I actually think it would’ve been less confusing if taatelikakku’s post wasn’t split.
While they did indeed have a different agenda - in that they wanted to be able to set upper and lower limits separately/independently, i.e. upper but no lower or vice versa - I do think the problem is more or less related. I find I’m asking the same questions/having the same discussion in both threads.
If I understand correctly @jimifiki would like the following
at present the way rank restrictions go is from ±9 on your current rank
Instead check the setting for number of handicap stones, add or subtract that to your current rank depending on whether you’re giving or receiving the stones. Now take that adjusted rank and allow a window of ± 9 stones.
I think the reason this might be reasonable depends on this - is it possible that while I can search for games against opponents who are ±9 stones stronger/weaker than me, don’t I also have the option to prefer no handicap stones? In theory you could play a not very even game (no handicap) against someone much stronger/weaker. However I think if I choose this ranked setting, the komi is still locked to automatic, so presumably it will award komi/reverse komi in such a way to adjust the ranks to even for rating purposes?
Again the reason the two threads are similar is they’re both asking - why are the rank restrictions the way they are? And something I’m trying to understand in both threads is that while it seems like the purpose is to restrict ranked games between players that are too far apart in ranking, it still seems that ranked games of this sort can in theory (and in practice) happen in the ladder and in tournaments anyway.
Unless of course these games are (effectively?) annulled for ratings purposes? In which case I think the descriptions called them rated seems like a minor bug.