Is O13 your invention, or did you see that somewhere?
1 Like
Iād say an invention of mine. A person (a troll, considering other things he did/said) had accused me of copying fusekis from professional games. So in the next game against them to start I chose one of the few moves that according to waltheri pros have never used to start. I donāt remember how I chose the next two moves I usually play (but they arenāt always stable, I change them, usually always in the same way, if my opponent plays on the upper side for example)
7 Likes
āā¦and after move 1 we have a completely new game!ā
5 Likes
15 Likes
Roll it once for ranking, roll it twice for handicap.
8 Likes
Oh I make a lot of these 
5 Likes
Itās amazing what you can push through when youāve already coded it 
(although it doesnāt always get added in the way you expected - still sour that anoek moved my server time and weekend indicator from the profile and overview pages and hid it in about 
)
7 Likes
Cheaters - let them eat cake!
Nick Sibicky has likened a game of Go to a dialog; we frequently hear it described as āhand talkā. What if we treated the OGS ādiscussionsā the same as those on OGF?
Consider what we do on OGF (and other forums): we see something we like, we 
it - even if weāre not directly involved in the discussion. Imagine if for each OGS game, either played or viewed while logged in, you had an option to either, both or neither player.
Why would you go to the effort of implementing Crowdsourced Enjoyability Rating? Multiple reasons:
- CER is difficult to cheat. You will always be able to bot, sandbag and various other shenannigans, but you are unable to make me like it. And when I say āmeā, I mean the voice of ā1000 peopleā canāt be wrong. If a single player unfairly thinks an account diddled them, their incorrect view is eventually diluted by others who, being independent viewers, likely have a more objective view of things than someone who just lost.
- CER gives moderators another metric to consider if asked to ban someone. Itās an evaluation over many games by many viewers, so the noise is filtered out
- CER provides some protection for dynamic players unfairly accused of sandbagging. A sore loser may feel theyāve been sandbagged, whereas non-attached viewers may enjoy an epic kill
- It promotes good play, including etiquette. Eventually, the stats could be used to filter for both game and account CER. E.g: find games with a >75% CER as given by >=4 dan reviewers. Or, find accounts given high ratings by feeble players. e.g., Iāve enjoyed every game Iāve played against Akumayy (2 d) - theyāre not about to throw games, but they donāt bully either. Consistently a class act.
Hereās a bit some wonāt like: if CER were displayed against each account just like Go rank, people could decide whether or not to play accounts below a certain CER. D-bag is as d-bag does. Suggest: displayed CER rounded to nearest 20% to avoid micro-comparisons.
Options within options, but Iāve reached the wall-of-text threshold.
Why will this not be implemented? Because, even if no other reasons existed (and they do), nobody likes change. This would be change, ergoā¦
One final comment: if you are someone who in any way derives income from Go, you should love CER because anything which raises overall enjoyability of Go culture ultimately results in a bigger pie.
2 Likes
CER is a popularity contest that is a shaming activity if justified and pure abuse if unjustified.
Itās not a metric at all because it is founded on sand. Grounds for a ban are, in virtually all instances, already very clear.
The mods already have tools and procedures to identify botters, which are better than polling the peanut gallery.
Strong players new to the site will always briefly be unintentional sandbaggers, which is permitted, and the opinion of observers is irrelevant. Alt sandbagging is very easy to identify and prove (although this is in the process of changing and will one day be undetectable even by observers). Sandbagging by rank manipulation is also relatively easy to prove, depending on oneās threshold of evidence (resigning 5 won gamesā¦10 won gamesā¦etc.?). The only sandbagging that is hard to detect is when a player contrives to lose by playing bad moves, but my impression is that that is fairly rare, because it takes a lot of work and time. People who enjoy an epic kill, as you say, should not be allowed to whitewash a sandbagging cheater.
Finally, CER would offer a splendid opportunity to trolls, who could create dozens of accounts to skew the vote any way they want.
4 Likes
This reminds me of an anticipation novel where this feature was implemented in real life.
You could like or dislike anyone you interact with in the streets, at work, in your hobbies, in the subway, etc. The likes and dislikes were tallied and public. When someone applies for a job, or applies to rent an apartment, or to make a loan, the first thing people look at is their like /dislike tally.
