Life In 19x19

wms wrote:If you are seen doing this by an admin, you will be deranked. Please do not do it.

Funny to read this about deranking, when messing up the rating system was the concern to begin with. It's like hunting down the lonely honker in the night by helicopter. The neighbours will appreciate it.

Kirby: I'm not really sure if this is a necessary clarification or not. However, I did not intend for my comments to be an argument that you must keep the current KGS system. Everything I wrote is compatible with a stronger punishment for escapers.

I do disagree that you can resign for any reason, though.

Kirby wrote:I'm not quite sure which quote you are referring to for "Not getting an escaper when, while people are getting stuck ranks". You can get stuck at a rank, yes. It's possible that you are stuck at an inaccurate rank due to escapers.

I agree that playing more games will increase the probability of having an accurate rank, but this is true of most ranking systems. More data typically helps in such an analysis.

Sorry again, that should have read "Not getting escaper wins..." The point is that the stated problem is that an excessive number of wins will not cause one's rank to properly adjust, and the proposed solution is that a disproportionately small number of additional wins will make a difference compared to the excessive number of already existing wins.

My solution was not "just play more games" it was "play games handicapped at the strength you think you should be ranked." That is, if you are ranked 10k, but think you are really 7k, play 7k's even and give 10k's H3. This will do much more to remedy your issue (and will further alleviate the problem for any of your past opponents suffer from the same).

Kirby wrote:Again, the example I provided was an extreme one. You can also imagine players that play on a regular basis, but simply escape periodically, not enough to trigger a forfeit for their escapes.

The persistent escaper problem has been discussed in other threads, and as I've mentioned before (and alluded to in this thread) will result in an error of less than 1/3 of a stone.

Kirby wrote:Once again, I think that this could be resolved by:

"Why not simply disallow escaping altogether, and provide an option for users to resume games later upon mutual request (with losses after a set amount of time due to connection issues)? Is this type of system inferior in any way?"

It's been conceded that the current escaper policy allows for a different result than if the escapes were counted as losses. If an escape is not mutually agreed upon, why should this be the case? The only explanation I can think of is disconnection issues which:
a.) Can be resolved by making a loss after a set period of time (eg. 5 or 10 minutes).
b.) Are becoming less and less common with today's technology.

This has been discussed time and time again (dating back to RGG), and in fact has even been answered in this thread. The principle of "No one should be forced to continue a game they have no desire to finish."

Mef wrote:...

This has been discussed time and time again (dating back to RGG), and in fact has even been answered in this thread. The principle of "No one should be forced to continue a game they have no desire to finish."

Let me just end my participation in this discussion by saying, "???".

If I have to explain my confusion with this rationale, I don't know if it's worth arguing anymore.

Javaness wrote:I don't derank many people at all, and I hardly ever run into escapers. If I meet one, I can't say that it particularly bothers me at all. It always surprises me that some people get very emotional about this issue.

I don't meet many serial killers, and they don't bother me much at all either. They're still a bad thing, and it would be good to
address the issue. Some would say they should be locked up after killing only one person. And as for your personal experience, you are an admin, and also you don't play automatch which is where many more escapers are since you cannot screen your opponents.

Mef wrote:This has been discussed time and time again (dating back to RGG), and in fact has even been answered in this thread. The principle of "No one should be forced to continue a game they have no desire to finish."

If only there were an option to make a game end that they don't want to finish. Maybe something similar to the resign button...

Kirby wrote:

Mef wrote:...

This has been discussed time and time again (dating back to RGG), and in fact has even been answered in this thread. The principle of "No one should be forced to continue a game they have no desire to finish."

Let me just end my participation in this discussion by saying, "???".

If I have to explain my confusion with this rationale, I don't know if it's worth arguing anymore.

I guess the easiest way I can put it is that you always have the choice to walk away from the game (just like in real life), and there's no reason you should be penalized if your opponent is a jerk.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that it's best to put this discussion to bed. After all, there is never anything new brought up in these threads, it's a topic that has already been endlessly discussed.

"..not allowed to intentionally lose ranked games"

I resign when I think I cannot win anymore. That includes a losing position, sudden shortage of time (phonecall, something urgent came up, ..), an escaped game (I cannot win if my opponent refuses to continue), ..

