Life In 19x19

Just to throw in my argument, I get disconnected from the internet and many other people do. I think it's nice that a go server errs on the side of allowing games to continue rather than assigning victory based on someone leaving the game. Sure, there are some people that abuse the fact, but they are a small minority and there is a system in place that penalizes them for doing it.

Redundant wrote:

jts wrote:

shapenaji wrote: Also kludgy, since they implemented a censor button.

Censoring only works after the fact. If someone informs me that my mother was a hamster, I won't be in the mood to play him even if I censor him immediately.

I still don't see leaving the game as the right option. If someone is being insulting, then the correct response is to tell an admin. If someone is being annoying but within the terms of service, then you negatively impact the experience of the other person by leaving his game, while ignoring him and finishing the game means no more annoyance. I still don't see a situation where the "correct" in my view choice is to just leave the game. Also, I've never actually seen anyone escape in this type of situation ...

I know this topic never actually goes anywhere, so I'm probably not going to stay in this topic much longer ...

Okay, but regardless of your (entirely defensible) view that leaving a game is more vicious and blameworthy than insulting your opponent, shapenaji implied that censoring your opponent and leaving a game are two close substitutes, and that having both options is redundant. So you aren't really to the point here.

jts wrote:Censoring only works after the fact. If someone informs me that my mother was a hamster, I won't be in the mood to play him even if I censor him immediately.

I'm saying that a person doesn't need to continue to be insulted, and there is a censor button. An admin should still be informed, and the admin can make a judgement call. But I don't think it makes sense to give people 10 "I didn't like the person I was playing with"-freebies.

Partly because I just don't see that kind of rudeness as often as I see someone escaping a game.

shapenaji wrote:

jts wrote:Censoring only works after the fact. If someone informs me that my mother was a hamster, I won't be in the mood to play him even if I censor him immediately.

I'm saying that a person doesn't need to continue to be insulted, and there is a censor button. An admin should still be informed, and the admin can make a judgement call. But I don't think it makes sense to give people 10 "I didn't like the person I was playing with"-freebies.

Partly because I just don't see that kind of rudeness as often as I see someone escaping a game.

Okay, so it seems you aren't actually accusing KGS of inconsistency or redundancy, but rather you're circling back to repeat that you personally don't mind continuing a game with someone who has insulted you.

Can we all agree that some people like having the option to leave games when their opponents are rude and insulting, and some people don't? That some people like being able to return to their game when they get disconnected, and some people don't? And that there are several go servers that cater to the preferences of people who don't mind being insulted and don't mind abandoning games when they disconnect, but KGS is not one of them?

Apparently some people get escaped on a lot. I can't remember the last time when someone escaped one of my games. Apparently some people have never had someone become verbally abusive for no reason at all, or after being refused an undo, or after losing a large group; or had their opponent begin discussing his bathroom habits in detail after taking a break. These things have all happened to me, and while I stayed I would sympathize with someone who wanted to leave, and was glad to have the option.

jts wrote:Apparently some people get escaped on a lot

Things are not as bad as they were a couple of years ago. Nowadays, something else is much more frequent: weak players annoying strong players by game requests 1) regardless of a declared rank range in the game setup comment or 2) repeatedly. The only way to handle them is to put them into the ignore list, which grows and grows until its limit is reached, it needs to be emptied and starts to grow again. KGS misses a feature to restrict the range of opposing ranks in the game requests. (JFTR, a full screen mode working in horizontal and vertical screen position is yet much more urgent.)

Redundant wrote:I still don't see leaving the game as the right option. If someone is being insulting, then the correct response is to tell an admin. If someone is being annoying but within the terms of service, then you negatively impact the experience of the other person by leaving his game, while ignoring him and finishing the game means no more annoyance. I still don't see a situation where the "correct" in my view choice is to just leave the game. Also, I've never actually seen anyone escape in this type of situation ...

Well, you're just not annoying enough then!

I have a super-dodgy African Internet connection and frequently run into connection trouble while playing on KGS and I find that the vague escaper policy is actually a bad thing - I fear acquiring an escaper-flag on my account so I nearly always resign games which I cannot resume immediately. KGS users typically do not wait for you to return if you disconnect because they assume you escaped so these games are usually lost.

Contrast this to IGS: I know exactly how much time I have to connect via a backup connection (usually my phone) before my game is dead. IGS users know exactly how long they will have to wait to see if you're coming back and, typically, they wait. I have never lost a game on IGS due to a single connection drop. (I have lost some due to repeated connection issues - days when you're lucky if you're still connected two moves later.)

Around 7 kyu, KGS, I find very few escapers.

If wms intends us to escape rude or offensive players, he's loony. I value my account more than I value what my opponent has to say. KGS should have a "rage quit" button (perhaps more tactfully named) which resigns the game, submits it to an administrator for moderation and adds your opponent to your block-list. The administrator would review what was said and, deeming it offensive, delete the game from your record retrospectively and ban the offensive user.

Charlie wrote:I have a super-dodgy African Internet connection and frequently run into connection trouble while playing on KGS and I find that the vague escaper policy is actually a bad thing - I fear acquiring an escaper-flag on my account so I nearly always resign games which I cannot resume immediately.

