Why don’t we revive the OGS teaching ladder?
There are a lot of rules and textwalls on the teaching ladder group; so why don’t we run a restarter group out of this thread until we get a critical maximum of, say, ten people?
I’m offering to review some DDK games, let’s say ten – twenty a week. In exchange I’ll put up five or so of my own games for review, taking into account that stronger players are rarer.
Is there no interest in this? That’s a shame.
I’m keen on teaching, being taught, and having OGS as a good place for that.
I see that at least 3 people indicated interest.
My experience was “ooo - interseting [read read] hmm - not sure what this is really about - will it be like the other half dozen existing groups of people that already offer getting together like this, and why do we need a new one?”
I didn’t ask those questions so as not to pour cold water, but I wonder if that helps understand?
I reckon even a link to the rules and so on that you mentioned would help stimulate: would have to work to find what you are talking about, and people hate work 
We do suffer from all the opportunities on offer being very splintered: which tends to weaken each of them critically. I don’t know what to do about that.
I am in for correspondence and one or two reviews a week.
I’m in, if it’s not time - sensitive.
If people are required to also offer reviews, please feel free to exclude me though, I won’t be offended or anything.
I’m interested/supportive but realistically can’t commit. (Esp not at the rate of 10-20 a week!)
I could do maybe one a month and wouldn’t ask for more than that, if any, in return but I don’t feel I need a particular group or ladder to do this. I currently review games for my opponents if they seem interested but it only amounts to about 1 or 2 a year. Also I have real life friends from real life go clubs who are happy to review my games and between that and ogs ai review I don’t feel too much need for more reviewing (not least because I’m lazy and having passed the 10k threshold I’m in no hurry to face the grind up the SDK ranks!)
So apologies both for not participating and for the long explanation!
I would be up for playing games for which both players do a review together afterwards (if necessary with a stronger player), or possibly even openly discussing the game during play.
But yes, reviewing 10~20 is a bit steep…
Alright, no worries. At least I sounded it out.
as far as i know, the reason the teaching ladder died wasnt the lack of voulunteers, it was the lack of game-submissions…
idk why it came to that or how to change it , maybe people just find it simpler to ask in the forums?
if peolpe are interested in a revival attempt, id be in though. i could do 1-2 reviews a week.
I like the idea, and if there are already similar groups, I wasn’t aware of them.
However,
I wonder if others didn’t want to participate for similar reasons.
How does a teaching ladder work? Would I HAVE to review games from random people when asked for? Would I get to choose from a pool of people who requested reviews? Are we talking about offline reviews, where the player is not present? My lack of interest was because of ignorance and because I already review people who ask and I am not looking for reviews myself cuz I don’t play a lot (and ogs peeps already help when I need one).
Also, I am not sure I like making it too easy to ask for reviews cuz that could mean lots of time wasted, with people asking for reviews casually (like I did on gokibitz), the reviewer spending half an hour on it, then the player never even checking it seriously. That’s why I would like to be able to choose whom I review.
That said, I’ll probably join if it does happen to revive.
Well, the way the old teaching ladder worked was basically that for every review you asked for, you would be obliged to give one out (adjusted over time of course). I’m offering to do more reviews than I get to start the project off, eg. 1:3, but it’s fine to participate at 1:1.
Well, to address the possible concerns
It’s just a game 
if you can’t play or review when life gets in the way, we won’t be mad
Generally, most stronger players are capable of their own opinions, and would not spend too much time on a game they do not think is worth it 
But from my experience - the more mistakes there is, the better I feel because I know what to talk about in the review
This is an understandable concern, not sure what Buggy has in mind exactly (so correct me if I am wrong), but I would imagine beginners would NOT be expected to do reviews for anyone, maybe you can help later when you get stronger
I’m interested.
To be clear, you are talking about starting a new group? Or should all interested people just join the existing one?
I’d be happy to start posting my games on their notice board to get reviewed in exchange for doing ddk games!
This is what I’m talking about:
It failed the first time for a reason, as has every other attempt to organize and schedule teaching on OGS.
OGS doesn’t seem like it’s ready to have a lot of teachers, and OGS doesn’t incentivize teachers to spend many hours per week teaching (unpaid teachers, that is). When I tried, many hours were “wasted” on students who simply didn’t put the time in to study on their own or who never bothered to stick to a study routine and gave up.
This is true of every teacher across every field. Do not be discouraged.
Well, to be fair, I taught grade 7 and 9 math and science for a year, and I teach in the military too.
It’s just a lot easier for people online to not commit or blow stuff off, because there’s no investment or requirement on their part. There’s a huge difference between someone trying to have a career in something, or a kid who is stuck with you for a year than someone online who doesn’t really care enough to try.
Just to specify, I really wasn’t proposing any sort of “study group”. Just a revival of the straightforward trade of reviews for reviews, without any other commitment, like on GoKibitz or the original Teaching Ladder which I hope to reinvigorate.
Based on my limited experience with these groups, differences must be minimal. 