This option would give moderators entire days to respond with the exception of live tournaments which, if we all don’t decide to such negative Nancys like you, I’m sure we’ll find a simple, agreeable solution to with just a little effort.
Well, if cheating among DDK players on OGS is as widespread as some posts in this thread indicate, it has to be dealt with, no arguing that.
I don’t get this attitude, though. I do actually expect my opponents to know the rules of the game we are playing.
I don’t expect them understanding all mind-boggling nuances a particular ruleset might have, but all the very basic concepts you’ve listed – yes, one has to understand them to play a proper game of go and to discuss any tricky situations encountered while playing. It’s not rocket science.
If you are a total beginner and you’re not sure you know how to play, you do not challenge random people to a rated game. You either hit the books or ask experienced players to show you the ropes, whatever is easier for you.
I’m not trying to say we should be rude to beginners, or we don’t have to ban cheaters. And we certainly need tools that are making reporting and banning cheaters more convenient. But the server itself is not a go school. If you want to play, it’s your responsibility to learn the rules and the etiquette. Most of us will be happy to help, but you’re expected to make some effort.
I guess it’s my poker experience speaking but all that “beginners are sooo clueless and sooo fragile, let’s pamper them” starts to annoy me. If they are so clueless I better rob them blind before somebody else does. 
2 Likes
Until a software solution is found, I suggest a way to deal with this yourself.
You can censor any player using Moderation Controls and check the box “Block user from accepting my open games”. This means you will never have to play that person again. OK, at worst you might have to resign one game when you have won (as a last resort) but gradually you will weed out that small percentage of players who try to cheat and be left with the players who want to play fairly and accept win or lose as part of playing.
This is not a 100% solution but I find it helps and you can do it yourself without involving moderators or changes to software.
My opinion on what could and should be done:
- If white resumes, black should play first.
- Players can resume no more than three times each.
- After a player has spent all their “resumes”, they can no longer mark dead or alive groups in scoring. Their opponent judges the board on their own.
- Remove the preview of the final score before the status of the groups is accepted.
- No dialog boxes and pop-ups, thank you. They suck.
I also like @temifar’s suggestion to remove the resume option and adjudicate manually, but I’m afraid that the simplicity of its implementation might be overstated.
2 Likes
i find this thread somewhat confusing by now. very different things are being discussed:
-
We are arguing about whose turn it is when a game is resumed.
-
We are trying to find a system that discourages abuse without being restrictive on the (majority of) players, who are cooperative in finding a solution to these disputes, and therefore have minor issues with the topic at most.
The first should be managable, as @temifar has already posted serveral procedures that are used by different rulesets.
(Personally i dont like the solution of having the opponent of the player that disputes continue… we can then quarrel about who has to press the button 
. In japanese rules there is even an article that has both players lose, if a situation arises where no player wants to dispute, even though a situation is unresolved, because the first move is the deciding one. While this is clearly a problem, not getting to play the first move after resumption could be used to deterr abusive players from resuming in some circumstances.)
The second is of course a lot more difficult to solve. It tries to deal with people who want to exploit procedures that will always depend on agreement. Needing consent to resume the game does not solve anything though, as it just shifts powers. It is also assumed, that the person disputing is always in the wrong, which is clearly flawed thinking.
Not showing the final score before the players have agreed on the life and death of groups, as @Animiral suggested, is a very good idea. So is limiting the times a game can be resumed. Maybe a combined count for the game is possible.
Maybe there are some more possibilities to go about this, but some work will have to be done by the community. We can make it clear to new players that such behaviour is not ok (whether it is done to them or they are doing it). After all if someone in your go club behaved like that, you would just get out of your chair and not play that player again, which is exactly what should be done here!
4 Likes
The solution used in Ludoteka seems functional enough: If both players pass and can’t agree on dead/living stones, game resumes. If no stones are played, and players pass again, all stones are considered alive.
You then might have to play a lot of stones before you can force the game to an end, but it will happen, eventually. An ugly solution for an uncommon problem.
In this case, it really doesn’t matter who’s to play first after resuming (unless you’re playing by AGA rules).
1 Like