Why are escapers allowed to play other games...

[Annihilist]

Suppose I get disconnected for some reason (poor connection, power outage, etc.) and my opponent is not online when I get back. They might be perfectly willing to resume the game the next time we are both online at the same time. But in the meantime, the "escaped" game should not prevent me from playing other people.

To be honest, I think at this stage we are trying to solve minor, occasional problems because they might result from solving a much larger and more general problem. My point being that your proposed hypothetical issue does not outweigh escapism. It's certainly a difficult one, but not an urgent one, in my opinion.

I'd say you should resign, but I know I would not do that easily. Although, really, in most online games you'd lose anyway due to a connection drop out. I suppose that's just something we should accept.

Also someone said earlier that they'd just switch accounts. Firstly, you could IP ban people who repeatedly escape games on different accounts, and secondly, implement a more secure registering process - email address, for example? How many people are going to create a new email address simply for creating a new account on KGS to avoid losing a couple of games and having a couple of losses show up on their game record? Is it really worth it for a perfect game record, which is a lie anyway? Most would say no (presumably). And for those who would say "yes", resort to my first suggestion.

Or how about this: After 3 days, the game is forfeit - resigned on the behalf of the person who left first. You have the option of coming back to finish it, or you lose the game automatically. If someone drops out for bad connection, you have a chance to come back and save yourself, or you lose the game. That seems fair to me. I know it's harsh to force losses on honest players with bad connection, but I think it's necessary to solve a larger, more pressing and more offensive problem.

[Annihilist]

Frankly, I'm curious how frequently you run into escapers that this is seen as a big problem. I can't say I've run in to more than one, really, and maybe not even that.

Well there shouldn't be any, on principle. But I've run into enough to really annoy me, And it's more of an issue than the "rude people" which people claim is the reason for the current system.

Reread Dakre's post.

Reading it for a second time does not alter my opinion that escaping must always be punished.

This opinion is not shared by KGS.

Who is KGS?

KGS is us. It's users. So it is very presumptuous to assume that KGS has one opinion on the matter.

[Kirby]

KGS is us. It's users. So it is very presumptuous to assume that KGS has one opinion on the matter.

I agree with you in spirit - I think the KGS escaper policy sucks - but in this case, KGS has a documented "escaper policy," which is likely what Mef is referring to when he speaks of "KGS."

This is not to say that the KGS documentation is not without ambiguity or lack of comprehensiveness, but that's another issue.

This argument about the escaper policy has been around for ages (likely because so many people disagree with the KGS escaper policy), and from my view, it fundamentally comes down to two core viewpoints (and their variants):

(1) Some entities, myself included, feel that the concept of a "rated game," by definition, SHOULD imply a contract when the game has begun. If you escape, you violate this contract, and should be punished for it.

(2) Some entities, the KGS Escaper Policy included, feel that a rated game means that it should affect one's rank, but not to the point where it becomes unenjoyable for one of the parties playing the game. If you are playing a "jerk," you should periodically have the right to leave the game without finishing it and not hurt your rank.

There are other branches of the argument (eg. internet connection problems, being able to resume later, etc.), but I've never found them to be logical since more viable alternatives for these issues exist.

So when arguing about escapers, in my mind, it fundamentally comes down to how you define a "rated game." The KGS Escaper Policy definition allows for the periodic option of escaping. With that in mind, it is acceptable by the server rules to escape, since escapers are dealt with "automatically."

Of course, many don't agree with this escaper policy, but lucky for us, other servers exist with more reasonable escaper policies.

That being said, some people seem to like the KGS escaper policy. I don't really understand why, but such people do seem to exist.

[oren]

That being said, some people seem to like the KGS escaper policy. I don't really understand why, but such people do seem to exist.

Aye.

[Annihilist]

KGS is us. It's users. So it is very presumptuous to assume that KGS has one opinion on the matter.

I agree with you in spirit - I think the KGS escaper policy sucks - but in this case, KGS has a documented "escaper policy," which is likely what Mef is referring to when he speaks of "KGS."

This is not to say that the KGS documentation is not without ambiguity or lack of comprehensiveness, but that's another issue.

This argument about the escaper policy has been around for ages (likely because so many people disagree with the KGS escaper policy), and from my view, it fundamentally comes down to two core viewpoints (and their variants):

(1) Some entities, myself included, feel that the concept of a "rated game," by definition, SHOULD imply a contract when the game has begun. If you escape, you violate this contract, and should be punished for it.

(2) Some entities, the KGS Escaper Policy included, feel that a rated game means that it should affect one's rank, but not to the point where it becomes unenjoyable for one of the parties playing the game. If you are playing a "jerk," you should periodically have the right to leave the game without finishing it and not hurt your rank.

