, and lost it. I don't consider them an "escaper", because I was awarded a win for the game.

He escaped so he is still escaper. He broke the trust and the agreement and left the game unfinished.
You don't get so angry because the system strokes your ego and gives you an immediate win.

So while it can make you personally feel better, escapers still escape, and always will.
Why? Because I believer that a certain percentage of escaping is not about ranks at all, but about the ego.
This is why people escape from unrated games, and this is why they escape even if they know the system will lose the game for them.

So, to me, what you propose is not a system which deals with escapers but a system which deals with your emotions.
This is, sort of, what I was trying to say all this time.

I simply think that the other system works better.

Yes, I know that. You think that.
Let me count how many times you have said it: 1, 2, 3, 4....
Ok, I was never good at counting past 4.
You get the point, I hope...

[Kirby]

...

He escaped so he is still escaper. He broke the trust and the agreement and left the game unfinished...

No. The term "escaper" was coined on KGS because people are able to escape from games without direct punishment (i.e. a loss).

Here are some definitions of "escape" from the free online dictionary (which just happened to be the first one I looked up):

1. To break loose from confinement; get free: escape from jail.
2. To issue from confinement or an enclosure; leak or seep out: Gas was escaping from the vent.
3. To avoid a serious or unwanted outcome:

In order to be an "escaper", you must be escaping from something. If no loss is given to you as a direct result of leaving the game, you are able to escape from the result of the game.

In contrast, in a system like Tygem's, there are no escapers. Leaving the game, letting the time run out, having fewer points than your opponent, and hitting the resign button all lead to the loss of the game. If you leave a game in Tygem, let the time run out, have fewer points than your opponent, etc., you are not escaping from anything. You still get the game result.

In such a system, there are no "escapers" (you are not escaping from any result). There are only "leavers".

You can redefine "escaper" to mean "leaver" if you'd like, but there is still a distinction here, which is important: In the proposed system, you cannot escape the result of the game.

This, to me, is what an "escaper" is.

So, no. Escapers would not exist under the proposed system.

[Bantari]

Neither the KGS definition you give nor the Free Dictionary mentions ratings at all.
So - ratings is not important when defining escapers.

When somebody 'escapes' from a game, free or not, your system or not - he is an 'escaper'!
Read the definitions you give yourself - people escape from something which is unpleasant for them, like resigning.

For you, all there is to the game is ratings change. For others - there might be other things. A hit to the ego... sometimes even pressing the 'resign' button is harder than just disconnecting. Some people will escape under your system with the nasty joy that you have to sit there and wait until you get a point. Whatever. I think you are looking at this thing extremely narrowly, and thus see only the part of the story that interests you. People are different.

To me personally, the rating adjustment is the LEAST important factor of the escaper problem.
For you - it is the ONLY factor.
We differ on this.

And I simply refuse to look at this issue as narrowly as you do.
Thus I see not hope for understanding on this subject between us.
I will not comment unless you say something which is not repetitive.

...

He escaped so he is still escaper. He broke the trust and the agreement and left the game unfinished...

No. The term "escaper" was coined on KGS because people are able to escape from games without direct punishment (i.e. a loss).

Here are some definitions of "escape" from the free online dictionary (which just happened to be the first one I looked up):

1. To break loose from confinement; get free: escape from jail.
2. To issue from confinement or an enclosure; leak or seep out: Gas was escaping from the vent.
3. To avoid a serious or unwanted outcome:

In order to be an "escaper", you must be escaping from something. If no loss is given to you as a direct result of leaving the game, you are able to escape from the result of the game.

In contrast, in a system like Tygem's, there are no escapers. Leaving the game, letting the time run out, having fewer points than your opponent, and hitting the resign button all lead to the loss of the game. If you leave a game in Tygem, let the time run out, have fewer points than your opponent, etc., you are not escaping from anything. You still get the game result.

In such a system, there are no "escapers" (you are not escaping from any result). There are only "leavers".

You can redefine "escaper" to mean "leaver" if you'd like, but there is still a distinction here, which is important: In the proposed system, you cannot escape the result of the game.

This, to me, is what an "escaper" is.

So, no. Escapers would not exist under the proposed system.

[Kirby]

...

When somebody 'escapes' from a game, free or not, your system or not - he is an 'escaper'!
Read the definitions you give yourself - people escape from something which is unpleasant for them, like resigning.

For you, all there is to the game is ratings change. ...

And I simply refuse to look at this issue as narrowly as you do.

I don't believe that I am looking at this issue narrowly. I know that ratings are not important to everybody.

