IMO: in ranked play, never. In unranked play, only if it is disclosed before the match begins.
Two players on one account is probably against the rules as written. But the purpose of those rules is to protect OGS users from abuse. In that spirit, prior informed consent from the opponent should be enough. Jlt’s suggestion seems right to me: put it in the challenge description, and then notify the opponent again before move 1.
Also in that spirit, openly arranging an unusual but genuine game of Go seems less objectionable than surprising an opponent with something they did not agree to in advance. Examples are being part of a streamers lesson subject, or playing a certain someone who invented his own “I play until you’ve captured 10 stones”-game.
It does point towards Rengo being not popular enough. Perhaps the longer-term answer is to make 2v1 Rengo easier to organize or promote more rengo users through events. I would happily play 2v1 myself. If I win, twice the glory. If I lose, a perfect excuse.
I agree that is the cleanest solution, by utilizing a feature already provided by the site, which creates no surprises for potential opponents and keeps everything transparent about who is involved in the game.
However, I think that OP may be asking, just for the sake of convenience in their particular situation:
Perhaps they view it as easier to just share one device/browser/account.
I think they are hoping to just be able to create or join general (1v1) open challenges with a shared account.
For this second aspect, I specifically discourage joining open challenges, since that may inconvenience other people that were not expecting to face a team.
Using OGS rengo feature to play “2v1” probably provides exactly the functionality I want. I have yet to test how it works and how fast one find’s a game, but I will do that when I have the time. I usually just use matchmaking, and haven’t looked at custom games.
Playing as a team on one device is not supported, so this solution does not work here.
Your example simply proves my point. Player B whispers good moves in the ear of Player A, who thereby improves his account from 20k to 12k. Of course, A might whisper every move in B’s ear, raising the account to 5k, but that wouldn’t be properly called “help,” it would be impersonation. In the proposal, B cuts out the middle man and plays his moves directly, allegedly raising the account to 12k. Same result, showing that “tandem” play is just outside help using a bogus term to describe it.
Moreover, the idea that the AB account would necessarily become 12k is just an assumption. At best it would be true only in the long term, but individual games are not the long term. Many 20k opponents, as well as later opponents, would be put at a severe disadvantage.
Even the suggestion that full disclosure makes this apparatus for dishonest play an acceptable idea is flawed. It fails to recognize that many players, especially weaker/new players, may not be fully cognizant of the disadvantages inherent in the proposal. This would be comparable to the befuddlement of new players facing, say, a score cheat. The policies of the site should aim to protect new players from predatory practices, not throw them in the water and tell them to fend for themselves
The ranks are not irrelevant with regard to outside help. Although sandbagging is permitted for unranked games, outside help and many other violations are still prohibited even if a game is unranked.
As long as all conditions of play are disclosed and everybody agrees on them, no harm is done. For instance in the Alan Turing tournament, computer help is explicitly allowed.
My example outlines the difference between the two scenarios. And they are indeed distinctly different.
No, that’s not what is happening in the scenario.
You mean B whispers into A’s ear, you’ve gotten the letters confused.
Nobody said that would be called “help”.
“Impersonation” is an odd term to describe that situation if you ask me.
It’s not a proposal it’s a scenario. And no, that’s not what happens in the outlined scenario.
You misrepresented/misunderstood the scenario.
“Tandem play” and “outside help” are two distinctly different concepts.
The “12k” was just an example but the account would very likely converge to some xk that is somewhere between 20k and 5k. This was just an example and if the xk will be 12k or not doesn’t matter in regards to the conclusion.
Why should that only be true “long term”? The OGS ranking algorithm works relatively fast.
Yes, “individual games” are not “the long term” in the same way that “ripe grapefruits” are not “the cretaceous age”. What’s the point of that observation?
Why would many 20k opponents be at a disadvantage in that scenario? Could you explain that?
What are “later opponents”?
I really don’t think that “tandem play on the same computer with full disclosure for the opponent at the start” should or can be compared to “score cheating”.
