Life In 19x19

daal wrote:The ASR is not for people are serious about the ASR, it's for people who are serious about studying and improving - a group that is not defined by the number of ASR games they can play in a month. Right now there are 345 people signed up for the October league. They signed up because they want to be in the league, because they see some benefit for themselves by being in the league. You think the league would be better off by telling 250 of them to shape up or ship out? I don't.

So your going to let 100 inactive people sit in the league all month doing nothing and ruining it for everyone again?

Let's assume what you said is true -- the ASR is not for people who are "serious about ASR", but for people who are "serious about studying and improving". So why is the membership requirement a minimum number of games, instead of giving a review or teaching someone?

Maybe, if you want the league to be about studying and learning, then instead of pretending it isn't a league, you could state the membership requirements in another way. Here's one suggestion: "You have to participate in at least four reviews of your own games per month in order to remain in the league." A better way might be to state this in a positive and have games which are reviewed count for an extra half-point. That is probably better than punishing people for not making a quota.

For as long as you run the league based on activity rewards with special rules to keep inactive players, is as long as you will have inactivity problems. Come on, it's been six or seven years now. There are so many initiatives that you guys could do to solve these problems it's not even funny anymore. Like timezones or game scheduling. You know, easy stuff, that could be automated on the site. Here's another idea, use a total points system (SODOS overlay or something) to decide who gets into what # room -- the most active players being placed into the 1-room and the others into the 2-room and subsequent rooms. I understand that this might create a Gamma-4 of inactive people (a room full of 4 game players and safe zone retainees). Well then, there's your problem, isn't it?

Here's another interesting solution. Have a "click to request bye" and "click to accept bye" button, which gives each player a half point for the first game and quarter point for the second. And have it so byes cannot be requested on the last day of the month. So that it would be worth it to play your games, but if you couldn't, then active players could get more points. And if you were inactive it would push you down faster. This would be easy to implement and would require zero administrative oversight.

As I am sure you are aware there are quite a number of other solutions which have been presented over the years. None of them are perfect but come on, this is not about "get off my lawn", that is patronizing and shows you don't really understand the depth of this problem. It's been a while now, daal -- simply stating "this is a place to study and learn" has revealed itself a poor strategy in isolation.

In this one i'm with usagi.
4 games per month seem far too few, it's less than one game per week...

Also this goes to the admins, for October the league seems particularly inactive. Just check the percentages of games played in the lower categories.

Delta: 0.8
Gamma4: 1.7
Gamma3: 5.9
Gamma2: 4.3
Gamma1: 3.0

Also bear in mind that this is October 12th which means already 40% of the month has passed. Now compare 40% with the above statistics and don't tell me that the league won't get 100% activity. I am aware of that but still these numbers are way too low.
A very simple solution; just close some leagues, let's say delta and gamma4 for 1 month. What i mean by close is this: reduce the number of leagues till the activity (percentage of games) rise to an acceptable number and let the lowest league be your new Delta. You might wanna change the name of the leagues but this is nothing really. The thing that might change is the promotion system between leagues, since you want have power of 2 leagues but this shouldn't be also a problem. For example if you close Delta and Gamma4 and let Gamma3 be your new Delta you will have 5 leagues for November (just name them alph-epsilon or something). Less leagues with more people means higher activity and the thing is this; if you decide that the leagues are active enough you can create a new league for the next month. Consider this as a releasing pressure mechanism. When the activity rises enough you increase the number of leagues so you decrease the activity (pressure). If the activity (pressure) is low you delete a league and thus you increase the pressure. It's pretty fundamental really.

usagi wrote:
So your going to let 100 inactive people sit in the league all month doing nothing and ruining it for everyone again?

Please explain why the league is being ruined. I really don't understand.

usagi wrote:Let's assume what you said is true -- the ASR is not for people who are "serious about ASR", but for people who are "serious about studying and improving". So why is the membership requirement a minimum number of games, instead of giving a review or teaching someone?

