Great! We are in agreement. This is what I said initially in this thread.
I certainly don’t take KataGo as gospel in such cases. Indeed, I resigned a game fairly early in which KataGo afterward said I had a 62% win rate. But I could never have played the long variation required. I think most SDKs would say the escaper was ahead in the OP’s game, but I am too weak to say that definitively, so I see the KataGo analysis as merely confirmatory. Aside from that I have not really discussed the ins and outs of edge cases; I didn’t see any use in it in the absence of agreement on the issue of annulling thrown games (stipulated as such).
I do not accept the characterization of it as having a negative connotation, and the Supreme Court agrees with me, as a disagreeing opinion among them is called a “dissent.”
You have ripped my quote out of context. I will assume that this was unintentional. The sentence immediately following the one about good faith was this:
This is a crystal clear endorsement of their good faith. I did not dismiss it, let alone belittle it. I simply disagree with it.
Great! We agree. That means you are not among the dissenters I was referring to.
So now I know if I am not sure how to proceed in the game, I just take off and leave the tab open, because it is going to be assumed that I am a child, I forgot that i was playing, etc etc. then the game will be annulled. Great news!
No system is perfect, practically there’s always some ways to exploit the rules. I hope you are speaking satirical and don’t actually plan to lower yourself to such a level.
Yes, exactly. … it was sarcastic. But that is what happened when the opponent let me waiting for some 28 min or so and the mod excused him/her and cancelled the game.
Ok, I accept that you did not mean anything negative or pejorative such language about “dissent”.
However, my point is that this issue is more complicated than simply saying that people are either in agreement or in dissent. I think it oversimplifies the situation to view it in a binary fashion. I believe there is actually a lot of common ground across many of the people participating in this thread, and that nearly everyone (even those whom you might view as dissenters) do actually care about issues like controlling sandbaggers and preserving the integrity of the rating system. Other concerns about the general satisfaction that players feel in interacting with the rating system are also important to many as well, and addressing one thing is not necessarily a hard tradeoff with (i.e., requiring complete sacrifice at the expense of) another.
Even a single issue like “preserving the integrity of the rating system” is quite complex and can raise questions about how to design policy to achieve it.
I gave this example above, and I would really be interested in hearing the opinions on it from the moderators and the community at large.
Honestly, I’m too sure what the best approach is to deal with drunk (or otherwise variably impaired or highly inconsistent) players, but if tools like annulment are used to address inadvertent sandbagging/airbagging, then I think these are natural questions to ask as well.
As always you have hit the nail on the head @yebellz.
It seems that it’s accepted that it’s not possible to correct for all sources of possible error in the ranking system. But the thought is that it is possible to correct for some. This being the case, the conclusion is that correcting where you can is better than not correcting at all.
I hope I have summarised that correctly.
So one question, which I think has been expressed in some ways in places above, is how much difference does the (low?) level of correction that takes place make relative to the remaining amount of uncorrected noise in the data?
And then what is the impact of making these corrections on the general playing experience?
I’m very willing to accept that the answer to the first is “not much” and the answer to the second is “it makes people generally happy that we are dealing with sandbaggers, a few people get sad about their “wins” getting annulled but the overall effect is positive for players and the community”. And thereby concluding that the current practice should continue.
I know you’re being sarcastic and all, but the narrative you’re spreading just isn’t true. Your opponent got an official warning right after you reported them. I first sent them a message asking them to return to the board. When the game timed out three minutes later, I warned them not to leave current ongoing games. This is the first step toward an eventual site ban, so it’s not fair to say we excused them.
P.S.: The other player you mentioned a few posts up is now banned, because their violation came after several warnings. I think the system is working.
First of all. I was actually shocked when I opened my account and see that the game of the person who left me waiting was cancelled. I have no doubt that you warned the culprit. You asked me if I wanted the game cancelled. I clearly stated not to. I was very surprise that you would even ask me such question. The policy is that when people time out automatically they lose the game. This has been happening for a long time. It was agreed that you would not cancel. Then later I was shocked to see that you ended cancelling it anyway. IF it was necessary to cancel the game, I would have expected that you explain the reason why. I feel disrespected.
