Auto-annulments ... a poll & a proposal ☑

[Uberdude]

Well, easy to resolve this “paradox” with my personal example:

Nearly all the correspondence games I played were tournaments or ladders (probably <5% ad-hoc). I took them seriously and liked them being ranked as that added to the motivation to do well in them. Then I quit OGS, and timed out all my (~20) games, tournament and ad-hoc. The serial timeout rule let me keep my 9d rank which is nice for kibitzing, but if that rule didn’t exist and I turned into a 5d? or a ? or whatever instead so be it.

[GreenAsJade]

@Groin

We still have to manage the consequences of a real mass timeout. A suggestion would be to get a reset of your rating (to avoid the sandbagging, or the loss of your account for a new one). This would be a deterrent feature and still a pleasure to be able to keep your account.

Dang, yeah why don’t we just reset the “we know your rank” flag, and you get to choose your starting rank again, with commensurate rank uncertainty?

[SomeGoGuy]

@Uberdude

…Then I quit OGS, and timed out all my (~20) games, tournament and ad-hoc. The serial timeout rule let me keep my 9d rank…

Am curious how this works… When you say you quit OGS, serially timed out, but kept your 9d rank, can you please clarify what you mean by “quit”?

And may I ask, why were you unable to complete those games on which you timed out?

[Uberdude]

@SomeGoGuy

Am curious how this works… When you say you quit OGS, serially timed out, but kept your 9d rank, can you please clarify what you mean by “quit”?

I decided I was not going to play on OGS anymore, because it was an addiction which took too much time (2+ hours a day) and effort and had a negative impact on my personal and work life.

@SomeGoGuy

And may I ask, why were you unable to complete those games on which you timed out?

I was able, but chose not to, per above. I wanted to quit cold turkey, not finish off the tournaments etc I was already in as that could last many months or even years. But actually checking now looks like I resigned them (but you strangely can’t open the game), but they were annulled, not sure how that was, maybe I withdrew from all the tournaments and ladders?

[SomeGoGuy]

@Uberdude Thanks for sharing that additional context. Yeah, online Go can definitely become an obsession

Perhaps there are questions one could explore further about what’s appropriate when trying to extricate oneself from playing active games, but that’s moot at this point.

[GreenAsJade]

@SomeGoGuy

there are questions one could explore further about what’s appropriate when trying to extricate oneself from playing active games,

@Uberdude

it was an addiction which took too much time (2+ hours a day) and effort and had a negative impact on my personal and work life.

This is not an uncommon story.

I think it’s important to note that the only thing that’s “appropriate for extracting from active games” when those are negatively impacting a person’s life is - stopping.

Ranks, play ettiquette, whatever: pff. That’s what the serial timeout rule is for. Because RL things do happen, and this is just a game.

[shinuito]

So if I want to reset my rank I should just sign up to a bunch of correspondence games, let them timeout, and then I’ll get that option?

[GreenAsJade]

I wonder why you would do that instead of just creating a new account?

And I wonder why we should not be able to just request a rank reset?

I don’t think it’s something to be able to do “at will”, because that’s what sandbaggers dream of being able to do, but “for a reason, we’ll do it” seems … reasonable?

[shinuito]

@GreenAsJade

And I wonder why we should not be able to just request a rank reset?

I don’t think it’s something to be able to do “at will”, because that’s what sandbaggers dream of being able to do, but “for a reason, we’ll do it” seems … reasonable?

I think it was originally an option but if I recall correctly it was removed because of too many requests and it was a hassle. It was mentioned a bit here.

@anoek

Moderators also have to manually adjust ranks a lot for legitimate reasons, which requires effort from both players and moderators; and if that doesn’t happen, it can take dozens and sometimes hundreds of games to find their correct rank, all the while they are affecting other players’ ranks negatively along the way.

@anoek

For the moderation team, it means much less work adjusting ranks and having to deal with sandbaggers or fake dans.

For

@GreenAsJade

I wonder why you would do that instead of just creating a new account?

why do sandbaggers also not just create a new account rather than losing games on purpose?