There are other branches of the argument (eg. internet connection problems, being able to resume later, etc.), but I've never found them to be logical since more viable alternatives for these issues exist.

So when arguing about escapers, in my mind, it fundamentally comes down to how you define a "rated game." The KGS Escaper Policy definition allows for the periodic option of escaping. With that in mind, it is acceptable by the server rules to escape, since escapers are dealt with "automatically."

Of course, many don't agree with this escaper policy, but lucky for us, other servers exist with more reasonable escaper policies.

That being said, some people seem to like the KGS escaper policy. I don't really understand why, but such people do seem to exist.

Argument 2 seems stupid to me. So what if you're playing someone who is a jerkass? Deal with it and keep playing. It's not even an issue worth worrying about. There are rude people - there will always be rude people. Sometimes you will have to talk to one. Get over it.

We can't protect everyone's feelings from getting hurt. Allowing people to leave games unfinished because "my opponent was being mean" is just silly. And, as we have seen, more people exploit this system by escaping so their rank is unaltered than use it the way it was originally intended. So this policy actually permits escapism.

I don't understand it.

This thread should have a poll.

[Kirby]

I don't disagree with you, Annihilist, with the exception that it is not clear to me how the escaper policy was originally intended. I can just say that - it's how the system is.

So to your point, yes, the system allows escaping, and you won't be called out by an admin (probably) when you escape. The caveat is that eventually the escapes turn to forfeits and affect your rank IF you do it often enough.

Like I said, I am an advocate of argument #1, but I believe advocates of argument #2 exist based on previous arguments on this topic.

[TheBigH]

To be honest, I think at this stage we are trying to solve minor, occasional problems because they might result from solving a much larger and more general problem. My point being that your proposed hypothetical issue does not outweigh escapism. It's certainly a difficult one, but not an urgent one, in my opinion.

It's not hypothetical at all. In my whole time on KGS I've had about four or five games where either me or my opponent has had connection issues, causing one of us to periodically drop out. But I've only run into one escaper. So, in my experience at least, escapers are less of an issue than technical difficulties.

[Annihilist]

To be honest, I think at this stage we are trying to solve minor, occasional problems because they might result from solving a much larger and more general problem. My point being that your proposed hypothetical issue does not outweigh escapism. It's certainly a difficult one, but not an urgent one, in my opinion.

It's not hypothetical at all. In my whole time on KGS I've had about four or five games where either me or my opponent has had connection issues, causing one of us to periodically drop out. But I've only run into one escaper. So, in my experience at least, escapers are less of an issue than technical difficulties.

Sure, but I don't think it is as severe as escapism. While one is a deliberate act of malice, selfishness, excessive pride and egoism, which ruins someone else's experience of KGS, the other is a natural* circumstance which, frankly, I don't think KGS is responsible for in the first place.

(*natural in the sense that it happens of its own volition.)

[daal]

So what if you're playing someone who is a jerkass? Deal with it and keep playing. It's not even an issue worth worrying about. There are rude people - there will always be rude people. Sometimes you will have to talk to one. Get over it.

If you argue by dismissing someone else's concerns, a likely (and apt) response would be to dismiss yours, or as you said:

Deal with it... Get over it.

[Annihilist]

So what if you're playing someone who is a jerkass? Deal with it and keep playing. It's not even an issue worth worrying about. There are rude people - there will always be rude people. Sometimes you will have to talk to one. Get over it.

If you argue by dismissing someone else's concerns, a likely (and apt) response would be to dismiss yours, or as you said:

Deal with it... Get over it.

If I must explain my rationale, I will.

The effect of rude people is limited only to how much emotional investment you have in your relationship with the person. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about rude comments. So, yes, you can shrug it off as no big deal. You have the power to not let it affect you. It's subjective, it is minor, and it's not a big deal. As I said.

Escapism, however, has a universally negative effect and impact on your enjoyment of KGS, by disrupting the primary mechanic and aim of a go server - as I said before - playing games.

So as I said, it's not really an issue. People being mean is not really a serious concern. But even if it is, and it's something really worth worrying about (in your opinion), accept the loss and resign respectfully. Don't leave a game open.

[TheBigH]

To be honest, I think at this stage we are trying to solve minor, occasional problems because they might result from solving a much larger and more general problem. My point being that your proposed hypothetical issue does not outweigh escapism. It's certainly a difficult one, but not an urgent one, in my opinion.

It's not hypothetical at all. In my whole time on KGS I've had about four or five games where either me or my opponent has had connection issues, causing one of us to periodically drop out. But I've only run into one escaper. So, in my experience at least, escapers are less of an issue than technical difficulties.

