The KGS is dead, long live the KGS ?

[Fenring]

Fenring, I can see neither of us will change our minds about this, which is more reason for the server not to dictate a particular philosophy. Since we are somewhat repeating ourselves now, you can re-read the comments I already left if you are interested in understanding my viewpoint.

Anyway, I'll just comment on the one point:

But its in fact not a wanted behavior from the server's interest,because if a non-negligible part of players do this. It become harder for other who have classic behavior to find a game against stronger people. So, it become harder to find a game for all.

For every game where a weak player plays a stronger player, it's also a game where a stronger player is playing a weaker player. It is not possible for everyone to only play stronger players - just some players that either play weaker more often or stronger more often.

The only way this ever loses a problem to the server is if it results in fewer games being played, for example, because there are no stronger players to play for a given player. In this case, that strong player is free to play a game with a weaker player.

But what has happened, in effect, as a result of the tilde, is another reason for players to decline games.

Anyway, you clearly do not agree, which is fine. But I personally don't like the feature since it puts a stigma on behavior that I don't find to be bad.

i can't agree,but not a question of philosophy,but because your arguments are totally false.
you can't say "in effect,as a result of the tilde is another reason for player to decline games".
Its simply a lie.
In fact,the stronger player will always find a no-~ weaker player to ask him a game.
So "the stronger player who wanna play weaker player" play. So in number of games, this have no negative impact.

"The only way this ever loses a problem to the server is if it results in fewer games being played", yes and even with the tilde its already the case,because we have more waiting time for stronger than play time on server,which reduce the number of games played,and its exactly what happens.
The tilde limit(no delete) this effect.
its like you had two waiting list, list of player who wait a stronger player and list of player who wait a weaker player.(in fact a 3th play with same lvl)
The problem is than if you think to your own interest you have to be in the "waiting for strongest", but for the systems work, you have to be the same number in both list.(because number of games is the minimum of the two list),if you have a difference the other wait.

The good strategy to maximize the number of games played,its everyone alternate between the 2 waiting list.
For the user interest,you want only be in "wait for strongest",but this strategy work, if only other accept to reduce their interest.
You can say "yes,but some people define their interest as playing with weaker", but we all know they are fewer than those who wanna play with strongest, i have already check it everytime in challenge list.
So we can say we have never the situation with a stronger player waiting and only ~ weaker waiting, so the ~ never reduce the number of games played.
In opposite with the system,players like me accept to go more offen on "waiting for weakest player,even if its not in my own-interest".

[Kirby]

i can't agree,but not a question of philosophy,but because your arguments are totally false.
you can't say "in effect,as a result of the tilde is another reason for player to decline games".
Its simply a lie.
In fact,the stronger player will always find a no-~ weaker player to ask him a game.

Instead of just saying that my arguments are "totally false", or that they are simply lies, maybe you can try to understand the meaning I'm trying to communicate(?).

Do stronger players decline games with tilde players because of the tilde? Yes. And that's all I meant with that phrase. Sure, that same stronger player may find a non-tilde weaker player to play against - if one is even online, which may or may not be the case. By the way, I even conceded that I can understand the argument for the tilde in some ways in the previous post, if you happened to read that :-p

If we can't communicate through a simple one-line phrase like this one, I don't think it's productive to continue the discussion.

[Fenring]

The problem is your repeat your feelings as a truth, without try to understand the logic behind.
i understand you meaning, i explain where is the logic mistake in what you say,you just repeat your feeling.

example:"its not a bad behavior"
i answer" its a natural behavior,because its maximize your own interest,but indirectly minimize others interests,which is not bad,jsut natural,but server have to limit that"
later,no arguments,you just repeat" i feel its not a bad behavior".
When you put feelings over logic, yes its hard to have a discussion.
You dont take account other's argument: i use logic arguments to try to demonstrate ~ help to maximize number of games and intent stronger player to accept to play against lower players,you dont criticize arguments or demonstration,you just put your feelings as a truth:"~ just create decline games",even i just say ~ create more reason for stronger player to accept games, or "the argument for ~ is just moral judgement on who deserve to play against stronger player" just after i explain it has nothing to do with morality.


Its exactly the same problem than with red light " the truth is ~give another reason to decline games","the truth is red light only stop vehicules who could go faster without red light", you only see the immediate frustration of redlight/~, you refuse to accept long term benefits effects

[Kirby]

Fenring,

Let's go over once again where you pointed out my "logic mistake". It's a repeat of the previous post, but what can I say?

