I very much agree with most of your ideas.
however we differ on several key points.
Very much so, and to me having the freedom to chose whatever time-settings I want is the simplest there is. Rather than having several options valid only under certain circumstances. To me that is cluncky and confusing. How would people know, where would it be written?
Not the people I know. We are in the age of wonders and above all many options. If the options I want are not provided here I might look elsewhere… 1s vs 5s is a huge difference to me. Problem is then when you say things like these, you are deciding for other people and everyone is different. Let everyone decide for themselves. Having “weird” challenges clearly marked allows everyone to notice and decide.
Well, exactly… seems against the idea of having many rules regarding time-settings. Everyone chooses what he/she wants.
I still feel like having “weird” challenges clearly marked is the most simple and elegant way to deal with this.
I do not see many people here who advocated such point, we are just suggesting other solutions… I think your main concern is that people would still fall for the trick even if marked, but I am confident we could come up with an obvious enough warning. If there was a red triangle with an exclamation mark for example I feel like almost every user would pause to check what the problem might be…
If you select ranked game the lowest BY is 5 sec. When creating not ranked one, any BY is available. Similarily to handicap/komi - for ranked games selection is restricted, for unranked you can pick and chose (did you notice?)
Can you provide a single game where you’ve played ranked games with BY lower than 5 sec?
I do give up on arguing in this topic, as no amount of arguments is able to convince a dedicated nay-sayer.
Status quo = Being able to play ranked games with 1 second byo-yomi.
Yes, to me that’s not a perfect design and potential source of confusion. Most players would just assume 5s is the minimal ammount and never knew they could go lower.
Are you questioning my knowledge of my own opinions? don’t care about me, discuss the issue.
I am sorry, but this statement is a double-edged sword as they say. But if you are still convinced about your solution being the best, you should not let yourself be discouraged. Just stop joking around and dancing with half unrelated arguments. Tell me clearly what you think are the problems with “marked suspect games” as I have told you what I find wrong with “restricting settings under certain circumstances”. I am happy to reconsider if you raise a convincing argument.
And I hope you are not getting angry about the issue, just for the record I do not care that much if either gets implemented, and I do not “hate” your solution in any way, just trying to offer my sincerest opinion about the best way
And just for another record status quo = exactly how things are now. Not how several of the things I mean are now
OGS no longer annull game under x move on x *x board, every game >= 2 moves are ranked. Which means that you can easily get trapped. I think that should be the first thing to fix.
In the past, even if you accept a game with wrong time setting, you would’ve realize that after playing a few moves when the clock start moving. But now, after 2 moves, you get trapped. Also, in the past, I usually do a quick background check of the opponent while we’re playing the first few moves to see if he’s sandbagging or if he’s being rude/unreasonable in his recent games. The current system made that a lot more difficult because you wouldn’t want your opponent to wait for you to play the first move while you’re checking his game history.
So another solution I can think of is to keep a credit score for each user. The mod can alter the credit score of the user depending on the severity of the offense and they will get banned twhen credit score fell below a threshold. And the credit score should be visible in the open challenge.
Ths still doesn’t address one issue with this player: he/she tricked a bot to boost his/her ranking.
As I already stated above, using a time trick to win is just one side of the problem. The other issue is that the player uses the wins to falsify his/her ranking.
True. What this shows us is that bot-writers need to put a minimum time setting that their bot will play on.
That seems obvious anyhow - I don’t think AlphaGo can play blitz, for example.
In terms of “falsifying ranking” I think thats a different question. If you play people legitimately at a fast speed and beat them, then it is not false.
The problem is that the nature of game changes as the speed changes. The skills to be 1d at 1s per turn are not the same as 10s per turn, and are not the same as 10 minutes per turn, and are not the same as 1 day per turn.
We used to have different rankings for the different speeds of games to recognise this.
Refined, yes, bit ideally not restricted … as in this case. All that needs to happen is refinement of the challenge process to be clear what you’re signing up for. No restrictions necessary.
(One could also argue that we should have separate ranks for different play speeds, but clearly that would be a losing argument )
don’t care about me, discuss the issue.
)
I guess I explained everything I wanted to share.
