Even after filling all dame, because of some aji left and attempt to clarify by a player, l won’t call it stalling.
1 Like
So what is now the setting of the disconnection timer?
30s, 1mn? (5mn seems not)
I might be wrong but my understanding is that the disconnection timer is still 5m but the opponent can click to take the win after 60s. If they don’t click then there will be the usual timeout after 4 more minutes.
4 Likes
That’s what I recall. Hopefully they revert it to the full 5 minutes
2 Likes
I like having it at 60s when playing 9x9
I don’t think it’s about the board size but about time control. See my previous posts for why I think reducing it from 5 minutes was unnecessary
Hmm, so it seems there are more potential issues which can arise than just the case @Samraku and I previously discussed about this (bolding mine) :
I just came across another case in which this seems to have backfired and helped a player who was continuing to stall, to somehow win the game without having to play out any sequences.
(They were behind and all of the borders had been sealed, continuing to play inside opponent territory (including moves like the 1-1 point), whilst the opponent who was ahead, passed.
Then the server decision’s AI evaluation changed in their favour after some moves with a follow-up they seemed not to see (and I think would be difficult for most 15k to read out, and easily missed), + a pass, and they instantly claimed victory by server decision.
It seems to not be what the anti-stalling feature was intended for at all to change the victory in a stalling player’s favour based on hypothetical situations some of their moves create, which they didn’t and likely might not see at their level, but which the AI sees.
(and presumably evaluates as certain enough to be above 99% certainty, due to all of the borders being closed).
(actually perhaps rather the opposite of what was intended, as it did somewhat aid the stalling, player and not having to follow-up their otherwise potentially useless moves with working sequences)
(It is true that Black owes a move in the upper left in the game linked after the 2-2 point is played, but it doesn’t seem the anti-stalling giving the victory to White when neither player sees the cut sequence is really what is correct in this case.
At the least, both players should have to agree to the status of that area and/or play it out if they think White can do something there.
If both think it’s dead for White, which seems somewhat likely to be the case given that neither player continued to play there – cut or defend at a huge point, then White shouldn’t win the game.)
Perhaps this should be re-looked into and changed ? @GreenAsJade @anoek
3 Likes
This might be solved with a “pause and report” option which unilaterally pauses a game and reports it (for stalling, score cheating (anything else? just things that can happen at the end of a game and prevent the game from ending naturally)), with the game staying paused until a mod checks it out and either declares it a win for one player or the other, or annuls it (the former is an option because the game is only paused, not ended)
In this particular game, Brendix was handicapped in dealing with the stalling, because he was playing with a ruleset that does not allow infilling to resolve scoring disputes. If he had been playing with NZD rules, then he could have just defended everything until it was pass-alive instead of trying to pass the as soon as he could (once it had become clear the opponent wasn’t), and then passed thrice to activate the feature on his side
I think either one of these changes, one of them in the complete control of Brendix, would have prevented this miscarraige of the Antistalling feature
I am for this way too.
Has been suggested many times but didn’t reach any consensus.
1 Like
Frankly, I think a unilateral pause will be much easier to abuse in live games.
The solution to the game @fuseki3 shared is simple: only show the “end” button to the player who is passing!!
2 Likes
It could only be paused accompanying a report, so if you abuse it, you’re reporting yourself for said abuse
Yep; I agree; this fix to the Antistalling feature would fix some cases like this with no undesired side effects that I can think of
1 Like
A contribution from the chat
[ 6:25]ericosman: I don’t know what you mean about going back. The server said “White wins by Server Decision” and the server ended the game.
[ 7:58]ooo oo: I try to explain: there was a bottom to accept the server decision. I ignored it an played on. after a mistake, I went back in game history (left arrow), and could then accept server decision.
[ 7:59]ooo oo: that didnt seem correct to me.
[ 8:01]ooo oo: * a button of course
5 Likes
It actually took longer than I exepcted for an opponent to abuse the system to earn a “win” in a game that they were destined to lose on time. This was an absolute timed game. The other player was ahead on points but had managed time poorly, and they just started passing with three seconds left on their clock before the board was fully closed up. I kept playing with many minutes left on my clock and half of the end-game ahead. The server intervened and awarded them the win on points.
As I speculated when this started – while trying to be a solution, this has certainly created a new avenue of abuse that makes an absolute clock essentially useless.
Is there another way we can handle it?
3 Likes
I have been arguing for close on a year now that activating the feature before all dame and teire are filled should be a reportable offense
3 Likes
We do have an option to support this idea: the community could start reporting these as “Score Cheating”.
Community Moderators would then have the opportunity to assess and take action.
This is a softer option than implementing some new formal report category, or anything else really - we can use the mechanisms we have in place to handle it.
The only thing stopping us from doing this would be if someone can think of a reason not to 
One thing I like about asking CM to help is that we can have guideliness that make it less black and white than “all dame and teire are filled”. Maybe there are times outside this condition that we could accept?
1 Like
A reason: I think it’s unfair that OGS offers a player a button to end the game, then punishes them for using it.
At the very least this would need a bright warning next to the button informing the player that they must ensure all dame/teire are filled before they click; but I also expect this would create some questions as well.
6 Likes
I wonder if we could address this by initially not punishing?
The first “warning” from Community Moderation could be very “informative”, not “punitive”…
I would prefer this because otherwise we have to code some black and white rule to drive the bright warning button 
3 Likes
This exactly.
It’s an insane idea to do this.
4 Likes
25 posts were split to a new topic: Absolute time inspired discussions
Wouldn’t we have to add a specific “informative warning” type/option for this, to avoid it just looking like a score cheating offence (rather serious) in the record ?
Though I agree with this needing to be clearer somehow, too — it still may seem out of the blue to receive a message about doing it wrong & possibly being warned in future.
There is a concern that teire aren’t always a simple concept for beginners or DDK to grasp (and not a common term which everyone knows or necessarily easy to explain in few words), so just asking to fill all neutral points may be more reasonable,
— and in any case, the “accept victory by server decision” button doesn’t explain “how” it works or why it is there currently, so anyone may click it without knowing :
Or just include always a message like :
“Anti-stalling feature”
Opponent delaying the end of game ?
The AI concluded that Black has a 99,7% chance to win.(Claim Victory)
Please ensure all neutral points are filled before claiming victory.
And even without adding an extra warning message, I think we should change the button to something more clearly indicating you’re doing something unusual, like “Claim victory” rather than “Accept Victory”, and add “Anti-stalling” somewhere visible.
I think I mentioned before in another thread that it’s currently not clear that it’s an Anti-stalling feature, and easy even for beginners to think of as a “normal” way to “accept victory” (by an AI sometimes stepping in at some point of the game – which is probably detrimental to their understanding of Go & how ending games works), or click thinking they should.
So it would probably be worth presenting as something “unusual or special” and specifically an Anti-stalling feature in any case, even if we don’t change any rules.
Like :
Anti-stalling Feature
The AI concluded that Black has a 99,7% chance to win.(Claim Victory)
or
“Anti-stalling feature”
Opponent delaying the end of game ?
The AI concluded that Black has a 99,7% chance to win.(Claim Victory)
at minimum, for clarity.
3 Likes