The problem is that you can’t expect “everyone” to not fuss over it and I think there would be more people who will fuss over it then not.
I actually think this may be a misunderstanding amongst most people in this thread. I don’t think anyone is actually looking for anything in this instance to be changed or even that the policy be changed. But to make sure that there is care that goes into these situations. I was content when Vsotvep showed compassion.
By that I mean that a lot of this argument (to me) has been excuses piled on top of excuses as to why a player “shouldn’t feel the way they should so thats why we will make our policy this and make them feel the way we want them to feel.” which is one of the most childish things I have seen.
Players will feel the way they do because its simply how they want to feel and saying “they shouldn’t feel this way” isn’t going to make them feel otherwise. They have a right to be upset even if “nobody thinks they do”. They didn’t do anything negative and something negative happened to them. You are bound to be upset when something you didn’t expect to happen that is negative happens.
I disagree with the policy because it is my opinion. But, it does not mean the policy is wrong. I just wanted compassion to be shown toward the user. Not this specific instance but in all instances where this may occur. Making excuses of “it wasn’t a your win” will only make the user upset “EVEN IF IT MIGHT BE THE TRUTH”.
The idea is that one player who was honest had an unfortunate situation happen to them and despite what people might think had to spend time with the player who was being dishonest. Making it a punishment that they had to do so and then having the game you played through and waited through that rewarded you with some points removed makes it feel even worse.
In case we are talking about scenarios lets imagine you go to work and you accidentally receive some ones bonus. You are really excited about this bonus that you didn’t know you deserved. At some point your boss tells you that he accidentally gave you someone elses bonus. You would be devastated and upset you may still give the bonus back but your going to feel upset regardless and nobody should expect you to feel otherwise. Nobody is going to tell you “why should you be upset you didn’t earn that bonus someone else did.”
In the case of Vince, like the case of the bonus recipient, he’s going to feel ripped off, at least at first, for sure.
What I was hoping is that like the wrong-bonus-recipient, with good communication he and the community will see that it was the right thing. The argument I’m having trouble with is that Vince should have a say in whether he gets to keep his bonus…
After all my objection, I should at least say that I can see how satisfying everyone regarding this would be tough and OGS team should pick the route they feel they can handle safely. I have no reservations regarding the team’s or community’s compassion.
A small point in defense of my position prior to snakesss feeling I was showing compassion:
I was never saying that OP should feel a certain way, but I was (and still am) disputing the claim that we are not acting with care and that our actions were harming the victims. That is to say, although someone may not feel happy about losing a bonus, it really should be the case that this person does lose the bonus, as it does not belong to them. This is also in the benefit of the person (and everyone in general), since bonuses should be distributed after someone has done the work to achieve it, and not by random accidents.
That was actually toward anyone saying “They shouldn’t feel that the rank system is a reward/punishment system” and stating that it wasn’t a punishment or reward system.
It actually is since winning ranked games rewards you and losing punishes you and this goes back to my point of even if “we may not think they should feel that way” but they will anyway.
I just meant eventually I was glad you showed compassion because you were the first mod to say you understood how he felt and that you were torn between both sides. I just didn’t like the ones saying “NAH HE SHOULDNT FEEL THAT WAY”
(P.S not saying I don’t like the mods who said it just that it is what was being said that I didn’t like.)
(If any other mods said anything like this then I apologize and missed yours.)
I guess in that regard, my point would be that the ranking system isn’t used as a reward / punishment system (to reiterate, since ranking is used for matchmaking, and using it in any other way than to fix someone’s rank would be detrimental to the goal of being a good matchmaker).
Thus if you happen to feel that way (which is fine), you can’t expect the moderation team to satisfy your request to punish / reward people with rank. The suggestion to stop seeing it as a reward / punishment, is helpful in understanding why our policy is as it is, and would also help against feeling like you’re being treated unjustly.
You are correct but when dealing with a mob of players (like this one) who don’t like to hear it you are going to be met with anger because it is the most natural way for a human to feel in this situation.
I don’t think the expectation is for the moderation to satisfy with a punishment or a reward. (To point out I never asked for the player to be banned at least not on the first offence. In my previous line of work in management we always offered more then one chance.)
But its good to make sure that you are showing that you care about what happened and understand how they feel just that another issue is taking higher priority.
