Life In 19x19

Hi,

I'am a bit wondering what kind of server ogs is. What happend today:

I accepted a ranked game offer from a user multiple times, the opponent canceled every game without playing a move. I asked in the chat what is happening there, if there are any drawbacks for cancelling ranked games and why there is a restrict rank option.
An Admin contacted me and said i should stop misbehaving in chat and accepting these game offers.
Asked him politely a few questions but got no real answer to those, instead he offered trolls should jump off bridges. After i posted the chat log with the admin to the chat i got booted off the server and called idiot afterwards.

tl;dr I accepted many ranked game offers in a row and got kicked off the server because the admin is having a difficult morning.

What are your experiences on this server, is it just one admin or are all behaving like this one?

I love playing on OGS, but my interactions with moderators/admins have not always been stellar, sadly.

I don't have the chat log, but I looked at your profile to see the game history. It looks like a 15k had posted an open challenge for a 13x13 game, which you accepted, and he then canceled the game and posted the challenge again. This process was repeated seven times. I would surmise the following:

1. He didn't want to play against you (maybe because you're 8K? I have no idea).
2. He didn't know how to set the rank restriction (if rank was the issue) or how to block you from accepting his challenges (if it was something personal). Users have both options on OGS.
3. You either did not get the message that he didn't want you for an opponent, or you did pick up on that, but chose to ignore it. Since you went through the process seven times, I'm inclined to think it was the latter, which could be considered disrespectful behavior. In fact, the feature for blocking users from accepting your games was introduced specifically because of this type of behavior.

I've notified the other user of his options when posting open challenges.

calantir
OGS moderator

Xylol wrote:
if there are any drawbacks for cancelling ranked games

Just to be clear (given the way you phrased this) we do frown on people repeatedly accepting games and then canceling them, which is a different story from offering games and then canceling them. The latter usually only happens in the type of situation you're describing, which is why we introduced the block user feature.

Xylol (8k) accepted 7 game offers from a 15k, each of which was cancelled. When asked to stop accepting those games Xylol insisted that the 15k was in the wrong for not setting a rank restriction on the game and that, obviously, he was in the right to continue harassing the 15k (the 15k subsequently signed off and gave up on finding a game after the 7th attempt).

Xylol then insisted that the moderator (this guy, btw) explain how accepting the aforementioned games was rude. If I have to explain it...

If Xylol had acted this way in real life, he would have been arrested for harassment. Why do trolls always claim righteous indignation against the just fruits of their poor behavior?

@crodgers: Please take a good hard look at how calantir handled Xylol's post. That is how a moderator should act. None of this "he would have been arrested in real life" stuff, just politely and professionally explaining what happened.

Please, spare me. It was a simple comparison to show the severity of the behavior. This type of behavior cannot be allowed to persist simply because it takes place in an online environment. Had he behaved in this fashion IRL, the consequences would be severe.

This sort of thing happens a lot and is mostly due to how things are taken in the context of interaction over the Internet, which isn't an ideal medium, which tends to pit common sense, emotions and fact against each other!

7 times perhaps was excessive to accept the same person's challenge. Then again, it is an open public challenge. The idea is that it is open to anyone. OGS is difficult enough to get a game sometimes. Why did the game requester not do their homework and look at rank restrictions / blocks? And the admin sounded very rude.

I like to think that people in the Go community are generally lovely people and 99 times out of 100 it is the de-personalisation of social interactions on the Internet that lead very commonly to confusion, upset, aggravation and jumping to conclusions.

I am sure that, if the poster and the game-requester met in a real-life game, they would find all this when-did-who-do-what-to-whom-and-why a bit silly and everyone would buy each other a drink.

Of course the admin sounded rude, Xylol skewed his version to make himself appear a victim. I wish I had the foresight to save the public chat. Live and learn I guess.

HermanHiddema wrote:I love playing on OGS,

nice to read that

but my interactions with moderators/admins have not always been stellar, sadly.