I'm in the same boat with a dodgy Indian connection, and used to resign games that people wouldn't resume to avoid getting an escaper flag, as I'd hate to lose the games that people will resume just because of yet another powercut killing my internet. Unfortunately a mod took exception to this and de-ranked me for a year for it, and when I tried to explain I was told the rating system was too fragile.

So now it's only a matter of time before I get a flagged as an escaper, as for every game people will resume, there are at least 2 that are refused. It's pretty aggravating, and not a problem I've found on any other server.

Usually when this discussion comes up, people talk about how KGS helps people with bad Internet connections to be able to resume games, and also "deals with" escapers by giving them losses after they've escaped a lot.

There is evidence for both of these:
* Yes, you can resume a game you got disconnected from.
* Yes, after a certain number of escapes within a given time period, you do get losses.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the current KGS system works well enough to have users playing on it every day.

But when I argue about this topic, I am not really arguing against any of these points. Rather, what I am arguing for is what I believe to be ideal: the server should ideally provide the ability to play a game where escapers do not exist (where an escaper is defined as someone that leaves a rated game without coming back, and does not get a loss against their rank).

Evidence for the popularity of a system that has no escapers also exists: lots of people play on Tygem.

So ideally, the software could allow for both the option of playing a "resumable game" and for playing one with no possible escaping (as defined above).

I feel there is evidence that users would like such a system: people always argue about the escaper policies in forums like this one!

tldr: Ideally KGS would support a "no-escaper" option in addition to the resumable game feature. Despite that, practically speaking, KGS is a fine place to play.

Kirby wrote:So ideally, the software could allow for both the option of playing a "resumable game" and for playing one with no possible escaping (as defined above).

Wms does that. He calls it "Tygem".

Kirby wrote:I am arguing for is what I believe to be ideal: the server should ideally provide the ability to play a game where escapers do not exist

It just seems unproductive to argue about this happening on KGS. Overwhelming evidence suggests that the decision makers are satisfied with KGS's escaper policy. KGS doesn't want an ideal system as you define it; it wants the one it has, and apparently, it's not a prohibitively negative factor otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular server for those who like to while away their time between games chatting. Speaking of which, why don't we change the subject and talk about the ideal KGS admin.

daal wrote:

Kirby wrote:I am arguing for is what I believe to be ideal: the server should ideally provide the ability to play a game where escapers do not exist

It just seems unproductive to argue about this happening on KGS. Overwhelming evidence suggests that the decision makers are satisfied with KGS's escaper policy. KGS doesn't want an ideal system as you define it; it wants the one it has, and apparently, it's not a prohibitively negative factor otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular server for those who like to while away their time between games chatting. Speaking of which, why don't we change the subject and talk about the ideal KGS admin.

Sure, I think there's plenty of evidence that things won't change. That doesn't necessarily imply that the decision makers personally feel that the system is ideal. I feel it is more of the fact that they do not feel it is worth the effort to change.

I disagree that it's not productive to discuss what would be ideal. How can sharing your thoughts be negative?

As a sidenote, KGS is not the most popular server for those that like to chat - it is the most popular English-based server (and it doesn't have much competition in that category).

hyperpape wrote:

Kirby wrote:So ideally, the software could allow for both the option of playing a "resumable game" and for playing one with no possible escaping (as defined above).

Wms does that. He calls it "Tygem".

To be sure, I use that option periodically

But it's not part of the software. It's like if I developed a text editor that didn't allow for deleting characters. People could complain that the software didn't allow for them to delete characters. I could always reply, "you can delete characters - just use Microsoft Word."

The point is, my software would be better if it had the functionality my users found to be essential.

Kirby wrote:Sure, I think there's plenty of evidence that things won't change. That doesn't necessarily imply that the decision makers personally feel that the system is ideal. I feel it is more of the fact that they do not feel it is worth the effort to change.

That's not my impression. From what I've read, they don't think the system is ideal, but they do see it as the best compromise.

I disagree that it's not productive to discuss what would be ideal. How can sharing your thoughts be negative?

There's nothing wrong with discussing an ideal escaper policy, but if that discussion is about changing something that won't change, then your thoughts are being used inefficiently.

The point is, my software would be better if it had the functionality my users found to be essential.

Essential, yes - but another escaper policy isn't essential - it's just something that some users would prefer and others wouldn't.

As a sidenote, KGS is not the most popular server for those that like to chat - it is the most popular English-based server (and it doesn't have much competition in that category).

Really? I've never seen as much use of the chatting functions on any other server. As to the competition, it remains to be seen if Kaya will provide it, but perhaps ideas on an ideal escaper policy for Kaya would be less likely to fall on deaf ears.

daal, what I'm suggesting is adding an option that some users would benefit from, and others wouldn't care about. This adds to the system's complexity, but given the number of people that complain about escapers, it'd be a utilized feature.

Regarding server popularity, you are only considering english-based servers. Try using Tygem's desktop client, and you will aee the volume of chat. Yeah, it is not in English mostly, but that's beside the point.