When your reputation is bad, you canāt get a job nor lodging, the interest rate goes up, and no one will want to be friends with you by fear of being associated with a pariah.
Predictably, society quickly evolved towards hypocrisy and bootlicking (have a facade of good behaviour to avoid getting dislikes) on the one hand, and corruption and networking on the other hand (exchange likes for more likes).
Or does it promote:
- losing on purpose, to avoid upsetting the opponent
- accepting undo, for the same reason
- other reward-seeking addictive behaviours that are not related to playing go and are not the things we look for on a go server
4 Likes
What you describe is similar to Chinaās social credit system, except that the government is the judge there. In what I regard as one of the most amazing SF predictions, Jack Vance anticipated a social credit system in his first real novel, To Live Forever (1957), where the prize is immortality.
2 Likes
We already do this. Itās called kibitzing, and there is absolutely no need to track or score it in any way.
2 Likes
Message received, people are not keen. Although, I return to the fact that itās the same system we use here on OGF. Any philosophical objections to CER surely apply to this forum also.
Yeah, after I typed it I recalled it was a black mirror episode.
Technically we donāt rate users here on OGF. We just ārateā posts.
I think a rating system could be possible beneficial, but would take a lot of thought and moderator resources to prevent abuse and other negative effects. Given that both are limited, it makes sense this was posted in the āwill never be implementedā thread
1 Like
All Iām saying is that punitive measures are not the only option for increasing quality of life. We can also promote what we perceive to be āgoodā. We do it for restaurants, music playlists, films, Amazon products, cello recitals and more.
I believe that doing a great amount of good things does not give you a pass to do a small amount of bad things. I can imagine that some things (like timing out of a game) can be seen as a ratio of the whole, but if someone is mean in chat or deliberately cheats in the scoring phase, their amount of likes should have no influence on how such user is treated.
Other than that, I donāt see much bad, but am not convinced it brings much good either.
Itās hard to make an evaluation of how ālikedā someone is. Someone who plays a lot of games is inevitably going to gather more likes, but if we only allow for 1 like per person, then such people will have a lower proportion of likes per game, since they will often play the same opponents. Alternatively, people who play few games may end up against a twitch streamer and skyrocket just because they started with Tengen, or something silly like that.
Also, I think such ālikabilityā measures are quite harmful for self-esteem to some people.
These (usually) arenāt individual people, though, and theyāre all products trying to be sold. Iām not sure if I really feel like being rated for wanting to play a casual game of Go.
3 Likes
To all above responders: I do not disagree with you on any particular point.
Let me ask a different question, which is off topic, but I donāt want to start a thread for no reason. Whatās the best way for someone to get to find high quality games from the OGS archives? Remember that awesome game you saw last week between two 4 dans that ended in a 0.5 win? I want to see that game. Recall that game where someone took a 30 point loss early on but played through and won? I want to see that game. The underdog 3k playing out of their skin to beat a dan? Who doesnāt love a good game?
Would it be within community guidelines/any interest if there were a game recommendations thread, provided strict rules that both players need to consent before the game is posted?
Alternative suggestions are welcome.
Actually, donāt worry about it. Everything is fine.
2 Likes
Just a comment about this part:
We have the possibility on OGS to create private games. So if a game is public, donāt the players tacitly agree that the game link can be shared? The only thing that should be forbidden is to make insulting comments (this player is a cheater/a sandbagger/a moron).
4 Likes
My feeling is that games are public (unless they are private obvs!) so you could post then to such a thread without consent of the players.
The reason not to post games is in case you are making negative claims which amount to naming and shaming. In the case where you saying this is a cool, interesting game then I donāt really see the problem.
There are already threads like:
And this suggestion:
4 Likes
As said elsewhere, ladders which are inactive due to players going on vacation are not fun, especially at the top. But not allowing vacation just for #1 is not fair. A compromise would be to change vacation rules as follows, just for ladder games:
āIf you are player #n in a ladder, you get +1 day of vacation for every 8 days to a maximum of n. Site supporters get +1 day for every 5 days to a maximum of 2n. If however you want to extend your vacation beyond that limit, you lose one place in the ladder for every extra vacation day.ā
In addition, you may use that āextra vacation timeā only once a year, otherwise you get kicked out of the ladder.
2 Likes