Polling and discussion settled down on a thread I’d posted last week on auto-annulments. Thanks to all who voted and shared a healthy exchange of views. (Hopefully you learned as I did about the range of perspectives.)
RECAP: Although opinions on whether to impose active correspondence game limits on new and/or poorly behaving players were mixed, as of this writing, a clear majority is against implementing such caps - roughly 60% against, 40% in favor.
Frankly, I floated the simultaneous game cap idea to mitigate potential concerns about serial timeouts by a single player. But based on several comments, perhaps this is less of a concern than assumed?
So focusing instead on the narrow question regarding the auto-annulment policy itself, let’s try an even simpler question:
“Should the current auto-annulment policy be eliminated?”
YES - Once the current minimum move threshold is reached, as with a live game, a correspondence game should not be auto-annulled due to a player timing-out. The timed-out player loses the game. (Note: This does not preclude OGS’s moderation process from identifying a separate justification for annulling a game.)
NO - The current auto-annulment policy should be maintained - not eliminated. It serves as a useful way to mitigate the potential adverse effects on the rating system of a large number of serial time-outs by a single player.
0voters
As before, comments or clarifications are most welcomed. Thanks for weighing in!
And again, it’s worth noting that regardless of the popularity of any policy, the OGS leadership ultimately decides such matters (including consideration of programming resource priorities, etc.).
Related prior community discussion may be found in the earlier thread here…
I voted yes, but I want to add some color to my vote:
I think the existing rule is doing the right thing as far as ratings go: ratings are a predictor of game outcomes, not a reward for good behavior.
That said, this comes up so often in the forums, annulment in its current form is probably doing more harm than good. I’d like to see how big of an issue mass timeout really is.
The “no” option (as it’s phrased) should have an objective answer. Auto annulment either serves a purpose or it doesn’t and it should be possible to quantify how important it is for ranking stability.
The “yes” option sounds more subjective, or at least there are more varied reasons to potentially support it. But your ”yes” option does not include a specific rationale (the way “no” does). Maybe you could include the top reasons that motivate wanting to do it?
@siimphh Thanks for your observations. Although I tried to aim the two choices right down the middle, upon re-reading I do see your point.
Anyhow, now that the poll is underway I’m loathe to change the wording on those who already voted. If nothing else it goes to show that like most pollsters I’m not very good at this.
[Edit: rather than repeat (my) rationales for eliminating auto-annulment, I did offer the link below the new poll post for those wanting to get into details and review various opinions.]
@Groin That’s certainly a fruitful alternative to explore. (… and it happens to track with my personal preference.)
My intent was to keep it simple - since the variations and sub-choices would expand from there and polling would get messy.
Then again, if there’s strong expression for simply raising the threshold for how many would constitute mass serial timeouts, perhaps a more granular poll would be worthwhile in response. Thanks.
Personally, i might prefer an option where the winners would get their rating increases, but the player who suffered the mass-timeout would still be protected as they are now. I wonder how feasible something like that would be?
I mentioned it in the other thread also but we should add a question mark (?) to the rank if a user’s rank changes drastically just like KGS. The (?) remains until the user’s rank is stabilized again.
@siimphh The primary concern with relying on AI outcome predictions is that VERY few of us play at that level. Countless games will flip from wins to losses and vice versa based on being humans.
The question is whether to use this result to inform the ratings. For correspondence timeouts, it’s highly likely that the timeout had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with “life”.
I have a friend who consistently times out of corr because he forgets to check the site. His rank reflects it. Do I condone habitually timing out? No. Do I enjoy getting smashed by a 10k? Also no!
Not quite about my feelings… just stating how it works.
Out of time? Then the other player wins. Straightforward.
There is no “life happens” exception for live games, nor should there be.
Time management is an important skill and should be properly reflected in one’s rating if playing with time controls - just as it currently is for live games.
To my thinking, there are fewer excuses for timing out in a days-long correspondence game - not more.
That’s because live games are usually not concurrent, and life is less likely to happen over the span of a live game.
I agree, but live time management is significantly different from corr. In live, you are just balancing time-to-think with playing. In corr, you’re balancing time-to-think, going to work, other hobbies, driving kids to school, dealing with burnout etc. It’s no a reflection of skill in the same way.
@benjito While I respect your view, I’m seeing things the other way 'round.
If one can’t manage to make a move in a matter of days (not minutes or seconds), then that player’s time management abilities are an indication of an even less skilled player - which ought to be reflected in one’s rating.
(Unlike live games, correspondence games provide ample opportunities to juggle dogs barking, bathroom runs, meals, internet disconnections, yardwork, parenting, burnout, sleep…)
But I do see your point of view. Thanks for your patience with my replies.
Not quite about my feelings… just stating how it works.