Maybe, if you want the league to be about studying and learning, then instead of pretending it isn't a league, you could state the membership requirements in another way. Here's one suggestion: "You have to participate in at least four reviews of your own games per month in order to remain in the league." A better way might be to state this in a positive and have games which are reviewed count for an extra half-point. That is probably better than punishing people for not making a quota.

I personally think this is a good idea. The main reason something like this hasn't been implemented however is because it is impractical to enforce.

daal wrote:

usagi wrote:
So your going to let 100 inactive people sit in the league all month doing nothing and ruining it for everyone again?

Please explain why the league is being ruined. I really don't understand.

Due to an excessive and ongoing amount of inactivity, the function of the league has been retarded.

1/2 the people in Gamma 1 are inactive and it's the middle of the month. Gamma 2 is the same. Gamma 3 is marginally better (because i'm in it -- a little light humor). Gamma 4 is worse. So in other words, it would be better for teaching, studying and learning, if you kicked out the 40-50 players in Gamma who haven't even played a game yet, and just made 2 rooms.

As WayneC pointing out that the safe zone was originally meant to address the problem where "if the inactivity level in a group is high, people will be demoted who would not otherwise be demoted." Thus we come to the "demotion safe zone" rule (see thread title). WayneC continues, "What we have seen happen since the safe zones were introduced is that they have gradually been extended to the point where in Beta they currently produce the same effect as if inactivity kicks counted as demotions." In short, the safe zone rule is now exactly equivalent to a rule where you simply demote people for inactivity instead of removing them from the league.

What have we learned. The minimum game rule and the safe zone rule don't really do anything to improve the quality of games played in the league. Actually they don't really do anything that doesn't happen in practice naturally -- especially in alpha and beta rooms.

WayneC raised an interesting point, that it seems most of the inactives are players who are new to the league (Has anyone actually sat down and done the research on what % this is?). Splatted seems to agree. People are just "trying out" the league and join, get promoted to Gamma (because anyone who plays games in delta gets promoted) and then they quit the league. Allow me to rephrase what he said. "Delta and Gamma are a 2 month waiting list to get into the real league". Look at the inactivity levels in alpha and beta. They're minimal. They effectively don't mean much.

Looked at another way, if you just ran a straight normal league, like most other leagues, without all these fancy rules, all you would need to do is screen for activity before allowing players to join the league.

Please look at the system you have, and how it works in practice. In order to get around screening people you screen people by making them jump thru delta and gamma. And then once they get into beta and alpha where inactivity does not matter as much, you impose a set of rules designed to control inactive people in delta and gamma. This does not make sense, but it is how the league works now.

daal wrote:I personally think [tracking reviews] is a good idea. The main reason something like this hasn't been implemented however is because it is impractical to enforce.

I disagree. The script can handle it and you can do spot checks. The computer can even place reviews with a low filesize increase at the top of the list for spot checks.

Anyways that's not the only solution -- just one I think would work.

In a way, I don't even care. Once I get promoted out of Gamma this won't affect me.

daal wrote:You think the league would be better off by telling 250 of them to shape up or ship out? I don't.

Then why do we end up kicking 80 people out of the league each month? If a few simple checks and balances could be introduced which would stop the problem before it occurs, wouldn't that be a good thing?

adding a 1/2 point for reviews sounds interesting.

I don't understand, don't you review ALL the games you play in the league? Who will get the additional bonus points, the reviewer for the review or the reviewee for not running away after the loss (happened to me once, to a great surprise).

Gamma is not just an additional month of waiting in order to get to Beta. I tried hard last month (as hard as I could, in terms of the number of games played) and didn't get to Beta. And yes, for some people it is not trivial to make even 4 games a month. You don't want to just play a quick game and run away. A typical ASR game takes me around 2 hours (to complete the game + do a review), and it's not that easy to find such a time slot when you are not dead tired.