Maybe some people like their account history or current username, maybe it’s annoying that you still have to do some messing around on a new account to get to the rank you want anyway, though maybe less so with the pick your rank feature.

[Conrad_Melville]

@shinuito

why do sandbaggers also not just create a new account rather than losing games on purpose?

They do, on a massive scale. A couple I dealt with had over 1,200 accounts.

[theswarmking]

I really don’t understand the fear of mass timeouts.

Yeah - if auto-annulment was removed - players that time out on a large scale would lose a lot of ranking.

But….. isn’t that a good thing?

I’ve been in other threads where people say its then not fair to their next opponents who think they are a lower rank than they realistically are.

But that is already a problem on the server. Ratings are often not representative of a players real strength.

There is a 2d player in my local club that is a 1k on here. I take stones from him - but if I was to play a rated game against him online it would have to be even or both of our ranks would be overly affected by the result.

I proposed this elsewhere - and bring it up again → why not convert players that mass timeout over to pseudo-provisional players. Their rating becomes a ? again, and they can’t enter tournaments that disallow provisional players until they play enough games to have their rating balance out again (say 5-10 games, similar to how many a new player would have to play).

You could call it a punishment for bad behavior - but really it is just a natural consequence of poor sportsmanship.

Then we could just remove the auto-annulment rule altogether.

On a related note → I was in a correspondence game recently. We were only 40-50 moves in and it was clear to me that there wasn’t a path to win. I lost a group on the bottom and my opponent had a better position to take advantage of that. They were only maybe 20 points ahead, but it was clear that continuing to play would only increase that.

I actually thought for a second “I could just let my timer run out and it would annul the game because it is early enough that their lead isn’t clear enough”

I only thought that because I know that the auto-annulment rule exists and benefits those that think like that.

Instead I resigned.

Limiting the number of active games for a player is not a fix for the problem. It would be the introduction of an altogether new problem.

Let the ranking system do its job, and put up some more guardrails to show consequences for poor sportsmanship.

[SomeGoGuy]

@theswarmking Personally, I fully agree with everything you’ve laid out above. However, one finer point to raise regarding this statement…

@theswarmking

I actually thought for a second “I could just let my timer run out and it would annul the game because it is early enough that their lead isn’t clear enough”

Clarification as to how I understand things:

Unless you were already in the “serially timed-out” classification mode at the time of your having timed out, that particular correspondence game would not otherwise have been auto-annulled.

Someone correct me if I’m mistaken.

[benjito]

@theswarmking

I’ve been in other threads where people say its then not fair to their next opponents who think they are a lower rank than they realistically are.

But that is already a problem on the server. Ratings are often not representative of a players real strength.

Just because the problem exists doesn’t mean steps shouldn’t be taken to address it.

[theswarmking]

My understanding of the auto-annul rule is that timeouts in correspondence games are annulled unless the auto AI analysis decides that there is a clear enough lead that it can make a ruling.

In experience → I’ve almost never had an opponent time out a game and have it NOT annulled.

@benjito → I agree that we should be taking steps to address problems. My point is that the auto-annulment ISN’T addressing the problem. At best its improving one thing while also introducing more problems.

All auto-annulment does is embolden poor sportsmanship and remove fun and fairness (which is ostensibly what it is supposed to be bringing back)

Even if I am wrong on the details of the rule → it shouldn’t even be an option that someone could think to just let a game timeout so it doesn’t affect their ranking.

[PRHG]

@theswarmking

My understanding of the auto-annul rule is that timeouts in correspondence games are annulled unless the auto AI analysis decides that there is a clear enough lead that it can make a ruling.

You need to timeout twice in a row for it to activate.

[SomeGoGuy]

@theswarmking

In experience → I’ve almost never had an opponent time out a game and have it NOT annulled.

This is an excellent illustration of a problem with auto-annulments because…

@PRHG

You need to timeout twice in a row for it to activate.

… and so, you’ve been hit with a string of bad luck, playing folks who timed out in at least one other game just prior to the one you played with them.

Not an ideal experience, especially for an honorable OGS member like yourself - who wouldn’t abandon another player when things head toward a loss.