Sure, but I don't think it is as severe as escapism. While one is a deliberate act of malice, selfishness, excessive pride and egoism, which ruins someone else's experience of KGS, the other is a natural* circumstance which, frankly, I don't think KGS is responsible for in the first place.

(*natural in the sense that it happens of its own volition.)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There is probably no totally satisfactory answer. To you, it's important to punish jerks who deliberately ruin games by escaping and if some people get marked as escapers through no fault of their own then that's unfortunate collateral damage. To me, a game ruined by a shonky connection is worse because a game played by two good-faith players is more valuable than a game between a good-faith player and a jerk. And making it worse by stigmatizing people as "escapers" for having bad connections is not really fair; IMO it's better to let the jerk get away* with it than to punish the innocent. But that's just my opinion and I certainly see that other opinions are as valid as mine.

*haha

[daal]

If I must explain my rationale, I will.

The effect of rude people is limited only to how much emotional investment you have in your relationship with the person. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about rude comments. So, yes, you can shrug it off as no big deal. You have the power to not let it affect you. It's subjective, it is minor, and it's not a big deal. As I said.

Escapism, however, has a universally negative effect and impact on your enjoyment of KGS, by disrupting the primary mechanic and aim of a go server - as I said before - playing games.

So as I said, it's not really an issue. People being mean is not really a serious concern. But even if it is, and it's something really worth worrying about (in your opinion), accept the loss and resign respectfully. Don't leave a game open.

You could also look at it this way: the effect of escapers is limited to how much emotional investment you have in the outcome of the game. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about escapers. Or, as you said:

So, yes, you can shrug it off as no big deal. You have the power to not let it affect you. It's subjective, it is minor, and it's not a big deal. As I said.

[MS_Sydney]

Of course, there could be a special "chronic game dropper" character just like there's a tilde for people who play twice as many games against stronger players than against weaker players.

Then, if you have a strong emotional response against people dropping the game, you could avoid those players. Then it's neutral. They're not "escapers" as much as "people who, for whatever variety of reasons, sure drop a lot of games".

[Annihilist]

Of course, there could be a special "chronic game dropper" character just like there's a tilde for people who play twice as many games against stronger players than against weaker players.

Then, if you have a strong emotional response against people dropping the game, you could avoid those players. Then it's neutral. They're not "escapers" as much as "people who, for whatever variety of reasons, sure drop a lot of games".

I like this. This is a sensible idea.

If I must explain my rationale, I will.

The effect of rude people is limited only to how much emotional investment you have in your relationship with the person. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about rude comments. So, yes, you can shrug it off as no big deal. You have the power to not let it affect you. It's subjective, it is minor, and it's not a big deal. As I said.

Escapism, however, has a universally negative effect and impact on your enjoyment of KGS, by disrupting the primary mechanic and aim of a go server - as I said before - playing games.

So as I said, it's not really an issue. People being mean is not really a serious concern. But even if it is, and it's something really worth worrying about (in your opinion), accept the loss and resign respectfully. Don't leave a game open.

You could also look at it this way: the effect of escapers is limited to how much emotional investment you have in the outcome of the game. In other words, you are entirely in control of how you feel about escapers. Or, as you said:

So, yes, you can shrug it off as no big deal. You have the power to not let it affect you. It's subjective, it is minor, and it's not a big deal. As I said.

Alright. I see your point.

At a stretch I can use an analogy of "verbal abuse vs physical abuse". The former is merely saying mean things, and the actual harm is caused by your emotional investment in it. The latter is taking actual physical control over your body to cause you pain. THe former depends entirely on an emotional reaction - while the latter is harmful no matter the circumstance.

Here, we have verbal abuse (i.e. rudeness) and escapism. The first one consists of someone saying mean things to hurt you - but, the actual harm is dependent on your emotional response. However, the other one is actually blocking you from your enjoyment of KGS. One is subjective; the other is not. One can be fixed on a personal level; the other can not.

And, as I have said, playing games is the primary function of a go server. So, if one is blocked from playing games, the go server no longer performs its function. It is useless. Automatically, then, anything which inhibits this function is more "severe" (for lack of a better word) than anything else.

Can you see what I'm getting at here? By turning my arguments back on me, you are implying that both issues are equal and interchangeable - I am showing you that they are not. But I know what you are saying,

Was this worth it? I highly doubt it. It really is a trivial issue, and I should really stop caring about it.

[Mef]

Of course, there could be a special "chronic game dropper" character just like there's a tilde for people who play twice as many games against stronger players than against weaker players.

There is no character, but "chronic escaper" exists in the server. It requires being the first person to leave an unfinished game somewhere between 13 and 20 times (depending on circumstances). Once you get it all games you leave are immediately resigned. There's no need for a character for it, because the opponent will simply see a resignation window if their opponent leaves.