I think we can both agree that in this case you understand why he may feel that way even if you don’t agree with it and that you all care about how he feels but that what he is feeling isn’t your highest priority in this situation.
That is the tricky part, IMHO. My personal objection during this “test your endurance” thread is that I’m not convinced a perceived winning position is always an indeed winning position. 50 points ahead and resigning as a pattern I wouldn’t question; the rest seems murky and is presented as crystal clear.
Agreed, however, we’re not looking at a winning position; we’re looking at the absence of a winning position. If the player who won the game is not the clear winner of the game, it is questionable who ought to receive the rating points. That does not entail that the other player would need to be in a winning position, since neither player could be clearly winning.
I can see this. I think my trouble is that there are various winning conditions:
Game ends with two passes - whoever has most points is the winner;
Game ends with a resignation - whoever didn’t resign is the winner;
Game ends with one player running out of time - whoever didn’t run out of time is the winner.
In each case there is a clear winner
However, we overlay this with a further test in the last two cases where it is felt that the loss was not justified.
This differs from IRL tournaments where a loss is a loss, I think. E.g. taking a nap during dinner of a long game and accidentally sleeping through the rest of your clock running down…
And it by implication makes the win unjustified, even though the winner has complied with all rules.
Now maybe sandbagging is a purely online phenomenon. So real life is maybe not a comparable case. And people clearly complain about it a lot so maybe we should do something and what we do is the best we can do. But I hope that what we do has been fully thought through and proper consideration given to other options, even if they seem unimaginable at first.
I agree on those points, but I see these as having an effect on one’s playing. Someone could lose a game because they lost concentration, and hence got themself in a bad position. When someone loses concentration, while the game itself is not decided, and then resigns, I don’t see it as a game with a clear winner.
It’s not a game of chance and prospection, there’s a very clear and accurate way to see who is winning. When somebody resigns because they feel they are probably not concentrated enough, or lack perseverance, while the actual game is undecided, then that’s just that: an undecided game.
For the same reason that the resigned player might lose if the game were to be continued, the opponent might lose as well. There is no winner, and no loser, in this scenario.
This may be perseived as nitpicking, but I want to point out that annulling a game is not taking the win from the winner, strictly speaking. It only changes the status of the game to unranked.
So even though the game was annulled, technically it is still considered a win for the person who didn’t time out.
Then only count games that go to scoring. And also annul all games with misclicks. No?
If I resign because I misread but I was actually winning, then the mods will say “hm, 50 points ahead, obviously a decided game, Gia gets the win?”
Nope, if I say “I don’t think I can win this” it’s my decision. I am the one playing and I consider this game lost. This is how it’s done everywhere, I don’t know why this anomaly is considered so normal in this instance. Mods deciding when a game is lost overriding players is not OK and you can’t convince me otherwise, so let’s agree to disagree.
And also I don’t feel like playing in a server where mods override players just based on personal perception, I think I have the right to feel this way.
Go is a game between two opponents, it’s not a means to design a rank system and I think this is a fundamental difference in opinions.
I thought we had already agreed to disagree
But I still feel you’re conflating winning the game with predicting who is better.
Annulling a game is not necessarily to show who should have won the game, it’s to use it to predict which player is better at Go. A game where you resigned in a position while 50 points ahead is your loss, and it’s your right to resign (if it’s not sandbagging against better knowledge).
But simultaneously such a game is not suitable to judge how well you could play (again, in my opinion).
It is not necessarily an incorrect interpretation, as I described above.
But anyways, I believe several of us are thoroughly done with this discussion, and I feel I’m repeating my opinions. So unless I there’s something new to say, I’ll leave this topic for now.
There were players “sandbagging” in real life, especially playing for bets. And they would be smarter than just resign while ahead, but deliberately play bad moves to lose a few games, and occasionally win just a little, and then when the odds were against them, and the bet money is huge, suddenly add conditions like capture certain amount of stones would gain extra bets, etc. and then just kill all the opponent’s big groups.
The head of Hoensha - Murase Shūho(Honinbō Shūho) did just that when he was forced out of Honinbo House when he was young and had to play for bets to survive.
If the online sandbaggers are smart, they could also hide their strength by playing bad moves to lose some games “legitimately”. Fix to a certain level and that would be nearly impossible to detect.
then I apologize and missed yours.)
