Seems to suggest something, does it not?

Seems to suggest something, does it not?

I think your argument fails on multiple levels.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The goal of the server is not to punish anybody. It is to make sure that you can adjourn a game from time to time with no problem, and also to make sure that players who walk away from lost games are counted as resigning them.

Not asking KGS to change. Again, I am talking about the ideal system.

...
The stated goal is two-fold:
1.) Make sure you can adjourn a game from time to time without problem.
2.) Make sure players who walk away from lost games are counted as resigning them.
...
Now consider a system that has an adjourn button, but does not allow escaping without loss - or even a togglable "no escaper" option. Such a system meets goal #1 - an adjourn button provides a way to adjourn a game from time to time (given opponent consent).
...

Kirby, you keep saying this, and keep talking about KGS's system (in a thread about KGS's escaper system). Do you consider Tygem's or Kaya's system ideal, or just better?

But it doesn't meet goal #1. An opponent who is being abusive will hardly consent to adjourning the game, and even if he did, having to ask one's abuser to adjourn is hardly "without problem." If an ideal system needs to satisfy both of those goals, then yours isn't it.