Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote: Its either this or spanking, but that's hard to do over the web...

WTF?

Javaness wrote:

Redundant wrote:Telling someone to "get over it" when they have a legitimate grievance (even if you don't agree) is one of the most patronizing things it's possible to say.

Good.

Bad.

Javaness wrote:You are not going to cure a psychological problem through software development.
I just never checked somebody's game list before I play them to see if they had a "good reputation", does anyone really, actually do that?

- I wouldn't be so sure. It's just the important rule discovered by early behaviorists in psychology that people change their behavior based on the feedback they receive (wiki). Ways of giving feedback are numerous. As for the latter part, this is a design problem. If I had information that my challenger has 5 wins, 0 losses, 5 unfinished games, I wouldn't play such person. I'm guessing other people wouldn't either, and coupled with difficulty of finding games as [?] and [x?] player, negative reinforcement loop is created and escaper problem suddenly solves itself.

Javaness wrote:If you burgle a house, then the occupant suffers. Our possessions are generally pretty important to us, and we also feel violated because our illusion of 'safety in our own home' has been broken.

If you lose a game of Go played online, heh, it's just a game.
If somebody escapes from your game, heh, you won but you don't get the rating points*,
It is just a game.
Get over it.

- How do you make the distinction? People act on bona fide. It's reasonable to assume that games are finished and there's not going to be scumbags who forfeit games, let you wait for their return and never respond to messages you send them. That kind of behavior is rude. My playing experience is important to me.

The current system is leaving a loophole open. The only argument so far has been that not enough players abuse it, so it need not be fixed.

Toge wrote:The current system is leaving a loophole open. The only argument so far has been that not enough players abuse it, so it need not be fixed.

Is this really what you think? That there is not a single reason for the existing system?

If you can't properly state your opponents' position, you're not in a position to refute it.

As far as the aesthetic argument goes, the italics are no worse than the W+T. Any automated system that judges wins and losses is going to be imperfect; as far as these things go, KGS is pretty damn good.

Just out of curiousity, to the grown-ups who aren't bothered by escapers: would you really mind if the system were improved so that it happened less?

I would mind if the system gave me losses for the games where my computer crashed, the network went away,... This happened to me on Tygem and I was pretty pissed. I did not get to finish a nice game, just because I exceeded the disconnect time-limit.
On the other hand a perceived problem is automatically a real problem in many contexts. And I think this is one of them. So while personally escapers don't bother me much, I think *something* should be done to appease those who are bothered. As long as it doesn't have any annoying side-effects.

Li Kao wrote:I would mind if the system gave me losses for the games where my computer crashed, the network went away,...

I said "improved," not "changed to punish innocents." My point is that people telling other people to grow up because they consider themselves to have a mature handle on the issue are not contributing much by telling other people to be more like them. It would be reasonable to argue that the KGS system is the best, but if this isn't the argument, then why try to mute suggestions for improvement by shifting the blame from KGS to those who see themselves as the victim (however minor the crime) in an unjust system?

I would love to see an improvement to the system, but I've yet to see a real improvement among the suggestions.

And it might be an unfair system, but it's ridiculous to talk about it being unjust.

Just to be clear: can't you look at a persons game history for losses by forfeit? Can forfeits happen any other way than escaping? If this is correct, OP can look in history before deciding to play a person.

hyperpape wrote:I would love to see an improvement to the system, but I've yet to see a real improvement among the suggestions.

- What do you consider improvement? Look at emeraldemon's post I've quoted below. Having forfeit means that the person has escaped enough times. He is an escaper. Regardless of what anyone thinks about escapers, shouldn't this be acknowledged? There's already a tag [~] for players who only want teaching games from stronger players. We don't have to look at each individual's game record to verify it. Perhaps there should be a tag for escapers, too?

emeraldemon wrote:Just to be clear: can't you look at a persons game history for losses by forfeit? Can forfeits happen any other way than escaping? If this is correct, OP can look in history before deciding to play a person.

It's certainly strange that tildes get marked and escapers don't.

just resign those games that they escaped..that's what I do
it may hurt your rank but at least you have done a good thing for yourself
it's like you forgive someone who once has been a jerk to you
it feels good, try it
btw don't forget to censor them

hyperpape wrote:I would love to see an improvement to the system, but I've yet to see a real improvement among the suggestions.

And it might be an unfair system, but it's ridiculous to talk about it being unjust.

IMO, making it a loss if they don't return in 5 minutes is an improvement. For those that really like the ability to resume an unfinished game, a "request resume" option could be added.

I don't really see how this could not be an improvement:
1.) No escapers.
2.) Ability to resume.
3.) "Connection problems" can be given some sympathy.

Current system:
1.) Escapers.
2.) Ability to resume.
3.) "Connection problems" can be given some sympathy.

The difference is, it's possible to get rid of escapers altogether. If you don't think a 5 minute time limit is enough for "connection problems", make it 10.

Good one, putting "connection problems" in quotation marks.