Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:This confuses me. Do you feel that you have the right to modify the result of a game just because you personally don't like your opponent's behavior?

Do you feel it'd be OK to do this in a tournament? Maybe your opponent is playing his music too loud. Does that give you the right to get a no result in your game?

A qualified yes. If my opponent was being sufficiently awful in a face to face game, I'd walk away from the board*, and I wouldn't think of it as a loss, and there wouldn't be some ticker that kept track of it and lowered my rank and raised his because of the incident.

Of course, none of the antics I've seen on KGS have ever been approached by any real life opponent of mine. And you know what? If anyone acted like some people act on KGS, they wouldn't have people escaping them, they'd be known and they wouldn't get a game in the first place.

As for an opponent who played his music too loud at a tournament (I assume you mean open headphones or something), I wouldn't walk off. I'd just have the TD make him turn it down.

* If the better angels of my nature won out. I must confess, it's always possible I'd get in a big ugly stupid argument with him.

hyperpape wrote: A qualified yes. If my opponent was being sufficiently awful in a face to face game, I'd walk away from the board*, and I wouldn't think of it as a loss, and there wouldn't be some ticker that kept track of it and lowered my rank and raised his because of the incident.

Of course, none of the antics I've seen on KGS have ever been approached by any real life opponent of mine. And you know what? If anyone acted like some people act on KGS, they wouldn't have people escaping them, they'd be known and they wouldn't get a game in the first place.

As for an opponent who played his music too loud at a tournament (I assume you mean open headphones or something), I wouldn't walk off. I'd just have the TD make him turn it down.

* If the better angels of my nature won out. I must confess, it's always possible I'd get in a big ugly stupid argument with him.

I think that if you just got up and walked out during a tournament, you should definitely get a loss. But if you informed a TD (or an admin in the analogy) then it would be their disgression

Tournaments are serious business. Casual games are less serious. In a way, you could see the kgs policy as partially outsourcing policing to the users. It would suck for the admins if they had to be involved in every single personality clash. A td has signed up for that mediator/therapist role already.

hyperpape wrote: A qualified yes. If my opponent was being sufficiently awful in a face to face game, I'd walk away from the board*, and I wouldn't think of it as a loss, and there wouldn't be some ticker that kept track of it and lowered my rank and raised his because of the incident.

There is no ticker because you haven't agreed to play with a ticker. When you sign up for a "ranked" game, you commit to play with a ticker. But in the case of KGS, it is a ticker that you can selectively disregard.

I fundamentally disagree with this. But I am just repeating what I've already said in a different way.

So I am done talking about this. I am pretty sure that there are others like me that value the seriousness of agreeing to a ranked game.

But even if I'm the only one that feels this way, I don't really care. I'm done here for awhile.

How do people manage to run into so many escapers? Typically only guests escape on me, and those games aren't ranked in the first place.
Among registered players perhaps one in fifty or so escapes when he's behind.

I also don't get why people care so much if their opponent escapes in a casual online game. Escaping is slightly bad mannered, but IMO its no worse than those who resign after the endgame. I'd take five escapers over a single game terminated prematurely by a timeout system like on tygem.

Li Kao wrote:I also don't get why people care so much if their opponent escapes in a casual online game. Escaping is slightly bad mannered, but IMO its no worse than those who resign after the endgame. I'd take five escapers over a single game terminated prematurely by a timeout system like on tygem.

I think you fail to understand the psyche of many players - for a large proportion of players, winning is everything. Being denied a win (by an escaper) is much worse than a "false" win obtained, even from a lost postion, by timeout. In fact a win on these terms is perhaps even more satisfying for the rank/win obsessed player.

For them, there are no casual games (except free ones).

jts wrote:Tournaments are serious business. Casual games are less serious. In a way, you could see the kgs policy as partially outsourcing policing to the users. It would suck for the admins if they had to be involved in every single personality clash. A td has signed up for that mediator/therapist role already.

I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw. a TD has signed up to direct a tournament. An admin has signed up to administrate a go server. In both cases those are jobs where you hope that there is not disagreement, but your job is to settle it if it does occur. What would admins be needed for if there were no disputes?

speedchase wrote:

jts wrote:Tournaments are serious business. Casual games are less serious. In a way, you could see the kgs policy as partially outsourcing policing to the users. It would suck for the admins if they had to be involved in every single personality clash. A td has signed up for that mediator/therapist role already.

I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw. a TD has signed up to direct a tournament. An admin has signed up to administrate a go server. In both cases those are jobs where you hope that there is not disagreement, but your job is to settle it if it does occur. What would admins be needed for if there were no disputes?

Let's compare a tournament director to the (unofficial) head of my local go club. The guy who runs my local go club does a lot of important stuff - he sends out emails, he lets us know about local go events, sometimes he brings extra sets, and so on. But no one would go to him with beef about another player. You would never see two players go to him bickering about sportsmanship. We would never ask him to resolve a rules dispute or a complicated L&D status - he knows nothing about rules, and he's not particularly strong. If something did come up between two players, and he got over his shock at being asked to intervene, he would probably suggest they play other people. "But who won this game????", they whine plaintively. He shrugs indifferently and returns to his own game.