Actually, this sounds like a compliment to me rather than like a critical remark — I can’t interpret “not always stellar” other than as “stellar most of the time”

Also, you know that a Go server has joined the ranks of “The Big Ones” when people begin to complain about its mods on L19

Bonobo wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:I love playing on OGS,

nice to read that

but my interactions with moderators/admins have not always been stellar, sadly.

Actually, this sounds like a compliment to me rather than like a critical remark — I can’t interpret “not always stellar” other than as “stellar most of the time”

Also, you know that a Go server has joined the ranks of “The Big Ones” when people begin to complain about its mods on L19

To play devil's advocate, I would point to igolocal and sister sites as a clear counterpoint here

calantir wrote:

Xylol wrote:
if there are any drawbacks for cancelling ranked games

Just to be clear (given the way you phrased this) we do frown on people repeatedly accepting games and then canceling them

From the description of the event, it looks like it was not OP who kept cancelling the games, but the other kid who was posting the challenge, then accepting the challenge, then cancelling the games, repeatedly. And yet somehow it was the OP who got the boot.

It seems to me that if the server offers a tool which prevents certain behavior, and then the user refrains from using the tool, and then the user complains about the behavior, who is to blame? I mean - I would be as likely to assume that the other guy did not know how to set up or refuse a challenge as I would be to assume that he wanted to play the game but did not know how to make the first move or something. In which case, answering his challenge repeatedly would actually be a nice thing to do - giving him chance after chance until he figures it out. Either way.

Anyhow... is there no chat option on OGS? Just curious.
All of this could have been avoided if one guy could just chat with the other guy...

Bantari wrote:

calantir wrote:

Xylol wrote:
if there are any drawbacks for cancelling ranked games

Just to be clear (given the way you phrased this) we do frown on people repeatedly accepting games and then canceling them

From the description of the event, it looks like it was not OP who kept cancelling the games, but the other kid who was posting the challenge, then accepting the challenge, then cancelling the games, repeatedly. And yet somehow it was the OP who got the boot.

Hmm, it seems my attempt to be clear backfired.

I didn't say that Xylol was canceling any games. In this post, I was trying to make sure that no one wrongly got the idea from Xylol's post that there are no drawbacks for accepting and then canceling games, which is a type of behavior that did not occur in the incident being discussed, but is included in Xylol's generic phrase "canceling ranked games."

Also, it's not the person who posts the challenge who accepts it. Once you post the challenge, someone else accepts it, and the game starts automatically. So to be accurate, you'd need to describe the sequence as "posting the challenge, then canceling the game when the same opponent accepted the challenge."

Bantari wrote: It seems to me that if the server offers a tool which prevents certain behavior, and then the user refrains from using the tool, and then the user complains about the behavior, who is to blame?

It seems to you that who is to blame? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but let's assume it's that this incident might be just as much Xylol's opponent's (trudodyr's) fault as Xylol's. If your hypothetical version of the situation here is accurate, specifically, that trudodyr "refrained" from blocking Xylol, well, that would be pretty self-contradictory and bizarre behavior, since he obviously didn't want to play Xylol. From my understanding of human behavior, it seems far more likely to me that he simply didn't know how to block Xylol. In that case, is he to blame? I think only if you consider it his fault that he's not yet familiar with all the many cool features of OGS. What do you think?

Bantari wrote: I mean - I would be as likely to assume that the other guy did not know how to set up or refuse a challenge as I would be to assume that he wanted to play the game but did not know how to make the first move or something. In which case, answering his challenge repeatedly would actually be a nice thing to do - giving him chance after chance until he figures it out. Either way.

Anyhow... is there no chat option on OGS? Just curious.
All of this could have been avoided if one guy could just chat with the other guy..

