Why KGS encourages escapes and how to fix it

[hyperpape]

...

The problem is, that the majority of players would turn this on, which in effect will disable the current escaper system. ...

Seems to suggest something, does it not?

The average chess player would cheat and rob his mother blind if he could get away with it?

[averell]

...

The problem is, that the majority of players would turn this on, which in effect will disable the current escaper system. ...

Seems to suggest something, does it not?

It does. And i would also vote for it, because i think the current policy does more harm than good. But not because the majority wants this. The majority would also not want to pay for disabled access anywhere. Or just turn your TV on to confirm: just because most people like something doesn't make it good.

Of course in this particular issue our benevolent leader is misguided...

[jts]

asfdadfasdf, are you the player who plays under a similar name as a guest in the English Game Room from time to time? Because we can't lump into one category the problems of guests and the problems of registered players. For a variety of reasons registered players prefer to play other registered players. which leaves guests playing other guests, who are mostly not good members of the KGS community.

[Kirby]

I think your argument fails on multiple levels.

Sure you do. It's something being said by me, after all...

Rated vs. unrated, short vs. fast time settings are essential features of a go server.

I disagree. It's entirely feasible to have a server that doesn't support time limits. It's entirely possible to have a server that doesn't have a ranking system.

It just so happens that time settings and a rating system are more universally popular features of a go server. Despite this, I feel that there is a large amount of support for a "no escaper" option.

Why does that matter? Every option imposes some degree of cognitive load on users.

I totally agree. There are two disadvantages to adding an option for "no escapers":
1.) Increased system complexity - I mentioned this earlier. Any feature in a software system increases its complexity, and I agree that adding this one would, too. To be honest, I would prefer for there not to be an option at all, and for it to default to the "no escapers" option. As I said before, it does not make sense to me that someone can leave a rated game periodically without having it affect their rating. As I see it, the current implementation is a bug, even though it seems to be a conscious decision.

2.) Time to implement - KGS is a pretty good place for playing go as it is, and wms has done us benefit by providing it to us. Escapers are not super common for me, so I personally still find it worth it to play on KGS even though I see the current escaper implementation as a bug. So in this argument, I am not really pushing for a new feature to be added. I am only arguing for an idealistic scenario (given zero implementation time or cost, etc.).

Also, the difference between rated and unrated games or fast and slow rated games have simple, obvious meanings. Your flag? Less so. In most games where it's set, it has no effect whatsoever. Every so often, it matters. Thus, users' expectations are more likely to be confounded, they're less likely to check, and so on.

Yep, I'd prefer not to have a flag, too. I'd prefer to default to having no escapers. But it is clear from these discussions that there exist people that like both methods of dealing with escapers. Hence, I feel it is a good candidate for a user-selectable option.

More than anything else I've said, I think it really comes down to the fact that I cannot comprehend the idea of a rated game that is optionally rated, depending on whether or not someone wants to escape.

[oren]

More than anything else I've said, I think it really comes down to the fact that I cannot comprehend the idea of a rated game that is optionally rated, depending on whether or not someone wants to escape.

I think the problem I have with your system is I would lose more games as an escaper than I would have games with no results due to escapers.

[jts]

You do understand, Kirby, that if you leave your games you trigger the escaper flag pretty quickly? One of the weird things that has come up in this thread is people claiming that they have to resign more games than they would have lost under a system where disconnected players lose automatically. Ignoring whether this is logically possible, that should show that even leaving your games with the intention of playing them later can't be an option in every game, let alone escaping.

Btw, Kirby, you're confusing assortative pairing with tragedy of the commons. Clearly some people want to play Go, and some Chess; that's why we have different servers with those different options. Within Go, some people want 9x9 and some people want 37x37, some people want slow and others want blitz, etc. It makes goods sense to pair those people off with one another. On the other hand, practically everyone would either want to claim an automatic win if their opponent left, or would be sorely tempted to do so. However, that doesn't mean that they want to give the opponents automatic wins when they themselves leave the game! (Similarly, in the classic tragedy of the commons, just because I want to graze my cows on common lands doesn't mean I want you to graze your cows on common land.) Conversely, if you gave people the option to play Chess on a Go server, there is no way that you could end up with everyone playing Chess, even though they would all prefer to play Go.

[Kirby]

More than anything else I've said, I think it really comes down to the fact that I cannot comprehend the idea of a rated game that is optionally rated, depending on whether or not someone wants to escape.

I think the problem I have with your system is I would lose more games as an escaper than I would have games with no results due to escapers.