A tournament director is not like that. A tournament is designed to find one more winners, and give them prizes, and report results to the AGA that are then used for official purposes (pro qulaifiers, and so on). Given that the point of the tournament is to appoint a winner, you can't just say "Oh guys, get over it, it's just a game", because then at the end you don't know who won. If something comes up during a game that calls the correct course of the game or its outcome into question, the tournament director is the final authority. It doesn't matter if he barely understands the difference between Chinese and Japanese, it doesn't matter if he wouldn't know an unremovable ko threat if it poked him in the eye. The TD has volunteered to be the ultimate authority on all disputes relating to the outcome of the tournament (as well as ensuring that everyone has a good time, that the premises get cleaned up, etc).

Does that seem like a reasonable distinction to make? Casual games = playing for fun = casual attitude towards the outcome of games = the guy in charge doesn't need to be the final authority on every little thing. Tournament = playing to determine a winner = strict attitude towards the outcome of games = the guy in charge is always the final authority. Certainly there are always disagreements in life, but which types of disagreements need to be settled by a higher authority depends on the setting in which they occur.

jts wrote:Does that seem like a reasonable distinction to make? Casual games = playing for fun = casual attitude towards the outcome of games = the guy in charge doesn't need to be the final authority on every little thing. Tournament = playing to determine a winner = strict attitude towards the outcome of games = the guy in charge is always the final authority. Certainly there are always disagreements in life, but which types of disagreements need to be settled by a higher authority depends on the setting in which they occur.

I agree about the distinction between casual games and serious games however:

KGS TOS wrote:Rated games are meant to be serious games where player's strengths are tracked

It would appear that rated games on KGS are intended to be the latter. That begs the question of who is in charge and the final authority, and I would say that is the admins.

quantumf wrote:for a large proportion of players, winning is everything. Being denied a win (by an escaper) is much worse than a "false" win obtained, even from a lost postion, by timeout. In fact a win on these terms is perhaps even more satisfying for the rank/win obsessed player.

This, right there, is the source of escapism.

As I always said - and repeat again - letting your rank/rating overshadow/replace your strength/skill - this is the reason for escapers, sandbaggers, and all other such little people and their little games.

In a club or face-to-face setting, the strength/skill cannot be hidden.
Unfortunately, servers rely on rank/rating to qualify people... so its the rank/rating that becomes emphasized.

You don't seem many escapers/sandbaggers in a club... or do you?

speedchase wrote:

jts wrote:Tournaments are serious business. Casual games are less serious. In a way, you could see the kgs policy as partially outsourcing policing to the users. It would suck for the admins if they had to be involved in every single personality clash. A td has signed up for that mediator/therapist role already.

I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw. a TD has signed up to direct a tournament. An admin has signed up to administrate a go server. In both cases those are jobs where you hope that there is not disagreement, but your job is to settle it if it does occur. What would admins be needed for if there were no disputes?

No. Admins are not there to act as referees.

go is truly the game between 2 sportmanship. the act for escaping from a losing game is such an absurd thing. sandbagger is bad act too. Japan really make go as the sportmanship sport ever. coz, even in counting. U believe the sportmanship bonding between u and ur opponent, so U only need to count ur own territory.

Javaness2 wrote:

speedchase wrote:

jts wrote:Tournaments are serious business. Casual games are less serious. In a way, you could see the kgs policy as partially outsourcing policing to the users. It would suck for the admins if they had to be involved in every single personality clash. A td has signed up for that mediator/therapist role already.

I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw. a TD has signed up to direct a tournament. An admin has signed up to administrate a go server. In both cases those are jobs where you hope that there is not disagreement, but your job is to settle it if it does occur. What would admins be needed for if there were no disputes?

No. Admins are not there to act as referees.

Do you need referees when both sides agree? Of course not, you need referees when there is disagreement, also known as disputes. do you believe that if someone is swearing at me, or insulting me in a game, I should not get an admin?

jts wrote:

Charlie wrote:

jts wrote:There seems to be a belief that the KGS escaper policy is preferred by those of us with poor connections. I strongly disagree. I think it encourages the non-escaping player to leave, immediately, when one's connection dies.

If even a small percentage of connection problems can be remedied within the time allowed, that's better than losing 100% of your disconnected games because your opponent leaves immediately.

First of all, don't describe yourself as an escaper. You aren't escaping games. You get disconnected. If anyone is an escaper, it's the opponent who refuses to finish his games with you.

LOL
He s not describing himself as an escaper, he IS an escaper and the system is going to remind him with automatic forfeit very soon!

That's the main point: he s going to be punished for helping people to cheat and having bad connection.

To come back to the very first thread, the automatic forfeit after one day would just make Charlie feeling even more guilty to have a bad connection, and the cheater happy to have run away.