Good point! Chat could really help clarify some of these things. Thankfully, OGS not only has a chat option, the players exercised it. Let's look at some of the game chats and see what light they shed.

https://online-go.com/game/2363807
https://online-go.com/game/2363809
https://online-go.com/game/2363815

Here I think we see the situation pretty clearly. Trudodyr did not want to play Xylol. Xylol knew Trudodyr did not want to play him. Xylol kept accepting the games anyway, challenging him to change his settings if he did not like it. Trudodyr did not (apparently) know how to block Xylol or restrict the rank, and Xylol did not explain it clearly to him.

Trudodyr has now had several moderators explain his options to him, so I think he'll be able to avoid this kind of trolling in the future.

Pardon the long email, just in a chatty mood I guess.

First of all, please let me say that:
I know admin work is hard. My apologies if I needlessly added any frustration or annoyance. Just thinking out loud.

calantir wrote:

Bantari wrote: It seems to me that if the server offers a tool which prevents certain behavior, and then the user refrains from using the tool, and then the user complains about the behavior, who is to blame?

It seems to you that who is to blame?

I dunno, this is why I asked.
Who do you think is to blame?

I can see blame being spread between 3 parties: (1) the OP who repeatedly accepted a public challenge, the (2) other guy who could not be bothered to learn how to use the interface, and (3) whoever wrote the interface and/or the instructions for not really being very clear, apparently. Each party could have an excuse and explanation, of course, and I am sure each one does.

Any thoughts?

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here,

Exactly what I said. You might add to it what I said above.

but let's assume it's that this incident might be just as much Xylol's opponent's (trudodyr's) fault as Xylol's. If your hypothetical version of the situation here is accurate, specifically, that trudodyr "refrained" from blocking Xylol, well, that would be pretty self-contradictory and bizarre behavior, since he obviously didn't want to play Xylol.

One could say it is just as self-contradictory and bizzare behavior to keep accepting a challenge 7 times after the game has been repeatedly cancelled. Or do you think that one is self-contradictory and bizzare while the other is perfectly natural? Not knowing any other facts, it seems to me that each side can be suspected of either being a pest. Or of simply and innocently misunderstanbding the situation, or maybe being ignorant of the how and the what.

Now understand - I am not defending one side or the other here, I really do not care. Just wondering why one party has been booted while the other is presented as victim here. It might well be that the OP deserved the boot, but what I can read here thus far does not really show that. This is all.

If you have more to add, please do.

From my understanding of human behavior, it seems far more likely to me that he simply didn't know how to block Xylol. In that case, is he to blame? I think only if you consider it his fault that he's not yet familiar with all the many cool features of OGS. What do you think?

I think that this is a perfectly valid hypothesis. Just like a valid hypothesis would be that OP was having a hard day or a headache and it simply didn't dawn on him that he is not welcome as opponent. Maybe he did not get the chance to read the game chat - maybe was staring at the board waiting for first move - and suddenly poof - the game is cancelled.

Or that he suspected the other guy had interface/net problems. Or whatever else, I could probably think of some other theories. Some are more likely than others, but many are reasonable, I think.

Another thing... The other guy did not know how to block challenge, did not know how to chat, but knew very well how to not only quickly find an admin but also how to vehemently complain, apparently. When I log on to OGS, it is by far not apparent to me how to find an admin. As a matter of fact - I have no clue. Granted, I do not go there often, but on the other hand I am very familiar with computers and various interfaces. Anyways, one could assume that the the complainer knew the interface and how to find his way around the server.

From what you say I would assume that the only reasonable explanation you see here is that the other guy did not know how to use the OGS interface. Well, it might have been so, I dunno. Some facts do not support that.

All I mean that, if I were an admin, I would certain try not to jump into conclusions here.
But I am not an admin, so what do I know... Quite possibly the OP added more nails to his proverbial coffin when he chatted with you...

And yes, the game links you give seem to indicate *now* that the OP might have been at fault. But maybe he just did not read?

Bantari: did you catch that when you post a game on OGS and someone tries to enter, there's no "accept" stage? You just start playing or cancel the game. It's fairly different from the KGS/IGS model that we've used in the past.