My opponent left, I waited 29 min

When did this trend start? I’m not really fluent in game decisions here, but my understanding was “you leave a game midway, you lose, unless it’s only 2 moves, then it’s annulled”. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this and what is presented here like a normal mod decision is really a significant change of direction.

A. Disconnect clock kicks in much earlier than game clock, and disconnect means loss
B. I guess mods don’t go around checking the thousands of games played daily and annul here and there what in their opinion was “not decided” as to not “distort the ranks”

In my opinion annulling a game that in common understanding of common players is decided is what’s distorting the ranks.
Maybe it’s mods being protective of the latest ranking system and overcorrecting or mods overstepping and influencing game results I don’t know, but it makes me sceptical and I don’t like it.


Waltheri’s is full of wacky first moves.
Maybe give some creativity a chance. :wink:


Annulling thrown games and what we call “non-games” (those with just a few moves) is a longstanding moderation policy. It was standard when I started moderating more than 2 years ago. One sandbagging technique is to manipulate rank by playing a move or two and then timing out or resigning. These games, which are non-decisive in any meaningful sense, get annulled to protect the ranking system from sandbaggers. Similarly, some sandbaggers resign or time out of won games (those that are ready or nearly ready for scoring). These thrown games are also annulled for the same reason (obviously, if the timeout may have been legitimate, as in a blitz, we leave it alone). A thrown game, like a thrown prize fight or a thrown baseball game (the Black Sox scandal), is an illegitimate result, and all bets are off, so to speak.

This particular case may have been accidental—perhaps the player was called away. He did not start another game. Holding the tab open is usually a malicious act, but there is no motivation in this case, hence my belief that it may have been accidental. Nevertheless, the opponent (who timed out) had an 88% win rate according to KataGo, so it is reasonable to consider it a thrown game.


Well if you want to get technical our policy is not “you leave a game midway you lose,” our policy is “DON’T leave your games midway” :wink:

Certainly not a “normal” mod decision, as the case itself is rather special. If you want particual details about this decision we would have to wait for Mark, but generally speaking absolute majority of timeouts can be divided into two groups:

  • Players who get frustrated when losing a big group/after realizing they cannot win etc. In such a case the result obviously stands as they were gonna lose the game anyway.

  • Players who just do not manage the time pressure, do not manage to read out the position in time etc and timeout “honestly”. This is especially common in blitz games. Time management is part of the skill and in such cases the result also stands.

Clearly this situation was rather different, the player was not losing (rather the contrary) and it is unlikely they were reading out the opening for 30 minutes and did not notice. As they do not do this in other games, in my optimistic view of the world (or perhaps naivity) it suggests some technical or other issue, and the game is not a good example of player’s skill - something else was clearly at play.

AGAIN, ranking system is NOT means of punishing/rewarding players it is a representation of strenght and this game in particualr (in my opinion) is not a good indiciation of the player’s skill (or lack thereof), thus it does not really make sense for it to be ranked.

Rating is ONLY that - a representation of strength, NOT politeness, NOT our personal feelings towards the player or their behaviour, just strength. For the purposes of a “healthy and friendly community” we chose dialogue as our main “weapon”, player’s rank is not part of that process.


As far as I’m aware, this was the standard all along.


Ah, yes, that scandal, it is 100% fail-proof to assume I would know exactly what this is. :stuck_out_tongue:

Now with the CAPS I get it. :stuck_out_tongue:

We have seen games go either way for players much better than us all, so we really can’t judge that, can we? :stuck_out_tongue: Unless a game is decided, what it seems like it could have maybe probably end like is not set.

If it’s sandbagging, I understand annulling the games, because there is a pattern there. Unless the pattern is there, in my humble understanding it’s a game lost because someone misread their nature’s call break. Unfortunate, it happens, still if you’re not there to play common sense says you can’t win. And the person ready at their battle station takes that flag.


Well, that’s what I am saying. We do not know who would win, because the game did not happen. Hence we cannot atribute victory to either side, hence the game is annulled :stuck_out_tongue:


I can see your side, in my side the game happened if it started and someone didn’t follow all the way through. Wars have been lost that way. :stuck_out_tongue:

But I do see your point.
How early is early enough in that case, if it’s already a few moves in? I’m not nitpicking/ arguing, I’m trying to get a sense of how you see it.


Okay, but you’re still not getting the CAPS LOCK point though: it’s not about who won that game, it’s about whether having that game be ranked would help in predicting future outcomes of games.

It just doesn’t.


