Life In 19x19

Why do they do it? What is the benefit of winning to a weaker player? Where is the challenge?

My thesis is that sandbaggers lack self-validation. Very possible that in childhood their parents didn't reward them with validation; a sense of worth. They achieved things but mommy and daddy didn't pay attention and nothing was good enough.

Now these people are adults or young adults and they are getting their validation or recognition anyway they can... even a sure win agaisnt weaker players. They know is pathetic but they can resist themselves.

Very sad and they should seek psychological treatment anytime soon.

Why so presumptuous?

I have often thought that sandbaggers are people who lack confidence in themselves and have to proves themselves anyway they can.

Can't they just be mean? That is, take pleasure in disrupting the self-confidence of weaker players.

Sandbaggers are deliberately misrepresenting themselves, but especially beginners wouldn't be able to tell if they themselves are really bad, or their opponent is too strong for their stated rank.

I always looked at it as a type of bullying, anyway.

If I'd play an even game against someone much weaker, with my actual rank unhidden, the experience would be very different. They would expect to lose and not feel anywhere near as bad that I'm so much better. They already knew they had no chance when it started.

I've even played against sandbaggers who could simulate weaker play, as well as the hotseat variety where someone would swap out with a better player when things were going south. So first you're winning, then suddenly you're up against someone who can see things you don't know exist. It can really shake your confidence, and that's what entertains the bullies.

I don't buy that they're looking for validation, anyway. They already know they're much better. They're looking to make someone else's day worse.

Well, don't you think it is true that bullies are people who don't have confidence in themselves and so need to try to prove themselves? Confident people don't need to be bullies - they can succeed without it. My previous statement stands.

Unless, of course, they are psychopaths and that is a whole different area. But I doubt many psychopaths are active go players.

pitirre wrote:[..] in childhood [..]

DrStraw wrote:[..] lack confidence [..]

tentano wrote:[..] They're looking to make someone else's day worse.

I see no contradictions here … the reason for wanting to make someone else’s day worse is some perverted gratification system in these people. Having grown up in a family where violence towards us children was not rare (until our parents discovered psychotherapy), I know, better than I’d want to, how easy it can seem to get satisfaction out of sadistic behaviour towards weaker ones. I’m quite sure that every big bully (actually had another word here but forum censoring changed it into “cad”) must have had some traumatizing experiences in their childhood which changed them from a little kid into a little bully.

Of course it is mean... but winning is the most important factor to these people. Think about it: hours of playing against way way way weaker players, just senseless moves without a challenge... just to be mean? No. There HAS to be a reason tor all this nonsense that makes them feel good about themselves: winning. Winning is the drug. Makes them feel good. They are not thinking about the feelings of their opponent ... they are seeking the feeling that validate them. The idea that other people think of them as "unique" or "special".

Im here thinking, hours and days spent on games that are not challenging with beginners ... wow, it must be exhausting to keep that lie.

Oh, I hadn't accounted for the possibility that they might be dishonest with themselves.

That certainly makes it possible to create a rationale for "deserving" or "earning" those victories, despite facts.

Many psychological disorders the individual knows he is not "right" BUT the compulsion is greater.

pitirre wrote:Many psychological disorders the individual knows he is not "right" BUT the compulsion is greater.

I like the Socratic argument that if one truly understood what virtue is, one would perforce be virtuous; that evil is actually a form of ignorance.

In most cases the person really does not know that what he is doing is not right. At most he knows that other people think that it is not right.

Bonobo wrote:...“cad”...

[admin]

[/admin]

I've been told that I'm sandbagging, as I very easily win against some equally ranked players, but then I lose devastatingly to other players at the same rank. If I am sandbagging, are they sandbagging to a greater extent?

If my win rate is about fifty fifty that is normal, I would expect.

Is sandbagging only if there is a significant and intentional gap in strength?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

pitirre wrote:Many psychological disorders the individual knows he is not "right" BUT the compulsion is greater.

I like the Socratic argument that if one truly understood what virtue is, one would perforce be virtuous; that evil is actually a form of ignorance.

In most cases the person really does not know that what he is doing is not right. At most he knows that other people think that it is not right.

Bonobo wrote:...“cad”...

[admin]

[/admin]

There's no reason to enforce your version of what's "right" on someone else. Maybe YOU'RE the one who is wrong.

With the anonymity offered by the Internet why does anyone ever act in an anti social way? eg forum trolling or sandbagging. There's probably plenty of reasons, perhaps they have a bad job or life situation.. or just enjoy being mean. I get the impression that most people are rather less moral than we like to admit.

Abyssinica wrote:There's no reason to enforce your version of what's "right" on someone else.
Maybe YOU'RE the one who is wrong.

Hi Abyssinica, could you elaborate or clarify what you mean:
(a) Do you mean "in general," "under any and all circumstances" ?
(b) Or do you mean only under certain situations ?
(c) If you mean (b), then which are those certain situations ?

Don't you guys exaggerate a bit? The sandbagger is neither physically nor psychologically damaging anyone. Why classifying into a psychological profile? A psychological damage could be if he wrote something like "you are stupid not to see that move", etc. But the sandbaggers I have seen so far never do that.

After all it's just a game and probably at that moment he is more interested in winning rather than in playing. He wastes his own time because he does not learn anything, but his opponent still has the opportunity to learn.

Acting like the devil's advocate, I must add that I never do sandbagging myself. But when I lose against a sandbagger, I don't mind either. Why would I, it's not a secret that there are stronger players than myself in the world.