Rank reflects your winning percentage against other ranks (calculated by using old results und assuming it (the winning chance against a certain rank) will also hold in future games.
So my rank includes the (albeit very small) chance that I cannot win because of external factors and play often too fast, too tired, too unfocused, and the rank of the escaper will include the slightly higher chance not to lose through escaping.

I like the 5 minutes grace periode (like on WBaduk for instance).

averell: "...automatch which is where many more escapers are since you cannot screen your opponents."
I was under the impression that to escape in automatch means automatic lose?

Mef wrote:...
I guess the easiest way I can put it is that you always have the choice to walk away from the game (just like in real life), and there's no reason you should be penalized if your opponent is a jerk.

OK, I lied about not participating anymore. I hope that's OK...

The reason you should be penalized for walking away "if your opponent is a jerk" is because you agreed to play a game at those time settings.

You may not like your opponent. You may think he is weird, or not like his personality, for example. But this does not waive you from the agreement that you establish when you agree to play a game of go.

Kirby wrote:
You may not like your opponent. You may think he is weird, or not like his personality, for example. But this does not waive you from the agreement that you establish when you agree to play a game of go.

You say "waive," I say justifiable repudiation based on the "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Not that "being weird" is a breach, but being a jerk might be.

... if I haven't "outed" myself (er, my profession) before, this should do it.

judicata wrote:...
You say "waive," I say justifiable repudiation based on the "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Not that "being weird" is a breach, but being a jerk might be.

...

How is it justifiable? Are you saying that the result of the games I play against other people should be dependent upon whether I like them as people (actually, in this context, we are saying that it's dependent upon whatever the escaper feels like)? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.

lefuet wrote:I was under the impression that to escape in automatch means automatic lose?

On the contrary, automatch escaping is very much alive and well. In a normal rated game, before move 10
the game can still be made void under some circumstances, while when someone leaves on automatch search
because there was no opponent, and goes for a coffee or something, you get matched, you will have to wait
for the full time to run out, or escape or intentionally lose a ranked game. How's that for irony?

Btw i was looking at the senseis page Mef linked to, and voiding the game is not mentioned there as solution.
I don't necessarily want the win from my opponents bad connection, and this seems like a new compromise.

Kirby wrote:

judicata wrote:...
You say "waive," I say justifiable repudiation based on the "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Not that "being weird" is a breach, but being a jerk might be.

...

How is it justifiable? Are you saying that the result of the games I play against other people should be dependent upon whether I like them as people (actually, in this context, we are saying that it's dependent upon whatever the escaper feels like)? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying.

I should've added a smiley, as I was half-joking, and I haven't followed the entire thread closely. I think we're on the "same side," but I'm not sure what you meant by your comment. All I meant was that certain behavior can allow someone to resign/quit a game justifiably. When I said that "being a jerk might be" sufficient, I said "might be" because I assume mild jerkiness (whatever that is) probably isn't sufficient. Of course we're talking about loose terms. But, for example, if I start a serious game with 1 hour main time, and after the game beings I become hypothetically 100% sure that my opponent will refuse to play a move for another hour and then play only random moves afterwards, I think that is justification for walking away from the game. I use a clear hypothetical to make a point--we could endlessly argue about what behavior is sufficient, but I don't want to.

Kirby wrote:

Mef wrote:...
I guess the easiest way I can put it is that you always have the choice to walk away from the game (just like in real life), and there's no reason you should be penalized if your opponent is a jerk.

OK, I lied about not participating anymore. I hope that's OK...

Heh, you can keep going as you like, however I am actually done (=

I've got nothing more to say...After the OP's initial question was answered, nothing new has been brought up in this thread (...or really in the last 6 years or so...). Everything I would have to say has been repeated time and time again on some of the links of posted or literally dozens more exactly like them.

Cheers!

Out of interest, how are KGS' policies decided, who would be responsible for updating them, and on what circumstances would an update be considered to be appropriate? Are there any polls or reasons supporting the existing policies, or was it just either wms or a group of KGS admins saying "we should do it this way" and that's how things are as they are?

judicata wrote:

Kirby wrote:
You may not like your opponent. You may think he is weird, or not like his personality, for example. But this does not waive you from the agreement that you establish when you agree to play a game of go.

You say "waive," I say justifiable repudiation based on the "breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Not that "being weird" is a breach, but being a jerk might be.

... if I haven't "outed" myself (er, my profession) before, this should do it.

... irony, I hope.