IMHO, if your internet connection is flaky - you seem to assume it will drop - you should setup a game with longer time settings. It is not fair to your opponent, who may have a strong internet connection, to have to suffer from your connection.

If you agree to longer time limits in the game setup, your opponent agrees to devoting that amount of time to the game.

[Kirby]

You do understand, Kirby, that if you leave your games you trigger the escaper flag pretty quickly? One of the weird things that has come up in this thread is people claiming that they have to resign more games than they would have lost under a system where disconnected players lose automatically. Ignoring whether this is logically possible, that should show that even leaving your games with the intention of playing them later can't be an option in every game, let alone escaping.

Btw, Kirby, you're confusing assortative pairing with tragedy of the commons. Clearly some people want to play Go, and some Chess; that's why we have different servers with those different options. Within Go, some people want 9x9 and some people want 37x37, some people want slow and others want blitz, etc. It makes goods sense to pair those people off with one another. On the other hand, practically everyone would either want to claim an automatic win if their opponent left, or would be sorely tempted to do so. However, that doesn't mean that they want to give the opponents automatic wins when they themselves leave the game! (Similarly, in the classic tragedy of the commons, just because I want to graze my cows on common lands doesn't mean I want you to graze your cows on common land.) Conversely, if you gave people the option to play Chess on a Go server, there is no way that you could end up with everyone playing Chess, even though they would all prefer to play Go.

You'll have to dumb down your first point if you want me to understand it. I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

Regarding pairing, selecting a "no escaper" option is a two way street. Yes, you win if your opponent leaves and his clock runs out. But if you have to leave for some reason, the same thing happens to you.

[hyperpape]

I disagree. It's entirely feasible to have a server that doesn't support time limits. It's entirely possible to have a server that doesn't have a ranking system.

It just so happens that time settings and a rating system are more universally popular features of a go server. Despite this, I feel that there is a large amount of support for a "no escaper" option.

True that it's possible to have a server with any time limits whatsoever or a ranking system. But I still dare say that it's not just that these are popular features. You'd be dramatically changing what players could do by dropping those in a way that you wouldn't be by adopting the KGS escaper system in lieu of the Tygem system.

Contrast: a pretty board is a popular feature. And one worth having, but it would change nothing about the function of the server if the board is a little ugly.

That's the sense of essential I meant.

[jts]

You'll have to dumb down your first point if you want me to understand it. I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

You claimed that KGS "in effect" runs a system where you have two options when you're losing a game; you can stay and lose the game, or leave and not lose. In fact, however, your ability to leave a game - whether you are winning or losing, whether you plan to continue it later or not - without triggering the "chronic escaper" label is sharply limited. So your description of the KGS system is pure hyperbole.

[illluck]

Just for laughs, complaints about losing games due to disconnection at YC/Tygem:

http://tieba.baidu.com/p/1657116145

[jts]

Clearly the Tygemers are more eloquent than I.

[Kirby]

You'll have to dumb down your first point if you want me to understand it. I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

You claimed that KGS "in effect" runs a system where you have two options when you're losing a game; you can stay and lose the game, or leave and not lose. In fact, however, your ability to leave a game - whether you are winning or losing, whether you plan to continue it later or not - without triggering the "chronic escaper" label is sharply limited. So your description of the KGS system is pure hyperbole.

I see. That may have some truth, but I think that saying it is "sharply limited" is also hyperbole.

In either case, the fact that you can escape even a single game doesn't make sense to me. It is similar to how you are allowed to leave a game in less than 10 moves if it's not automatch. The KGS FAQ even states at the bottom of the escaper page that, for free games, leaving is an impolite way of saying "I resign." It is funny to me that this logic does not extend to games that affect your rank.

Sure, you want a way to adjourn games - then make an adjourn button... :-p

[daal]

When I'm at McDonalds, I sometimes wish I was across the street at Burgerking, but they don't serve the Veggieburgers that my daughter likes.

BTW, Kaya, which is around the corner, has a 5 minute forfeit system, and they offer both steak and falafel.

[Charlie]

One of the weird things that has come up in this thread is people claiming that they have to resign more games than they would have lost under a system where disconnected players lose automatically.

That wasn't what I said. What I said was that I prefer the IGS system: I know exactly how long I have to reconnect and my opponent knows exactly how long they have to wait. The result: I can resume games because my opponent sticks around. (They chose to play the game. At the very least, they can afford five minutes to honor the agreement to play a rated game.)

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.