About my sarcastic comment which I made was bc another mod explained to me that it was cancel bc it could have been a child, an emergency or another reason. Furthermore, i was also surprise when I was told …might be the same mod, cannot remember that the person who left was winning and she/he had no reason to leave. I did not appreciate the *assumption". It was only around the 32 moves and the game could have gone either way.
To the above comment made I explained that I could also be allowed to assume. For example, I have seeing students in groups playing with someone online and the opponent had no idea that he/she was playing against two players. Could have not happened that the person who let me waiting was being helped, then left alone and not knowing how to proceed just took off?
If it was only in the opening and could have gone either way it surprises me that you want this to count for your rank.
Who wants to be counted winning a game that they didn’t actually win?
Sandbaggers escape from games in the opening to get the negative rank from that - it makes perfect sense to me that it was annulled.
It does seem like a shame that the communication about what happened and why was not smooth - I can see that it appears that the moderators themselves didn’t know between them what the decision process was.
But the moderators are only human, not perfect communication machines - between themselves or the players.
it is NOt about whether I wanted the game to be mine. NO. Read carefully my response to Mark. My thoughts were that I was been targeted. I have lost games bc I timed out and also my opponents had also time out, then out of the blue…afteer the mod ASked Me if I wanted to have it cancel and me responding no and he agreeing to later by chance finding that it was cancel. Do you understand?
Communication is important.
Adding: the next day another shock. My opponent had resigned and it was cancel. Simply too confusing and for sure thinking that i was being targeted.
I agree that communication is important - it’s also difficult and timeconsuming, as this thread illustrates - and takes significant goodwill on the part of both parties in the communication when hiccups arise…
I doubt any staff members actually targeted you. I do think though that if they were going to anull it they shouldn’t have asked first and just did it if they were going to anyway.
I understand the thought of “hopefully the player will just agree to cancel it so I don’t have to anull it and make them upset”. But, asking and then doing it anyway is 100x worse then just doing it and letting the person be upset.
But, a mod “targetting” a player would just sound petty and laughable. Just sounds like overall you got into an unlucky situation.
Let’s keep the facts straight. A game cannot be canceled after the first two moves, and a moderator can’t cancel a game in his role as a moderator. Only players cancel games. Moderators annul games, and I don’t believe any moderator would confuse the terminology. Moderators rarely ask someone if they want a game annulled, certainly not in a situation like this. IIRC, mark5000 said he asked the OP if he wanted the game resolved as a tie. Therefore, I do not find it credible that mark5000 asked if the OP wanted him to “cancel” (or annul) the game.
I still haven’t gotten an answer why a dan player was “allowed” to drop 5 ranks due to timeouts but small fry DDKs “deserve” to unknowingly get their small fry games annulled for fractions of ranks.
Either the system suffers from rank changes that aren’t the result of fair games or it doesn’t.
Unless I get a satisfying answer for this I don’t consider anything said on the matter fair or credible.
I don’t know who you mean but I did look at one record.
The confusing thing is that a string of bulk timeouts which are auto annulled can be interrupted by other game ending events. So e.g. if a player disappears with say 20 games in progress. Say the player times out 10 games, the first “counts” and the other 9 are annulled and then in the 11th the opponent times out or resigns or something. That game now counts and of the player continues to time out then the 12th game also counts while 13 to 20 are annulled under the automatic annulment system (which started at game 12.
I see one particular player who had several games decided by disqualification from a tourney in the middle of a string of time outs. So I suppose those games counted and broke the bulk time out chain.
As other have answered before, timing out multiple correspondence games results in the games being automatically annulled. Hence in a way such games are also annulled.
This does seem like an unintended side-effect of the auto-annulling. Ideally the string of annulled games should not be broken by others resigning if the player in question hasn’t made a move in those games. In general I guess it would be nice if these games would only be annulled when the player has been offline for the duration of the timeouts.
if I am not sure how to proceed in the game, I just take off and leave the tab open, because it is going to be assumed that I am a child, I forgot that i was playing, etc etc. then the game will be annulled. Great news!