I will try to express as simply as possible.

i can't agree,but not a question of philosophy,but because your arguments are totally false.
you can't say "in effect,as a result of the tilde is another reason for player to decline games".
Its simply a lie.
In fact,the stronger player will always find a no-~ weaker player to ask him a game.

You say that, "in effect,as a result of the tilde is another reason for player to decline games" is a lie.

I argue (not feel) that the statement is not a lie. Why? Because there exist people that decline games since their opponent has a tilde mark.

I'll stop there. Are you in agreement with me so far? This is not a feeling. This is an observation.

Do you not observe the same?

[daal]

The idea of having a hero mark is similar; you can give preference to the guys who go out of their way to help weaker players.

Maybe the difference is, you don't want to play against the guy that didn't play *any* weaker players. I don't think these guys should be called out, because I don't feel they are doing anything wrong.

Really? Doesn't it seem just a little bit selfish? We can agree that playing stronger players is a good way to improve, but if we take advantage of this ourselves and never offer the opportunity to anyone else aren't we a bit like a cat jumping on a lap like he deserves to be petted and never offering to pet you back?

I also like the hero idea. Maybe we should label players as either cats or dogs.

[Kirby]

The idea of having a hero mark is similar; you can give preference to the guys who go out of their way to help weaker players.

Maybe the difference is, you don't want to play against the guy that didn't play *any* weaker players. I don't think these guys should be called out, because I don't feel they are doing anything wrong.

Really? Doesn't it seem just a little bit selfish? We can agree that playing stronger players is a good way to improve, but if we take advantage of this ourselves and never offer the opportunity to anyone else aren't we a bit like a cat jumping on a lap like he deserves to be petted and never offering to pet you back?

I also like the hero idea. Maybe we should label players as either cats or dogs.

You'll have to be more clear on where we disagree. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, so I should probably avoid adding to the pot.

As you can see with my dialog with Fenring, it's easy to argue past one another about points that both parties agree with.

[daal]

I am arguing against the idea that someone who only plays stronger players is not doing anything wrong. I think they are acting in a selfish manner - not granting others what they take for themselves. Granted, most of us are playing to improve and have fun and not to serve a community, but that's why I think it's not bad for the server to take responsibility to encourage people to put in a fair share of what they take out.

[Kirby]

daal, I pretty much agree. I'd just add that "fair share" is somewhat hard to define well. You might say someone should play equally against stronger and weaker players, but with different personalities, cultures, game experiences, etc., I think it's difficult to formulate a universal concept of fairness with a system like this.

And besides, why does someone need to be "fair" anyway? Most just want to play go.

We see from other servers that there's no problem at all without the tilde. People play games actively without it, and nobody seems to complain about it. I've never seen someone say, "Dangit, I just played a guy that doesn't play weaker players! I shouldn't have given him the time of day!"

Oh, the horror...

[Fenring]

when you say "~ is another reason to decline a game" AFTER i explain how ~ increase the number of games played, is just out of topic, because it show you ignore all my arguments.
Its like fox new saying "collusion is not a crime", which is literraly true,but just because collusion can cover different crimes.

So i repeat differently:

~ is another reason to decline a game, but it give more reason too accept games from the weaker player who have no ~.
The fact is as people wanna play more with stronger than weaker, a stronger who play with weaker,will always have the choice,so when he accept, indirectly he always decline offer from someone else.
So in resume: you just remplace random reason by good reason(i mean useful,not good as moral) of decline, but you dont have more decline, you maximize number of games played, and maximize the opportunity for all users to play against stronger players.
So, ~players have more decline.
But no ~ players have less decline, and more strongers players ready to play with them.


If you try other servers, you will see a big use of automatch, and a big number of decline.
At my lvl, i have less decline from 1k stronger opponent on KGS than IGS for example.
Tygem i only use automatch, i can't compare.

[Kirby]

Fenring, I don't really disagree tha much with the statements you've said here. What I disagree with is your claim that the quoted statement from earlier is a lie, when I was merely stating an obvious observation.

[Fenring]

if you agree with what i say,you agree your statement is true, but have in this discussion same sens than say:"i'm against redlight because they stop car" and you say that AFTER someone argue for the advantages of redlight. It show you dont listen other's arguments.
Feeling over logic.

[Kirby]

I think my argument has been logical. I don't think you completely get what I am saying, but I don't know how to express it differently.

You are free to disagree. I assume that you probably do