Whatever your choice you’ll going to impose something. In the limit to not grow people hate and consequences.
The situation before was perfect for what matters to me. Ofc there are unresolved case like bot games and so that’s why I respect the research made, but I don’t agree to its generalization.
You’re right. All I am saying is that it is somewhat irrelevant what standards you may self-impose.
I agree we should focus on user experience (including the experience of users who are stuck in a game with someone who does not know how to end)
I don’t see how getting rid of this feature can be used for good. If both people enjoy filling dame, it won’t interfere. It’s only relevant if one person doesn’t enjoy doing this thing that doesn’t affect the result of the game. So arguing that one should be able to and has the right to force someone to participate in something that doesn’t affect results seems strange to me.
I just had a match with a score cheater that knew about the website intervening after 3 passes, so he smoothly avoided it. He was like: Prove to me that my stones with zero eyes are dead in your territory by filling your own territory with your own stones, or I will keep on holding the result hostage. And I was so annoyed by him that I let myself pressure into playing more moves and made a fatal mistake out of frustration. And sure these things happen, but that’s on the level of: If I drop my drink on him, maybe he’s irritated enough to make a mistake and I can win an otherwise 100% lost game. Why is it so important for some to be able to force people to engage with behaviour like that? Yes here the feature didn’t help. But outside of “maybe I can bother my opponent enough so he makes a mistake” or “I enjoy this thing and I want to force my opponent to engage with me in this, whether he likes it or not” - I don’t see the advantage of getting rid of it.
I will argue in favor of the anti-stalling feature, but iff we never get the feature that moderators are able to reverse a game result (not nullify but reverse it). However, I think that the latter feature would be more desirable as it would allow me to leave all kinds of awkward situations and also not discourage me from playing newer accounts. I see filling Dame as no real problem, as it will normally cost only a few seconds anyway, so if my opponent wants to play them, sure, but I am also fine with skipping this optional step in an online setting, where I play some extreme time settings.
However, as long as the game result cannot be reversed, stallers and score cheaters should not get it easy. I can acknowledge that we have some conflicting goals here, but let’s pose my counter-question directly: Why should I have to give up a game (or suffer until a mod eventually shows up) because someone else behaves badly?
Because filling dame can affect the result of the game, if they expose a weakness inside the opponent’s territory that needs defending. This is so common there’s a Japanese term for it, teire. Working out if the defence is necessary can require reading and Go skill, so is part of the contest of skill of the game and OGS should not prevent it happening. It’s like stopping a 100m race after 90m because the referee declares the person currently leading was going to win for sure, but in reality maybe they would slow down because they overexerted too early or stumble or someone behind has a late surge and would win.
FYI:
Thank you hopefully this will help.