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

_________________
Occupy Babel!

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...

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.

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



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.



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.).



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.

_________________
be immersed

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.

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.

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

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.

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

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

Clearly the Tygemers are more eloquent than I.

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

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

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.

First of all, don't describe yourself as an escaper. You aren't escaping games. You get disconnected. If anyone is an escaper, it's the opponent who refuses to finish his games with you.

My point was that you, at least, do not feel that you have two options during the course of the game - to stay if you please, or to adjourn it if you don't. You say that you resign "almost all" of your disconnected games to avoid acquiring an escaper flag, true? If so, Kirby's understanding of the KGS escaper system (no one has to stay and finish a game that they're losing) can't be correct.

I am curious, by the way - what is the situation with your opponents when you disconnect? They've already started new games, or they've signed off, or they don't speak english, or they just refuse to resume their games with you?

Typically, they're already in another game or have signed off. (I haven't tracked the statistics, here.) Sign-offs seem to become more common if the disconnected game was nearing the end-game. I often connect for a single game (always auto-match) and sign off as soon as it is finished so it doesn't surprise me that others do the same.

I also disagree with the idea that nobody has to stay and finish a game that they're losing. Only people who aren't worried about being flagged as escapers get permission to do this.

In fact, I think KGS punishes escapers quite adequately. My point is that KGS also punishes users on poor connections. For me, this is no problem - I play on IGS when I don't trust my Internet connection. However, if we are arguing in favour of Utopia, I have strong opinions on what Utopia looks like.

Not asking KGS to change. Again, I am talking about the ideal system. And yes, I use both kgs and tygem.

Read the KGS Escaper FAQ:
http://www.gokgs.com/help/faq/escapers.html

The goal of the system is clearly stated:


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.

The current KGS system attempts to meet this, but fails at satisfying goal #2 until you have escaped sufficiently many times.

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). It also ALWAYS meets #2, as well - you cannot walk away from a game without it being a loss at any time.

So, this is not a matter of "what hamburger do I like?". Rather, I am referring to a more ideal system than the current one, given KGS's own stated goals.

And again, I am not trying to drive any change in KGS. I am content with the way it is, and it serves me well, practically speaking. The only thing I am saying is that the current system is not ideal, even when measured against its own goals. It's a purely theoretical argument.

_________________
be immersed

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.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I don't know about kaya's that well. I do not think that Tygem's is ideal, because you can't adjourn and resume later as far as I know.




I feel that it does meet goal #1, actually. You can adjourn a game from time to time without problem - get your opponent to agree to adjourning, and you can do so.

It appears that you feel that it is a problem when you cannot adjourn a game without your opponent's consent.

This confuses me. Do you feel that you have the right to modify the result of a game just because you personally don't like your opponent's behavior?

Do you feel it'd be OK to do this in a tournament? Maybe your opponent is playing his music too loud. Does that give you the right to get a no result in your game?

I really don't think that it does, and if you don't think that it does, my proposed system still meets KGS's goals better than the current system does.

---

Perhaps that's where I disagree with KGS - I feel that, when you agree to a ranked game, you are thereby committing to playing it to the end (or resigning). The current system seems to think little of this commitment, and say "it's ok for you to quit a game against those you don't like for no result - just don't do it too often."

So I still feel the proposed system better meets KGS's goals than the current one, but maybe it's based on the premise that I value the commitment you make to your opponent in agreeing to play a game.

_________________
be immersed