Jerks you met on go severs?

[Mef]

...

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.

[lefuet]

"..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?

[Kirby]

...
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.

[judicata]

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.

[Kirby]

...
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.

[averell]

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.

[judicata]

...
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.

[Mef]

...
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!

[topazg]

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?

[jts]

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.

[daal]

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.

Just because you repeat something again and again doesn't make it true or right.

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?

Good question.

[Kirby]

...
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.

Of course, I agree that certain behavior allows someone to resign/quit a game justifiably. I even go as far as to feel that resigning at any time is OK - though I know that this isn't necessarily a popular opinion.

I believe Mef was saying, though, that when you "meet a jerk" on the server, it is OK to escape. This, I don't think is appropriate.

When you've agreed to a game, you should see it through to the end, IMO. If it means resigning, then resign.

[judicata]

I believe Mef was saying, though, that when you "meet a jerk" on the server, it is OK to escape. This, I don't think is appropriate.

When you've agreed to a game, you should see it through to the end, IMO. If it means resigning, then resign.

Maybe we are on different sides, though I respect your position. I'm looking at starting a game like a contract in which both players agree to play to the end (whether it ends in resignation or counting). They also agree to other implied terms, such as not moving your opponent's stones (i.e., cheating). When a material term is breached, I feel that the other party can simply stop playing without further obligation. I don't think acting like an average jerk is enough to allow escaping, though--it takes something more.

FYI, I've never done this.

[Solomon]

Am I the only who actually takes the time to PM/send a message to the escaper nicely to go back to our game? I add the person to my buddy list and when I see him on, I resume the game which brings a pop-up to him. I'll give them a few hours or a few days (depending on when the person comes back on when I'm online) to cool down and clear their head because a lot of times when people escape, this is probably the state they're in:



And most of the time they do enter the resumed game and immediately resign, some of them even typing out 'thx' or apologizing. What I do isn't as time-consuming as it sounds, and coupled with my habit of scanning my opponent's game list before accepting/rejecting his game offer, means I haven't had to deal with an opponent who escapes AND doesn't eventually resign the game in a very long time (at least a year).

And yes, I too have my own idea for an ideal escaper system and policy (basically Tygem's) but can't please them all.

[judicata]

Am I the only who actually takes the time to PM/send a message to the escaper nicely to go back to our game?

You're not the only one - that's my practice. But, like you, I haven't run into very many escapers and the whole things doesn't really bother me much.