Well, thousands of users manage to not time out regularly and still have lives.
Also, if my lifestyle doesn’t allow for reasonable correspondence games because my life is a string of constant near disasters maybe I shouldn’t take up correspondence games because my opponents have the right to play games that they will actually get to finish? 
3 Likes
I didn’t have to search far away i just checked an opponent profile game results mentioned here.
Not looking like a mass timeout when i see games concluded in between.
I met that kind of profile games list results too many times to think it’s anecdotic.
1 Like
If you have to timeout 5 times instead of 1 to get the privilege to annul all the games you are losing by timeout then that could make quite an incentive to not use this manipulation of ranks.
2 Likes
I mean you’re also hiding whether the games in between are correspondence or not.
There are users that play live games in between timing out of some correspondence games which get annulled.
Does that make sense? Probably not, probably concluding any game should cancel the effect of mass timeouts. It’s just the way it is at the moment, and that effect should be considered separate to what we’re discussing above.
How why? At reverse it’s quite a proof that the system is not fair and misused.
I don’t want want to promote basically how to get advantage from the system so i just show the consequences.
I mean nobody is expecting one persons life to be a string of near constant disasters, but on average I’m sure something goes wrong or unplanned in someone’s day every day right?
I don’t think I was suggesting that one player can use all these excuses to justify timing out their losing games, rather than when you play a game over the course of several months, it’s not surprising things can come up when you randomly select opponents say (tournament, automatch, ladder etc).
1 Like
Iirc correctly I had raised that issue long ago, if you (not you) have time to play a whole live game then you choose to let our correspondence game time out. In that case it should 100% not be annulled.
2 Likes
It’s unrelated.
The main idea we’re discussing that can be abused is that you can just let your losing games pile up and let them time out together and then play your winning games to completion. That way you gain rating for wins and avoid most of the rating from losses.
On the other hand, people play a mixture of live and correspondence games all the time. It’s not very clear from your screenshot that the player is actively trying to avoid losing rating - there’s lots of clear examples of them losing rated games, so it doesn’t seem clear that they’re exploiting the system.
What is clear is that you’re trying to hide some of the details to support your argument, while I’m trying to say this is a separate but related (in the sense it’s also about timeouts) issue. As in you’re claiming this is an example of abusing the mass timeout rule, where as I’m suggesting this is just an unfortunate way it happens to be implemented for players playing a mix of live and correspondence.
That’s why we have vacation time, though.
Still, plenty of people on OGS manage to play their games consistently. And if they don’t have time they have the decency to resign.
Now, if someone for a legit reason times out 50 games, yes the rule makes sense, because it could turn your rank into my rank. Maybe have a cutoff, when someone loses 3 ranks by consequent timeouts annul the rest?
But otherwise it’s too extreme. And I believe there’s enough of us that feel this way.
3 Likes
Yes I mentioned above that I agree it could be a slight improvement. It won’t make everyone happy, as you can still be an unlucky person who wasn’t randomly selected to have their game count (it didn’t time out quick enough).
I feel like @GreenAsJade or @dexonsmith would really be the ones to weigh in to do something about these things anyway 
I’m just discussing what I can see are pros and cons of various parts of what we have and what we could have.
2 Likes
But here the rank argument would make sense “your win would count like against a Gia while when you started the game the opponent was actually a shinuito” is more logical than “second corr loss due to timeout in a row doesn’t exist in this universe”.
I guess what I mean is, say we count 3 games or 5 games and then the mass annul takes over the rest of the timeouts, I think we’ll still have people posting like the OP of this thread.
It didn’t necessarily solve the problem at hand is what I’m getting at.
Only annulling inactive players games
might be a better option, if it was feasible. It would be hard to timeout only losing games, while keep playing in winning ones, it would fix the idea that @Groin is talking about that someone can complete live games while still timing out of correspondence games which are annulled.
3 Likes
After detection we could annul all the games (the 3 or 5 included)
1 Like
That’s why I suggest cutoff in rank loss and not in number of games.
If I lose 100 games against other 14k and they count as loses, the “damage” in the rank will be minimal, if any, and you’ll have 100 people not complaining that their game got annulled.
Now, if a 1k has a string of loses against me and my kind, when they reach 4k (from this reason only, and games after an other) then the rest should get annulled.
2 Likes
My own proposition
1 trigger mass timeout when you lose 3 consecutive corr games by timeout (instead of 1)
This will annul all the games lost by timeout next and before (the 3)
2 Stop the mass timeout favor as soon as there is activity on the account. (a move played in any kind of game)
6 Likes
3 Likes
That’s what is worrying me exactly (and still feel sad to advertise it). Hopefully we put more Inconvenience to stop this abuse.
2 Likes
This history doesn’t look particularly suspicious to me. (Feel free to DM me the link for a proper look ofc) Or at least doesn’t have much bearing on mass annulment from timeout.
There are two annulled timeouts which are maybe due to the opponent timing out, idk
And then there are cancellations which are annulled but not the same as timing out.
So there are only two games which might be an issue. And maybe points to having a cut off of three games as being quite helpful.
I agree though that if the games in between are live these should break the mass correspondence timeout streak!
(Edited for so many typos)
3 Likes
It does seem to be the case that if we leave the penalty for timing out as light as it currently is, players on OGS are going to become gradually more and more careless about timing out as months go by under this system. That doesn’t seem like a trend we’d want to encourage.
I’m certainly not best pleased by the proportion of annulled-by-timeout games in my own recent history.
[ETA: I went back and looked: of my last 200 games, a little more than 5% have been wins for me (by timeout) that got annulled. Fewer than 1% were losses for me by timeout that got annulled. Same is true just looking at my last 100 games.]
3 Likes
I still think it would be a good idea to mention it in the official help pages, i.e. where people will find it even if they haven’t been carefully following the forums for months.