For clarification: this is why it is complex - you did approve the correct score, which is what we were showing you at the time.
However simultaneously the other person changed the score.
So the game was left with a wrong score on it anyhow.
In some ways this is a moot point, because the problem with that game was that the person was cheating, and the game was left to time out.
We can definitely agree that its an unfortunate fact of life: there is nothing that we know of that can be done about a player who keeps changing the score wrongly, other than what we have in place.
As a person who contributes to making the system work, when you say to me:
… in this support channel it reads as “I am reporting this because I want you to fix it”, and it sounds like a complaint.
“This is not a complaint, but this sucks” is a paraphrase
The game of Go itself has the “agree on the life and death status of the stones” phase in all the rulesets because there are situations where it is not clear. And the rules themselves require the players to agree. It is not especially rare that players agree to the wrong score because they both overlooked a way that a group could be killed. In cases like this the real score is the one that they agree to. If you can’t see how to kill your opponent’s stones then they are alive. That’s just how the rules work.
The quote is from my later reply to one of theses comments that I find unnecessary.
Again, in my original post…Do I really need to repeat it?
I eventually felt forced to reply that way because the commentators were explaining to me that it was score cheating (while I said it was hand of God?? ) and pretty much implied it was all clear as daylight and my post was unnecessary.
You keep irritating me with your arguments. What I think you should do is READ my original post and think what the appropriate answer should have been = put yourself in my shoes. And then read YOUR OWN first comment which:
Questioned my integrity:
Patronized/chastized me, quoting btw the most unnecessary comment thus far and actually finally saying outright that my post was unnecessary.
I have searched the forum for this issue prior to starting the thread. And if there is a thread, anybody was welcome to point me to it. Otherwise, I persist in my belief that I was justified in asking for an explanation.
And complain I did not.
If ANY of the commentators here had done their due diligence and had actually investigated prior to talking BS, they would also have seen my chats in the game:
The first time they cheated I merely asked how they did it. “What did you do??”
I had no intention to report it. It was more like a joke to me. Should they have their victory if it makes them feel better.
I threatened to report them and consequently reported because they never replied and that was rude and hurt my feelings. So I went and checked their game history, found the third game and reported that too.
It took me several days and pages of typing, irritation and having to talk aggressively to a member of the team (you if that’s not clear) to finally get the explanation: simultaneous input by both players.
That word “simultaneous” and the link is what I was asking for. The rest is BS IMO; waste of time.
But thank you!
While I am not 100% satisfied with the explanation, I’d rather try the approach of exploration I described in my previous comment (play against myself), than continue this battle of words.
BTW. I am pretty sure there is a solution to this. It is a mathematical puzzle and doesn’t sound that complicated. But I don’t insist you solve it. I am happy enough at least I am not playing under the “Slava Ukraine” or some other political flag now.
TBH it could be much more easier to prevent score cheating if there was a button like “accept auto score and reject any changes” since even though the system works fine most of the time, it can go wrong and allow cheating, especially if your connection is not really fast.
Therefore I don’t really agree with “there’s anything a system could do about it”
I’ve been saying for nearly a week that in the 2000 games I’ve played I’ve never encountered a situation where the initial score needed to be corrected but 3 instances of this function being abused.
So yes, firstly, a button “I only approve of this score” would be one solution.
And secondly, based on my statistics, just getting rid of this function and calling the moderator for help when the initial score is disputed by a player should result in less work for the moderators and a smoother function for the website.
I’ve been saying this for nearly a week now. But instead of thinking about the issue, they prefer to misinterpret and twist my words, accuse me of withholding information and complaining for no reason.
I was replying to uzaya and only substituted “I only approve of this score” for their
I find your question strange and wonder how sincere it was meant.
I’ve already suggested this to you several days ago. All of my quotes in this comment are from my replies to you!
We’re not going, in circles we are (trying to) moving forward from what was previously in this thread.
Any past conversation in this thread was tangled up in confusing cross-talk and misunderstanding.
You pulled out a sensible suggestion:
and I attempted to develop on that idea with the the first obvious question about this proposed solution:
Now that we are clear about how we got here, the productive thing to do would be to explore this issue so we can all understand if it is a viable proposal.