Now I am imagining a huge army standing on the hill, general checking his watch every few seconds being like “well let’s wait 5 more minutes and if they do not show up we win” (wanted to make a meme out of it but am lazy). Luckily our decisions here are a bit less impactfull than wars

Jokes aside it is admitadelly always a bit of a personal (as in hard to be objective) decision, and I won’t really be able to give you a “straight” answer. For me it is dependant on player’s rank, the complexity of the game itself (are there tough areas, life and death scenarios, etc…), and the game clock as well (easy to mess up something if you only have 20s) it can be 80 moves in a simple SDK game or 180moves in a pro game before I would feel confident “calling” the game with at least some certainty. There is just no universal “rule” for me.

Me particularly, I am usually quite “strict” in those cases and I understand your position as well “if you did not want to lose you should have been more careful about your time”, it’s just that in this case it seems “obvious” to me that something else probably happened rather than the player just getting distracted, which is why I agree with Mark’s decision - the game is not at all a good representation of the player’s general skill.


What is it with folks on the forums comparing Go to combat lately >.<


That’s why I like byoyomi with no main time. If opponent left, game will end even before disconnection timer ends.


Hmm, maybe it would be useful if mods could annul a game for ranking purposes only. Make it unranked, but still show who has won (via timeout) in the player history. That might remove that feeling of being treated unfairly.


But it does still show that.


Oh yes, you are right. But with the strikethrough it seems to imply that it’s not valid anymore. Maybe a different way to visualise the situation? You won. It’s a valid win. We just don’t rank it. I know this is rather cosmetic, but maybe significant on a psychological level?


Usually it had to do with day/night cycles (or even moon cycles, depending on the where’s and and how’s), and seasons changing, for example when the soldiers had to go back to farming and stuff. :wink:

Haven’t you heard of Theseus and the black sails? If only Aegeus had waited a few more minutes… (If we are making region specific references, I get to make one, right? :-P)

I understand what you mean based on the paragraph that follows after that.

I’m afraid when you have a math hammer you see math nails everywhere… If OGS is a temple devoted to finding the perfect formula to predict outcomes of games, I guess I missed that, because last time I checked people playing games and having fun was also part of this.
Yes, it might seem mundane to the powers that be, but us common folk get to ask things as well. We are simple like that :woman_shrugging:


I’m not sure what this is about, what does maths have to do with it? People are constantly complaining about ranking being inaccurate, but here you are trying to convince us we shouldn’t try to achieve that?

Look at it from another perspective: we also get constantly asked to stop people sandbagging or generally to deal with players who are inappropriately ranked. People blame the mods when there are too many dan players in the ddk ranks, and vice versa. Annulling games like this is how we try to manage that problem.


This is a complicated situation indeed because I do not think there is a correct solution or a better or a best solution.

What I mean is that I don’t think anulling the game is the correct decision(unless obviously only one move was played or a few moves.) This can really ruin the experience of the specific user (the “winner”). Obviously it could be argued that the sandbagging and rank influx that it could cause also ruin the experience of “users”. Which is why I think it is something that can be opinionated on what a person values more the integrity of the ranking system or the experience of the specfic user who did play to mid game (not the escapee). I personally would hate to set up a rated game play to mid game and have it anulled I would probably even take offence to it.

Also I don’t think the statement “ranked isn’t a means to punish or reward people” I assume you mean that people who had the game anulled but didn’t escape shouldn’t feel like they are being punished because that is not what the system is for? — I don’t know the word for it but I think that when a player plays ranked there is an expectation to win or lose and lose points or earn points. Even if you do not believe that is how people should feel it will be how people feel and it is the obvious expected result. I do not think it is entirely fair to say how they “should feel” (I mean yes they can feel whatever they want to feel yes yes I get that) I just mean that you should understand as well that because this is what they expect it is a normal reaction to feel they might be wronged.

Also “integrity of ranks” I like OGS so far but the ranking system is too… all over the place and I don’t think the cause is a few sandbaggers. I do think that said baggers should be banned though :wink:

Anyway, can’t say I read the entire topic or understood everything that was written so if I misunderstood something my bad and enjoy my 2 cents.


uhm, misrepresenting what I said.

My point is “rank should be perfect” doesn’t justify “ruin everything else, including the experience”. That elusive be-all, end-all of ranking systems shouldn’t be the only worthy outcome here.

Annulling a game that people consider it won, judging by common responses
(when the other player abandoned the game and we can’t know how and why, so instead of going into psychology analysis and probabilities about whether their pressure cooker exploded, it’s way simpler to consider a half-played game abandoned from someone who doesn’t have a sandbagging pattern a lost game)
because “it’s better for the rank system” seems like an overkill.
All I’m saying, of course nothing I can do about it.

PS. Thing has been borking like crazy for me, trying to post my last two responses for minutes, anyone else?


But thrown games and non-games are not valid wins, as I explained.