I’m not saying we need to predict every moderation decision in a document. Just that it would be good to write down the policies we all agree on. For example:
“Sorry to let you know that I removed your chat privileges because you did not act in a way that persons are treated as having value in themselves”.
Somehow I can’t see that helping as much as “Sorry to let you know that I removed your chat privileges because you were rude, and our Terms of Service specifically disallow this”.
In the second transatlantic professional go league one game was won by 38.5 and another by 17.5. So there is no reason to refrain from continuing to play if you are 40 points behind, if you think the game is still interesting.
Sure: go for it.
Maybe we need a thread that documents “policies we all agree on”, and they get to be in this document when there’s actual agreement 
Just tell them to read and understand Kant if they want their chat privileges back
Unless “we” is just one person, I’m pretty sure there are no such policies.
No, you are.
The TOS is a legal document which use of OGS implies acceptance of. As well as telling users what to do, it helps protect OGS from section 230 issues things like users posting pornography or inciting terrorism and then getting sued. Or a go teacher who used OGS and got banned for saying “Please resign, you’ve lost, let’s review now” to their student then suing OGS for loss of earnings. In such a case the TOS would be much more valuable to OGS’s defence than the opinions of Eugene and other moderators not formally documented anywhere but scattered around the forums. I was going to say that users confirm that acceptance when creating an account (that’s normal), but I actually just made an account to test and it never mentioned the TOS with or without a “I accept” tickbox (nevermind most people never read them). That seems rather dangerous for OGS: if OGS were to be sued, the fact users don’t need to agree to the TOS on sign-up and they are not easily found from a link on the page could jeopardize OGS’s legal defence. (I get that there is a competing usability desire to make the sign up page as low-friction as possible, but even some light grey text “By using OGS you agree to our [Terms of Service]” without a checkbox would be better).
So when you are telling people “don’t do that, it’s against the TOS” you are referencing a much more powerful source of authority than simply a moderator (or group of them)'s opinions. You are telling them they are in breach of a legal contract. That’s a much more serious accusation, which is why I don’t like it being thrown around lightly.
P.S. All children using OGS are in breach of the TOS “In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract.”. That’s unfortunate; I want lots of children to play go on OGS.
gosh I had completely forgotten about that tournamennt resignation of mine:
mind you I didn’t particularly care if my opponent would feel good or bad about the resignation, just that I was throwing away a tournament game I still had chances in. I’ve actually since then adopted a policy of counting score when I feel like resigning like that
Keep in mind that this extends further: to resigning when you have been checkmated instead of assuming its end
as for the etiquette of resignation. I don’t care so much. Like yeah it might be rude one way or another, but I mostly care about my time being wasted in a game I’m probably having a bad time with when I don’t resign. If my opponent doesn’t follow those rules I might get annoyed, but that’s up to them in my eyes
It’s certainly useful to talk about how to improve the function of the TOS in protecting OGS.
I think you’re right that we’d be better service by having acceptance during sign up.
It’s helpful to understand that this is the concern that underpins your approach to the topic.
I haven’t thought about this point of view. I’m not really sure what I think about the idea that you don’t like being asked to comply with policies expressed in the “legal contract” that you agree when you use the service (putting aside whether you had the chance to actually agree).
Why are you uncomfortable with this? It’s not like the threat is “that we are going to sue you”. Rather, the assertion is that this is a solid basis for the action being taken: “it’s written there, you agree to it because you’re using the service, and so if you don’t comply, it’s logical that you no longer can use the service”.
It’s a genuine question: what’s wrong with this?
I can’t speak for others (and conscious that this is probably off topic) but I suppose there is a scale of seriousness of offence but beach of ToS implies prohibition of using the service as the only punishment. So I can see that it might be better to have a more graduated scale of issues.
In practice this is what happens anyway. We explain, advise, warn, ban etc as appropriate to the situation and with pragmatism but the ToS don’t really reflect the nuance.
The documentation wiki does some of this job but it being a wiki probably undermines it’s authority somewhat!
Why’s that?
“Hey, you are in breach of our Terms of Service. As a first step, this is just a warning to let you know, in case you didn’t know that”.
Right. It’s simply an authoritative thing we can point to. It doesn’t have to capture nuances of how things will be handled, it just says what the rules are.
I took the liberty of adding a paragraph to the Doc & FAQ section about ending a game.
Comments, omissions, feedback?
I would add a few words specifically on japanese go etiquette in which resigning in the endgame or not resigning a clearly lost game is considered rude.
i would write this part firmly but with less insistance. more sweet.
For example i don’t like this. I find a bit disrespectful to the reader.
Thanks for your feedback.
I will rewrite it a bit sweeter 
I don’t know much about this subject. Can you help me with that?
(I added the lines starting with “Sometimes it is not clear …” to the end of the paragraph.)
Those two are listed as bad habits at senseis library, may be worth a read. Of course there is much discourse and disagreement (much like our forums haha)
Under the japanese go etiquette, it is considered rude to resign during the yose (endgame moves) or to not resign before when the victory is very clear. Still OGS doesn’t require you to follow it.
Can be a bullet in the list.
Please, don’t end a game by closing the browser tab or letting the game time out. It is also not OK to stall games in any way such as with pointless moves or endless resumptions of play. If you do this, it forces your opponent to also wait.
A player is never required to resign. If you think you have won, you need to pass. If you can’t pass yet, the game is not over yet.
Can still be changed, just a bit more sweety
This may apply to traditional high level players in Japan (such as professionals), but I doubt if this actually applies to Japanese amateur players in modern times. When I played as an amateur in Japan (Japanese 4d) in 1990, opponents of my level were definitely not as strict as you describe here. I suppose that this sort of strict etiquette was already quite old-fashioned among amateurs back then.
So I wouldn’t really want to mention such things in an FAQ on ending the game that is mostly aimed at novices from all over the world.