So what, you want to kick out all the players who want to have these high-quality teaching/studying games but don't have the opportunity to do this more than once a week (on average)? Why is that a problem? They will probably remain in Gamma because of the number of games, how does that hurt others?

musai wrote:I don't understand, don't you review ALL the games you play in the league? Who will get the additional bonus points, the reviewer for the review or the reviewee for not running away after the loss (happened to me once, to a great surprise).

Gamma is not just an additional month of waiting in order to get to Beta. I tried hard last month (as hard as I could, in terms of the number of games played) and didn't get to Beta. And yes, for some people it is not trivial to make even 4 games a month. You don't want to just play a quick game and run away. A typical ASR game takes me around 2 hours (to complete the game + do a review), and it's not that easy to find such a time slot when you are not dead tired.

So what, you want to kick out all the players who want to have these high-quality teaching/studying games but don't have the opportunity to do this more than once a week (on average)? Why is that a problem? They will probably remain in Gamma because of the number of games, how does that hurt others?

to drgoplayer; yes, both players would get an additional 1/2 for participation. The review would have to be saved on the server; there is an option to do that for the reviewer.

to musai; I'm saying that having too many inactive people in the league deprives other players of playing more games, and therefore damages the function of the league. That is why the league does not want inactive players. An inactive person in the league is like someone greedily holding the train door open for their friend who is 20 seconds away down the platform. Why should we trod on the rights of that person to hold up 500 other people? Well, because that person should get off and wait for the next train. It's kind of ridiculous to state that he has a right to hold up the train. However in the league today, we have a 4 game limit and a demotion safe zone.

What I am saying is, over time, strong players should concentrate into alpha, which in turn should attract stronger players. Right? But what happens in practice, strong players join the league and end up quitting because the league is not competitive on a strength basis and does not reward the high amount of teaching they end up doing. It's not just that there is no reward for them, there is no point to it. If they want a serious teaching game they go elsewhere. I am sure everyone would like to see an alpha full of active 6d players. If it was done right I believe it would heavily promote KGS. It would be a major, major thing. I wonder if current management has any idea what the potential of the ASR could be. What I am saying is, think what would be necessary to achieve that goal.

But hey, the league is what it is. Once I stand in line for the required 2 months I too will be able to play seriously in Beta and hopefully Alpha.

So I'm not really complaining. Just musing.

I agree with your point that for somebody seeking to play many games the inactive players are a burden, they don't provide these games, and they take place of other potentially more active ones. But you need to agree that the threshold of activity/inactivity should be set to some value. And, after a lot of thinking and tweaking over the years the ASR came to a conclusion that 4 games a month works OK. Additional tweaking was painfully done with the structure of tiers, number of players per group, timezone/no-timezone distinction, points system etc. In addition, stronger players can enter directly into Gamma, so they need to 'wait' only for one month before getting to the 'real league'. And this seems reasonable, you don't want to put an 'outsider' in the 'real league' before testing his level of activity (in Gamma).
Bottomline, in my opinion the league is currently pretty well balanced. It is true that players who want to play many games will need first to work through the lower tiers, but even there you can get plenty of games (usually). Players who can't invest regularly too much time can still enjoy serious games once in a while in a friendly environment and 'live' in Gamma.
It feels like you are rushing somewhere, it doesn't feel like the right attitude (to me, at least)

musai wrote:I agree with your point that for somebody seeking to play many games the inactive players are a burden, they don't provide these games, and they take place of other potentially more active ones. But you need to agree that the threshold of activity/inactivity should be set to some value. And, after a lot of thinking and tweaking over the years the ASR came to a conclusion that 4 games a month works OK.

