Rankings should reflect strength, so it should be fair.
What if someone dropped the game every time they were about to lose?
OK, you said that the timeout is only once, and the ranking will still be calculated normally.
What about his one timeout in five games that were significantly behind? 10? 20? 100?
Is this system fair?
He can completely achieve airbagging in this way.
He can clock these losing games to approximate times, and the first game opponent to time out is the high Ranker.
You said, you can report him to Moderator and he will be punished.
But the question is why do you say he is malicious?
He could say that he didn’t even know there was such a mechanism.
He could say that he was just thinking hard about a way to win, but he didn’t expect it.
He could say he had something to do on the day he was timed out and didn’t have time to play the game.
how do you say?
A timeout is a loss, and the opponent should win. It is absolutely undisputed that points are awarded for wins and points are deducted for losses.
If anyone is sandbagging, this definitely needs to be handled by Moderator!
If no one reports it or the Moderator doesn’t see it, then it certainly doesn’t need to be dealt with.
You can’t just think it’s reasonable not to calculate the ranking after the timeout because the Moderator has no time to deal with it.
In fact, with so many score cheats, have you let the system handle it automatically?
Have all the Moderators been found?
No.
Score cheating cannot be handed over to the system, so what reason is there for the system to intervene in timeout games?
But then on the other hand, if mass timeouts would affect the ratings it would also be unfair.
Imagine starting 50 games with someone who then stops playing and times out from all of those. Your rank would skyrocket and you would then get paired with players who are waaay stronger than you, and if/when they would come back and start playing again, they would get paired with beginners and had to sandbag their way back up. The rank changes due mass timeout would then be just reflected onwards for both yours and theirs future opponents, spreading the problem even further and making the ratings even less meaningful.
I think the current way of auto-annulling mass timeouts is lesser of the two evils.
I have the same problem today! I won a game, which normally would increase my rating by 0.3k, but nothing happened. I already waited for many minutes. It showed up in my history as rated, and I won, but it didn’t show on the graph. I don’t know why. I won by 0.5 points, but that’s still a win, right?
(It’s the most recent game, the one between me and gnugo level 1, where I won by 0.5 pts)
Also, FYI, I lose by 0.5 pts before and my rating went down, so by the same logic winning by half a point should bring it up.
If it’s increasing your rank by a static amount per win, something’s very wrong. The rating system isn’t perfect (but the v6 update will greatly improve it), but prima facie I suspect incorrect expectations of the rating system whenever I hear something like this. It’s based on glicko-2
Here, in the attached image, the most recent game is my 0.5 win. However, in the graph, that didn’t register, and instead it said the most recent game was a win against random move nixbot (that was an experiment game). It did not show in the graph. I won, and it was rated too, so I’m confused.
Hopefully it’s just a minor delay, I’ll check again tomorrow. Either way, if the issue does not persist I’m not too serious about a few points difference, but if the issue persists, it will become a problem.
