I know this is OT, but...why do people always misspell "lose" with "loose"? I see this mistake more often than the grammatical misuse of "you're" versus "your" but at least to me the latter is understandable...the former though, I just don't get.

Well, there are two issues here. One is that of escapers, and the other is that of disconnections. I had a game the other day that took two days to finish, because my opponent kept losing his connection. I don't expect him to be credited with a loss because he disconnected five times. Life is full of unexpected problems; just because it makes you feel bad is no reason to penalize people who may live in areas where Internet connection is not as good as yours.

The second one of escapers is actually easy to deal with. The vast majority of escapers are serial escapers. Before I play any game, I look at the records of the people I'm going to play. If I see more than two escapes (or unfinished games; they show in italics), I'll scan the list and see if there are more. If so, I simply won't play them. I haven't had anyone escape on me in a year or so.

For me "your" and "you're" are very different.

For sure they are different regarding their meaning, but the pronunciation is quite the same. Similar problems exist with "it's" and "its", or with "there", "their" and "they're".

If we just take "you're", are you not aware when speaking that you are actually saying "you are"?

IGS/Oro - As I understand it there's a time limit to log back in (5 minutes?), then you resign. This is fits nicely with 1, it's completely automatic. On the second criterion I feel this falls short however, because the server behavior seems to assume the player is guilty of escaping, and gives them 5 minutes to prove they were not. When in doubt, the server would default to the conclusion that the player is not acting in good faith. I will come back to #3 in a minute. With respect to #4 it's pretty much a wash. While technically on IGS the average player is required to either wait 5 minutes before moving on (because their opponent disconnected), or log back in within 5 minutes, requirements that don't exist on KGS, in practice on KGS they will end up doing this anyway.

- Experience tells that in large majority of cases where the leaver isn't disconnected, he left the game in rage.

System's worthiness is no greater than its "weakest link", or biggest problem. Not features as such. Imagine a game that was fun to play, but it would occasionally crash to blue screen of death on some systems. Surely the company would make it their top priority to fix this issue. Now in KGS there's a feature to adjourn the game you're playing. Unfortunately it's being used maliciously to prevent loss record. This is causing distress and confusion to victims. Will the person be back? What will I do with this italics game on my record? Perhaps he makes a public accusation and gets ridiculed by veterans - like this very thread proves. At the very least the victim will call admins to explain the escaper policy for their hundredth time.

Won't all these consequences prove that escaping is at least a problem? Just saying "deal with it" will solve this one case, but new cases are being made daily, because the system is unintuitive. I'd call a plumber to fix the leak and have peace of mind. It's of course up to wms how big leak he considers this.

Considering that, the KGS system is a well-defined and working system. It just is based on different criteria and preferences than I would have chosen.

Your analogy to software in this case is poor, perhaps a better analogy would be "there is a game that is fun to play, however in a small percentage of time when it is played, there is a delay in recording the score obtained to the high scores list."

Personally, I've attempted to recall / estimate the criteria that were kept in mind when revising the KGS escaper system, and base a judgment using that. It may be that you disagree or think other criteria are important (which is perfectly reasonable), but I think in order to establish something as a problem, it would be nice to at least list proposed goal it is failing to achieve, or perhaps present a factor that was overlooked and argue for why it is important. Presenting a hypothetical anecdote to declare something a problem without a listing a realistic means of measuring or evaluating it makes it much more difficult to evaluate what might be the best way to solve said problem.

Now this was something I had meant to get back and respond better to, but I've been caught up in other things (=

While you don't come right out and say exactly what you are evaluating the systems on, you imply it pretty strongly by stating what you prefer...if I had to guess I would say you're looking for something like this:


1-All games should should be resolved, in a manner as quickly as is practical.
2-It is a player's responsibility to actively demonstrate willingness to continue the game, or else forfeit.
3-1 supercedes 2, except in cases of mutual agreement. (To allow for adjournment only if both agree)
4-In cases of dispute, the judgment of a disinterested 3rd party may be used to decide the result a game.


Anything I got wrong, or something else you care to add?

If this is close, I'd say it sounds pretty reasonable (personally, I'm not too keen on 4 but that's just a difference of opinion). I'd still be interested though in hearing more (from you or anyone else who cares to answer) about why you like these in particular (or if I got them wrong why you prefer the ones you do prefer).