Keep in mind, this is just one perspective. Some people enjoy filling dame, even in corr. After all, what’s the rush? For tournament games fair enough, but otherwise, is it worth the stress getting angry over another dozen or so stones?
3 Likes
Personally, I find stalling / not-resigning-when-losing more annoying in a live game, because in live it means I can’t go do something more productive with my life right now because if I leave I lose on time, whereas in correspondence I can just raise an eyebrow and leave to do something else, and then answer in a random unimportant moment in the next few days.
Also regarding the particular case of a weaker player challenging on a ladder and prolonging a lost game, back when I was active on the 19x19 ladder and at/near the top there was one player who challenged me often, we fought a lot, he died a lot but kept on playing for ages. That was somewhat annoying, but actually the thing which annoyed me more was the lack of variety in opponents, and I suspect other players might have been annoyed at him taking up my limited ladder challenge places. So his not-resigning for ages and then challenging as soon as he could again after he did resign actually helped me maintain my high position on the ladder by preventing people with better chances of beating me from challenging me, so perversely could be seen as doing me a favour (for ladder position)!
5 Likes
Filling dame is part of the rules. You can disregard it for convenience, but we can’t blame a player for doing so. Filling dame is not stalling. 
Correspondence or live doesn’t change that, but if anything I have even less sympathy in correspondence since you’re not stuck in front of your screen.
8 Likes
Anti-stalling measures are not about the rules of the game.
Anti-stalling measures are about the spirit of the game. If you are losing a game by 50 points (and you know it) and still filling dame, you are wasting the time of both of us.
For instance, filling your own territory, if you have more than one liberty, is not against any set of rules, usually it is for the sake of protecting a cutting point. Sometimes under pressure, you are unable to read, so you play it for safety, even if it not necessary. But some trolls could just keep filling its own territory (It appended to me, in Pandanet I think), so you get pissed of and leave…
In Fox, close to the pass button there’s a “let’s count” button. The other person can refuse it. And you can call the AI referee only after 3 refusals.
4 Likes
Hear! Hear!
1 Like
This thread started with the request of completely abolishing the 3-pass-AI-ending, with OP calling it rude to interrupt filling dame.
Now the argument is whether it should be a stricter 2-pass-AI-ending, with filling dame being called rude.
Two observations:
- Normal gameplay is called rude in both directions.
- The behaviour of the 3-pass-AI-scorer needs to be both stricter and more relaxed.
I think perhaps it’s time for a vote to see if there is an significant majority for either one of the suggestions. Or whether a silent majority is fine with the current interpretation of the spirit of the game.
- 3-pass-AI-scorer is fine
- 3-pass-AI-scorer should be 2-pass
- 3-pass-AI-scorer should disappear completely
- No strong opinion
0
voters
3 Likes
Where is the “Something else, wrote already in comments” option?
3 Likes
yeah, I chose dissappear completely because it is the least bad of the options imo, but what I actually want is to fix it to not trigger during dame and teire
1 Like
Why even vote in such a useless poll?
1 Like
To avoid the false impression that some other option is the most desired among them
3 Likes
Nobody is stopping you from making a better poll.
2 Likes
How to Change (or not) the Antistalling Feature
- Leave it as is
- Remove it entirely
- Make it easier to activate
- Don’t let it activate until all dame and teire are filled
0
voters
Order from most desired (1) to least desired (4) path forward. “Make it easier to activate” and “Don’t let it activate until all dame and teire are filled” should be interpreted as a next step, not necessarily a final one
The poll looked cool but the results are kinda confusing
4 Likes
It’s some form of Instant Runoff Voting.
Basically:
- If there is a candidate (option) with a majority of preference votes (“1”), then that’s the winner.
- If there is no majority, then the candidate/option with the least amount of “1”’s is eliminated.
- Empty spaces are filled. Basically if your preference option (“1”) got eliminated, then your second-best (“2”) becomes your (“1”).
- Start the next round: go to step 1. Repeat until there’s a winner.
5 Likes
But it only ran for a few hours 
2 Likes
It keeps updating
5 Likes
Oh cool that’s ok then
3 Likes
On top of this, I’d like to suggest a separate vote on another change.
Assuming conditions are met, should anti-stalling only be visible for the player who passes?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
1 Like
One more thing to consider would be to enable the anti-stalling feature only for accounts that have not proven themselves to be trustworthy yet, eg: those that have played fewer than 50 games vs humans, under the assumption that players who have played a bunch of games will have learned the social norms on the site.
Or, under the assumption that players are not being jerks on purpose, maybe if a player is so much behind that the conditions for server decision are met (except the 3 passes), we could show a message, something like:
AI analysis suggests this game is extremely difficult to win. In this situation, it is polite to resign or at least wrap up the game relatively quickly.
I guess that’s too much text to actually show in the UI, so in practice it would have to be some shorter string, with the longer explanation on hover?
As long as you’re not inting, you can be 200 points behind, and if there are open borders, you can continue playing
1 Like