You’ve completely misunderstood. I’m setting up the comparison of the conventional outside help with your scenario.
(1) You’re right. It was a typo. (2) I said it would be help before you even responded to me. (3) Not odd at all. If another person played all the moves in a game that was being played in someone else’s account, then the player would be pretending to be (i.e., impersonating) the owner of the account. This is not theoretical, as I know of one case where someone let another person play their account and was warned by the mod not to do that.
I’m not talking specifically about your scenario, I’m demonstrating how the proposal is identical to outside help. The 12k does not derive simply from your scenario, but is a general assumption made in this thread.
No, you have misunderstood from the beginning that I was giving a comparative demonstration of how outside help and tandem play are the same thing, except that the help is delivered by whispers in the case of normal outside help and by a hand clicking moves in the proposed form of outside help.
It was an example, and I accepted it as such.
Yes, the ranking system works quickly, but it is not instantaneous. The people playing individual games before the account ranks up to its hypothetical average are being cheated.
That was a writing mistake. I should have said “many 20k players and later opponents….”
They are the players who get cheated along the way, while the tandem account is ranking up. For example, the first opponent thinks he’s playing against a 20k account, but the tandem account is really much stronger. After the tandem account ranks up some, it is now 18k, lets say, so now the 18k opponent is cheated because he’s playing against a much stronger account. This continues at each stage until the hypothetical 12k is achieved. Those additional victims during the rank up are the “later opponents.”
I didn’t do that. The comparison is not between tandem play and score cheating per se. It is about the state of mind of a new player, who may not understand either one. New players often don’t understand score cheating—some think it is a computer hack, others think it is a system failure. Similarly a new player may not understand the implications of tandem play, even if the tandem play is disclosed to him.
No reason to think that. I understood that the tandem account would be a new account, it would be [?]. The first opponent would have no clue about the strength of the players, unless the information is disclosed in the game description and/or in the chat.
You’re right about the starting point, but that doesn’t change the overall argument. When the account gets to 20k, or wherever it first gets a rank, the matches at that rank will be mismatches based on a fraud.
See how this just gets more and more silly and complicated?
“Hey - you’re not supposed to use ‘that’ account for ‘this’…”
The actual answer is easy.
Don’t play with multiple accounts in the same game, ever.
Not one on one (playing yourself) nor in Rengo.
The only exception is in unranked games (you can play yourself) and with prior written agreement (you can do that in Rengo if everyone agreed). This is the same rule as for any other exception.
Then there’s no room for confusion, or feelings of deception.
No one talk about multiple accounts here but a single one played by multiple players.
Or I don’t understand what you want to point out?
The thing is do we allow some tandem account to play here or not?
I remember on kgs an account created by an Asian go school which was played by “we didn’t know exactly who” and that happened to be well accepted (it was a quite high ranked account), with even a bit of interest in guessing if it was some students or the teachers for each game.
It might be time to get these two rules clarified somewhere, if the ToS doesn’t say that clearly already.
Here’s the thing about expectations with an account. We are accustomed to an “account” representing the unique face of A person.
If you do something different - play two accounts with one person or two people with one account - it is very hard for anyone to tell.
That makes it deceptive.
So don’t do it - that’s an easy rule to avoid the perception of deception.
(In addition, you aren’t typically allowed to share your account on any site. You are responsible for behaviour on your account, don’t share it!)
Footnote: we do allow a single person to hold multiple accounts, but only for use in very distinct ways. If I encounter your 9x9 account or your “drunk fun account” under a different name from when I encounter you 19x19 account, the deception is deemed “tolerable”. It’s “worth it” to be allowed to have separate accounts for separate purposes. Even that is debateable, it’s just how it is right now.
You are responsible for your account. Don’t share your password.
“Hey why am I suspended, that vile chat was my classmate”
No, we don’t want this.
Don’t share accounts.
Footnote: once again, there is a known exception, which is “tournament announcement accounts”. They may be shared by “scribes”. But we don’t expect them to play games and they are very exposed, sharing a password.