And I got moderated. I probably deserved it.
You just got a warning, no action was taken.
This might be one situation where I wouldn’t object to the addition of a pop-up confirmation. Something like:
The “Resume Game” option is for clarifying the score or completing incomplete games. It is NOT for seeking new opportunities to change the outcome. Do you wish to continue?
I will be interested to see what @smurph thinks.
Note that there are three reasons people return to play after passing:
- To clarify life & death or incomplete territories
- To seek opportunities to do better spotted during counting
- To time out their opponent.
#1 is clearly OK.
#2 is the topic of Kosh’s question, and I would really welcome guidance on that
#3 is totally not OK, and results in “moderation”.
It would not be acceptable face-to-face so I don’t see why it should be online. Consecutive passes usually signify an agreement that the game has ended (except in the unusual situation of passes as ko-threats).
Yeah- I was #2 and I got moderated. Probably deserved it.
Well, for the record (since the OP invited discussion of their case) the OP was reported for #3, not #2, and argued that what they were doing was in fact #2.
The “moderation” involved a recommendation of not doing anything that even looks like it might be #3.
It is starting to look like not doing something that even looks like #2 would also be wise
Plus my moves were crap after the pass, even my moderator thought so. I am thankful we have this place.
I think this might be a matter of etiquette, but not a hard and fast rule of the game. The Japanese Rules even explicitly allow it:
What are some clear examples of each of these categories? Where does one draw the line?
Maybe @Kosh would have some thoughts on these questions as well, since they could similarly be asked for difference between the two categories of continuation mentioned below:
Going by your phrasing, I think it would be difficult to distinguish “completing incomplete games” from “playing a sequence which changes the outcome” (i.e. “before I was behind but there was aji, I used the aji, now I am ahead”).
If you’re asking whether I’d condone playing sequences like that (oh I spotted a tesuji! let me!)… honestly I would. The explanation is lengthy, but the gist is that I don’t mind; it’s similar to the question of whether “analysis” should be allowed in live games.
If you’re asking if I’d condone the use of a popup window here,… well. There are a few cases to consider.
- Resumption used properly, no issues but 1 popup.
- Resumption used improperly, someone ideally learns a lesson at the cost of 1 popup.
- Resumption used abusively, the resumer won’t care and the popup doesn’t make a difference.
I have no idea how often people resume from scoring, but judging by my own experience it shouldn’t be that often and when it happens, it’s probably abusive. We only have 1 way to deal with abusive resumptions - calling a mod. So for case 1 and 3 the popup doesn’t help and even in the 2nd case - if the person didn’t know what resumptions were intended to do and now reads the popup, I doubt that’s going to help explain the entire situation.
Could there be a popup that duly explains the entire thing? No. It’s hard enough to explain when a game has ended. I don’t think we have to build any more pseudo-protective features into the interface. If you encounter a person who plays on, calmly explain that it’s considered rude and what the proper behavior should be. If that doesn’t help, call a mod. I doubt the popup would do much.
Etiqutte is the most subjective word and almost impossible to agree on online. I actually have chastised folks many times about this very play against me, but have been told by numerous better ranks then me that is part of the game. So very recently I have done it a few times, but it feels wrong. A few games after I was warned a guys stalls out on the verify stones screen for a minute. I kick out hoping he sees that I am still there and he proceeds to try and get seki. At first i paged the moderator, but then I canceled it. I would be hitting that button all day. If I would make a change, in live games the verify stones button would be a minute tops.
I was #2 and I totally resent that you say I was 3! I wasn’t trying to cheat or time out my opponent. That bums me out.
You were reported for #3. This was the feeling of your opponent.
I didn’t draw any conclusion about what you were or were not doing.
I commented that your play appeared consistent with #3, because you were playing apparently pointless moves after returning to play. I recommended that you avoid appearing to be doing that.
Careful there. Avoiding to appear to be doing something is quite similar to agreeing to not unintentionally do something.
I am with you- They were in the end pointless
I just should have done my stupid moves before I passed.
If you had done that, and been reported for timewasting, likely you would have received the same warning. Whether you passed or not is immaterial - what matters is whether your play was furthering your position in the game, or simply spending time to time out you opponent after the game was clearly over.
At 8k you are expected to be able to tell what is a timewasting move and justify if one is not.
If a person play stupidly once, it is noted. As it was. Anyone can make a stupid mistake in the heat of the game.
However, if you continue, it will not be tolerated. To smurph’s point - it actually doesn’t matter whether or not your timewasting is intentional or not: timewasting play is not allowed.
What consists timewasting play is one of those difficult decisions that moderators are burdened with.
We tend to err on the side of caution, allowing for misunderstandings and to build up a more complete picture of what is going on. But ultimately we don’t tolerate ongoing abuse - because the community does not want timewasting play on the server.
I find this compelling, in the absence of any differing “house rule” at OGS.
I am not aware of any differing house rule, so it seems (unless one is presented) that furthering one’s position by returning to play in Japanese games is within the rules.
What point? Where do I say anything about time wasting?
My point, i.e. my comment on your phrase (“avoid to appear…”) just means that it’s impossible to ‘stop appearing to be doing something’, because that appearance is in the eye of the beholder. To illustrate:
“Well you should avoid appearing to want to get beat up then.”
On a different note: perhaps it would be easiest to remedy the “timeout griefing” by disabling the clock for the player who didn’t resume the game. In that case Kosh could also get his popup: “Entering scoring dispute. Your opponent now has access to the analysis board and unlimited time to respond to your moves.”