All I claim, if you read my post, is that there is a distinction between an "escaper" that does not have their rating affected, and someone that simply leaves the game, and has their rating affected.

This has nothing to do with whether I value game ratings or not.

Case A - (Tygem):
I believe that this can be seen if you ask yourself, "What is the difference between when someone leaves the game and loses because they left the game, and if someone resigns the game?".

In both cases, a loss is counted toward their record. In both cases, they left the game after playing some number of moves. In both cases, their opponent is awarded the win. The only difference is that, in one case, they hit the resign button. In the latter, they indicated their resignation by leaving the game.

Case B - (KGS):
The KGS system is different than this. If someone escapes a game, it's still true that they did not indicate their resignation by leaving the game, but they avoid getting the loss.


In Case A, there is nothing that the person is escaping from. There is no penalty that they are avoiding.

In Case B, the escaper is escaping from the loss.

---

Now it's true that some may not care about rankings. In this case, Case A and Case B are not distinguishable. In that event, having the system such as in Case A, will not affect these individuals at all.

But for anyone that values rank to any degree at all, there is a distinction here.

It is that distinction that defines what an "escaper" is.

Are you sure that it is me that is viewing this issue narrowly?

[danielm]

What is true is that timeout systems have the nasty side-effect of people leaving a lost game simply for the immature pleasure of making you wait out the timeout. It may not be a big deal when it happens at the end of a two-hours game, but as fast-paced as online games usually are, it can be a significant nuisance. Even more so for those who prefer faster time controls.

The systems could easily be combined though, so this isn't much of an argument. If you leave before the timeout finishes, the game is adjourned. If you let the timeout run down and the opponent does not return, you win.

If that is _significantly_ better, I don't know. I still think that the essential issue is not so much with the system itself, but with KGS' policy of completely putting a blind eye on the issue instead of reprimanding users who systematically abuse the mechanics. No automatic system will ever be completely foolproof without human evaluation. But if you decide to completely rely on automatic measures, it is usually more reasonable to err on the side of avoiding abuse, rather than the side of leniency.

And personally, I find it almost comical that it is against the rules to resign games before they have been decided, but it is not against the rules to simply leave a game when it has been decided. That is putting a certain amount of faith in the system that is not justified in my opinion. Sure, it may work out alright in 98% of the cases, but the remaining 2% are still irksome at best.

[Bantari]

Proposed & working solution.

I challenge anyone to come up with argument how this is unfair to anybody.

You have not thouht it through far enough.
Say you have a good connection and do not escape. So you set a flag. This flag is meaningless unless you are matched with somebody who has also set the flag. So you only play such people.... and so do all others who have set the flag. Eventually the population will be split into two distinct pools: those with the flag set and the rest. Which means that the people with unreliable connections will have two choices:
1) set the flag and incure automatic loss every time their connection craps out (not fair to them)
2) do not set the flag and only play within their group of high percent escapers (also not fair to them, I would say)

So, in principle, what this solution offers is to satisfy YOU - you will set the flag, you will only play against others who have set the flag, and for you and them the problem will get mostly solved. And that many other players will probably be worse off than they are right now - who cares, they should get better connections, the cheapskates, right?

Drastic no-tolerance rules are very easy to set up. As a matter of fact - they are the easiest of all the rules to set up and follow, the no-brainers. No middle ground, no moral ambiguity, no decision necessary. You can see this applied in life repeatedly, mostly in the US, and I can't think of an example where it actually worked and made everybody happy.

Same with escapers.
Because the world is what it is, a certain amount of flexibility is needed in any practical system, I think.
A theoretically better system is possible, most likely, but in practice I think the system we have is pretty decent.

As they say - in theory, theory and practice match up. In practice, however, they mostly don't.

[SpongeBob]

On the bright side, the KGS escaper system is always good for a long and emotional thread on the forum.

Do you really want to lose this all-time discussion topic?

"... Careful what you wish / Careful what you say / Careful what you wish, you may regret it / Careful what you wish, you just might get it! ..."

[Kirby]

...

2) do not set the flag and only play within their group of high percent escapers (also not fair to them, I would say)
...

Why is this not fair ?

By the way, I forgot to directly address the previous comment:

Neither the KGS definition you give nor the Free Dictionary mentions ratings at all.
So - ratings is not important when defining escapers.

The reason that ratings is important with these definitions is because the LOSS is what an escaper is escaping from. To be an escaper, you must be escaping from something.

[Kirby]

...

And personally, I find it almost comical that it is against the rules to resign games before they have been decided, but it is not against the rules to simply leave a game when it has been decided. ...