Another equivalent question is “what happens if the opponent does not approve that score?”
This suggestion does not appear to be a solution, it just defaults to what already happens: the players disagree, the scoring times out, and someone raises a report.
Well, if you want to attempt to avoid letting wrong scores stand, which can’t be changed only annulled, one could let score disputes, like the case you mentioned be paused and then wait to be adjudicated by say CMs. Or if you trust the AI autoscore, just resort to autoscoring. Or only autoscore in special cases like all dame are filled say if need be.
I answered all your questions 6 days ago. I am not sure if you have really poor comprehension or are pulling my leg. Read my comments a few times, read uzaya’s. It’s quite simple really.
Whatever problem you see arising with this solution, apply now as well. The existing function doesn’t solve it.
I don’t see you addressing the points I have made, just regurgitating the same BS.
For all your age and wisdom, you don’t seem to understand how a “discussion” works.
You say something.
It may or may not be understood.
Someone (like me) asks for clarification.
The next thing that is supposed to happen is that you clarify.
It’s really not helpful saying “read what I wrote before”.
Furthermore, the people responding to you here, such as myself, are the people who in good faith are trying to help.
I personally am one of the few people in a position to actually implement changes that the community agrees upon.
I’m keenly interested in “negative experiences” of users, and how we might rectify those.
I’m also a volunteer. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel inclined to pore back over a convoluted thread to extract whatever it is that went before.
You highlighted a suggested fix.
I asked how you see it working.
I suspect that you’re just trolling now to avoid thinking about the actual problems that you supposed solution brings with it.
Who are you to teach me how a discussion works. You haven’t addressed the points I’ve made and don’t bother reading anything.
Here you go again:
That is based on my statistics. If you have different ones, please share. But I am really tired of repeating myself in this thread. Change it, don’t change it. I already said that I don’t care.
The “disconnection trick” is much more common. It makes 0.01 difference to me whether or not my my victories count. But waiting for “disconnected” players while they are already playing a new game is vexing.
The game is scored by the system. Should one of the players disagree, they contact the moderator just like I did and the mods adjust the score. This should occur much less often than score cheating.
In other words if the most common use of something is abuse, you get rid of it. It isn’t a a fire extinguisher.
And why are you interrogating me on this subject anyway. I came here with some questions.
I am new to go. I can’t even imagine a situation when this function would be needed.
This is crazy! I mean if every time I ask for help, I’ll be accused of dishonesty and complaining too much… Well, then maybe the discussions I know are really different.
I’m really not interrogating you. I’m trying to discuss your suggestion.
I don’t know how that could be done without asking questions
I am genuinely hoping to explore your experience and suggestion for how it might work better.
Earlier in the thread there was a misunderstanding, and you were “slighted” with a comment.
That commenter later acknowledged this mistake.
You could let it go at that.
I like this suggestion.
It does have some fundamental technical challenge, which is that currently there is no mechanism for “mods to adjust the score”.
That means that this suggestion is not “low hanging fruit” but rather “a project should we decide to do it”.
What this means is that we have to think carefully before making a change like that.
It also brings the risk of a dramatic increase in workload for moderators.
The current system, while subject to cheating, also enables players in good-faith to fix the score themselves, rather than having to call a moderator every time the auto-score does not get it right.
It also aligns better with the spirit of the rules, which is that “the score is what the players agree it to be”.
So while I like your suggestion, it is both non-trivial and has some downsides.
The only difference is that I also mention my statistics there, that indicate that there would be LESS work for the moderators, not more.
Means, in my experience, never. And I already wrote that maaany times.
As to “fundamental technical challenge”: that I did not know.
But in case one player disagrees with the system score, they could click on a “disagree” button and the game would not be scored, but put on hold until it is scored by a moderator. And perhaps this task could be delegated to members that have a high rank and longer membership.
But the main thing to me is that I still don’t see this ever happening. And if it did, the moderator doesn’t need to actually change the score in the system, but can only decide who the winner was and write the score in the chat
) and pretty much implied it was all clear as daylight and my post was unnecessary.