I was under the impression that the 4 game was decided upon almost immediately, and was never really discussed. There's been some pretty heavy analysis of the people in the league and their playing patterns over the years. For example, "population distribution problem" and "Ideas about the league". I don't even really think the 4 game limit is that bad, in fact the two papers I've put out regarding activity both suggest that since activity is rewarded far more than strength, a 4 game limit is actually pretty meaningless and there should instead be a reward for strength (i.e. for teaching). I do however think raising the 4 game limit would provide a solid psychological boost to the league because it will send a signal to people that it's a bit more serious than a one game a week -- maybe -- sort of thing.

One of the biggest problems with stuff like this is that people just don't "get it". A lot of times you will see complaints that this is promoting an elitist attitude, or that the league isn't designed for "competitive" play. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is that people have trouble finding games because there is no restraint placed on new entrants. Frankly, a league can't function well if half it's participants are not serious about playing their games. It's really much less of a scheduling problem than people think. See, I even went thru the trouble of data mining everyone's timezone, back in the day, for the purpose of setting up beta and gamma by timezone. What I found was, there isn't really a scheduling problem at all. It's that people just are not serious about studying and learning, despite being in a league about that. And it shows, it really does. We have a nice big fat league of inactive players. 100-150 of them couldn't care less about the league, and they will show it by dropping out or demoting without a word to management this month.

It's my position that if these players were removed, there would be more games played in the league with fewer players, more teaching, and more learning, because more rooms would play to capacity. Secondly, since the league would actually function, stronger players would be attracted to the league, which would up the profile and solve a lot of other problems as well. These changes are well within the purview of current management. They just don't really believe there is a problem. And maybe there isn't.

musai wrote:Bottomline, in my opinion the league is currently pretty well balanced. It is true that players who want to play many games will need first to work through the lower tiers, but even there you can get plenty of games (usually). Players who can't invest regularly too much time can still enjoy serious games once in a while in a friendly environment and 'live' in Gamma.
It feels like you are rushing somewhere, it doesn't feel like the right attitude (to me, at least)

Right, but when I posted to this thread it was in response to someone stating a problem. If you don't think there is a problem, then of course the solution won't seem to make much sense. Management of the league, for the most part, don't think there is a problem. So the solutions that get tossed up are usually laughed at or mocked by the league admins, and not taken very seriously. That's kind of disturbing actually. Dunno, I had a lot of high hopes for Breakfast's league, but now that it seems to have collapsed I wonder if it's time to start pushing a new, more serious league. It's kind of funny, the name "Advanced" study room has already been taken, so what wold you call a room dedicated to the study of advanced concepts in go, vs. just sitting in a league all month?

usagi wrote:What I found was, there isn't really a scheduling problem at all. It's that people just are not serious about studying and learning, despite being in a league about that. And it shows, it really does. We have a nice big fat league of inactive players. 100-150 of them couldn't care less about the league, and they will show it by dropping out or demoting without a word to management this month.

How can you ascertain whether or not people are serious about studying and learning? The ASR is just one of their resources and if they choose to use it infrequently then that's up to them.

usagi wrote:It's my position that if these players were removed, there would be more games played in the league with fewer players, more teaching, and more learning, because more rooms would play to capacity. Secondly, since the league would actually function, stronger players would be attracted to the league, which would up the profile and solve a lot of other problems as well. These changes are well within the purview of current management. They just don't really believe there is a problem. And maybe there isn't.

I'm not a numbers guy, and although I don't have the statistics and probably wouldn't be able to interpret them if I did, I do see that the league is not looking very active at the moment. This raises several questions: Is it a problem? If so, for whom? Why is it so? What is the best course of action?

You suggest that it is a problem, and mostly for those who wish to play more ASR games. My sense is that for those people, there is the current option to move up in the league where it is more active. I would very much like to hear if others also perceive inactivity as a problem that we should try to do something about. As to the why... I could speculate all day. What should be done? You suggest that we do more to keep inactive players out. What do you say to people who prefer to use the ASR occasionally as one of the many elements of their serious study?

I tried it a long time ago. Just for the sake of argument, what if rewarding hyperactivity is the cause of the problem? If you join, work, and have other responsibilities, you know it can be hard to match the others, so you may choose to play less than you could otherwise.

