My purpose here was to difuse the situation, not enhance it, so I shouldn’t be replying, but I have to make clear that:
Half the problem is we now ALSO have to defend ourselves against the straw argument that we are attacking the mods in some way, while our issue is not that and also legitimate.
I did not write that, at all. I am in the habit of being very careful with the words I use. If you think otherwise, please pinpoint a quote so I can respond in specific.
Apart from that, I could provide a million examples on how people can BE valued, but not feel valued at one particular point, from any walk of life. Work, family, sports, everyday life, you name it, it can be done. Again, I was very careful with my expressions.
I chose parents, because I deemed it the least complex and the most easily understood and easily connectable with other people. Seems I was wrong
One could wonder when a point that someone can provide so many examples about it so as to be rendered self-evident stops being a “strawman”, but I’ve learned that there are some terms that I shouldn’t dwell too much over.
So, if rank system is so important that games absolutely have to be annulled here and there without even the players knowing, based on what moderators feel should happen in a fuzzy way and against a clear skepticism of the community about the extend of this practice then…
If a prominent, very strong player, at some point took a very well-known break and timed out of dozens of games, resulting in a severe drop in their rank (worth probably several stones), I would guess it was top priority from mods to annul all those games ASAP, right?
I mean, some were probably automatically annulled because they were within the “two stones played” rule, but also the rest were promptly dealt with, right?
Because such a prolific and strong player “throwing” dozens of ranked games (not maliciously, but as a result of their absence from OGS) obviously had a severe impact on the rating balance.
If not, then it seems like the practice is not what is described to be and you’ll excuse me if I remain skeptical.
Good morning. I just glanced yours bc I am in a rush. I would like to pass a msg to everyone. Late last night i had a game with it seems to be the person in doubt. He obviously was winning big and he resigned.
My recommendation is that he is ban immediately. Thanks everyone for their input. Next time we have a 'sandbagger", new word for me, instead of warning simply just ban without delay. He/she does not deserve to be in this community. I am adding to this. It would also be that should apply only when obvious, not when the game could have gone either way. In other words, too early in the game it would be assuming. I had two experiences with 2 different people yesterday and that is what prompted this long link. The third was as I said, last night. That was no doubt the person who is doing something wrong and i do not know why he wants to lower his rank. It beats me.
I am not sure why this is addressed to me. Except for my initial analysis in this thread of the OP’s game complaint (let’s remember I did not handle that case as a moderator), I have not discussed the handling of ambiguous cases. My interest and posts have been about annulling thrown games (stipulated as such), because it is essential to find agreement on a foundational principle.
We wouldn’t need to do so, because the system already effectively annuls all but the first game in a consecutive series of timed out correspondence games. It is a controversial issue that has been extensively discussed in several very long threads.
This already happens in virtually all cases. Rank manipulation usually comes to our attention due to a report, which typically means the player already has a history of throwing games visible in his history.
I’m not asking you specifically, any moderator can answer my question, I just asked you for the clarification earlier because you were here.
So, in the case I mentioned, the rank of the player dropped in a vacuum? The games were effectively annulled but they don’t show as annulled and their opponents’ ranking didn’t change because of those “wins”?
Again, not asking you specifically, anyone who knows can reply.
From now on; A policy should be in place before people sign to OGS. It should read that dishonesty won’t be tolerated. The mods knew of my opponent bc I was told in this forum she/he has been quitting games to lower this rank. The first time it happened and it was obvious he should has been removed. Anyway, this is complex. Perhaps if the mod had informed me what was happening it would have been helpful. Allowing me to keep the game as a winner (1 game won’t make a lot of difference) but then alert me for the next time I would not feel as if it was something against me. Communication is essential. I hope that we need to progress. It is not easy for anyone and the culprit should not be allowed here.
In the case of bulk correspondence time out only the first game “counts” and the rest are automatically annulled but yes silently and without any indication on either players’s history. So the player’s rank doesn’t drop.
I think that is one option.
With the new ranks there is the additional obfuscating factor that the change to rank after a single game can be small so maybe harder to identify games that had no effect?
Edit: And especially if the annulment is not exactly immediate. This is partly what I had in mind with my thought about only annulling games at a later point when the sandbagging is obvious/proven/intended…
Lol wait OP agrees this account is a sandbagger, but doesn’t want the game to be annulled? Where is the logic there?
My two cents on this topic in general:
Mods you are great thanks for all the hard work
The system is pretty noisy anyway. IMO 3+ games constitutes evidence of sandbagging, 1 does not. Maybe it’s okay not to take action* if there is little evidence of an overall pattern. (EDIT: *action meaning annulment, a verbal warning to the escaper definitely makes sense)
It would be great to have a Rules & Guidelines page (separate from the ToS, which is mostly legal boilerplate) so that we can have a more intelligent conversation about things like this.
But if the ranking system integrity is so holy that the decision is made and done (I mean, we get to express our disagreement, but it doesn’t matter at all what we think it seems), then maybe any player with rank discrepancies for any reason should be looked up asap and not small fry have their games annulled without them even knowing because that immaculate rank system might get tinkled.
I know it’s done with the best intentions, but still it’s a practice that makes me not want to play any more (yeah, big loss, I don’t play much anyway, I know). It takes away the result of the game (OTHER THAN OBVIOUS MALICE, for some reason I have to point this out even after all this discussion because someone might misunderstand what I’m trying to say) from the two players and places it into the hands of a third person, who values a formula more than the game.
Again, I’m not talking about correcting systematic wrong behavior; I’m talking about someone taking the result of a game in their hands according to criteria that is unclear to anyone else that isn’t a mod.
What I don’t like is that someone gets to decide what is and isn’t a won game to preserve a formula, but based on things that are in no way in a formula, but subjective.
Sandbagging is clear (I mean, it should be, but I guess we are debating even this now), annulment with only 2 moves is clear; AI says X player would probably win or the player who left midgame is not an “I give up” situation because it could be this or that are not clear and trying to persuade me (not you) that they are black and white when they aren’t seems like just wanting this issue to be done as is.
PS. And also this apparently has been a standing practice for so long and so extensively for timeout games, but no consideration for any other similar problems other than timeouts? Why?