My favorite league now is the online league run by the CGA. Every 6 weeks you get 4-5 opponents to play. I can schedule and manage those, and I know I will have an equal chance as anyone else to move up with victories. Also, most of the players (sorry cdy ) are nearby in timezones which was a large issue for me in ASR.

daal wrote:How can you ascertain whether or not people are serious about studying and learning? The ASR is just one of their resources and if they choose to use it infrequently then that's up to them.

It is the middle of the month and there are 137 people in the league who have not played four games. 17 more have played either four or five games. That is half the league. Does this make the league so inactive that it damages the ability of the league to function properly? The answer is subjective. If you don't feel it's a problem, then I guess it's not.

daal wrote:I'm not a numbers guy, and although I don't have the statistics and probably wouldn't be able to interpret them if I did, I do see that the league is not looking very active at the moment. This raises several questions: Is it a problem? If so, for whom? Why is it so? What is the best course of action?

You suggest that it is a problem, and mostly for those who wish to play more ASR games. My sense is that for those people, there is the current option to move up in the league where it is more active. I would very much like to hear if others also perceive inactivity as a problem that we should try to do something about. As to the why... I could speculate all day. What should be done? You suggest that we do more to keep inactive players out. What do you say to people who prefer to use the ASR occasionally as one of the many elements of their serious study?

I'm just saying, that since your going to be kicking out over 100 people this month, isn't it better to do it sooner rather than later? Honestly, who should be in the league has already been decided. Now it is just a long, boring waiting game to see who will be in the top 4 and who will remain in due to the safe zone rule. What's the point of having a 350 person league if more than half the games never get played? It's like buying a sandwich in 7-11 and realizing they stuffed the meat in the front for looks and it's mostly bread.

Anyway I know I am vocal on these issues but that's just me. It's really up to you guys, the admins, to figure out if there is a problem or not and how you're going to fix it.

oren wrote:I tried it a long time ago. Just for the sake of argument, what if rewarding hyperactivity is the cause of the problem? If you join, work, and have other responsibilities, you know it can be hard to match the others, so you may choose to play less than you could otherwise.

My favorite league now is the online league run by the CGA. Every 6 weeks you get 4-5 opponents to play. I can schedule and manage those, and I know I will have an equal chance as anyone else to move up with victories. Also, most of the players (sorry cdy ) are nearby in timezones which was a large issue for me in ASR.

The great thing about the CGA league is the scheduling. We have an automated system. How difficult would it be to have the ASR page auto-schedule games? Once you put in what times you are available I think it would work great.

usagi wrote:The great thing about the CGA league is the scheduling. We have an automated system. How difficult would it be to have the ASR page auto-schedule games? Once you put in what times you are available I think it would work great.

However, you skipped my argument about the rewards for hyperactivity. If you know you're near the bottom in terms of time you can play, what is the point of playing more games in ASR?

oren wrote:

usagi wrote:The great thing about the CGA league is the scheduling. We have an automated system. How difficult would it be to have the ASR page auto-schedule games? Once you put in what times you are available I think it would work great.

However, you skipped my argument about the rewards for hyperactivity. If you know you're near the bottom in terms of time you can play, what is the point of playing more games in ASR?

You're right, I just didn't feel the need to answer it because I have already proposed we give points for reviews just recently in this thread. I'm actually nefarious for my arguments against hyperactivity rewards in the league. There have been several methods proposed to combat hyperactivity over the years. One I am especially interested in is limiting the number of points gained by losing games such that it cannot exceed the number of points gained by winning games. This would at least prevent the case where someone with a majority of losses beats out someone who is 10/0 or 12/1 or so. But instead of limiting hyperactivity per se, my idea is more along the lines of evening out the activity in the league. Another solution I think would work is putting the most active people in gamma 1, etc. and not worry about making it so people don't play the same people each month.