I’m not a native English speaker either, so it’s not a case of me lording my native language over anybody. If someone puts words in my mouth and repeatedly claim I am dishonest in my presentation (even after I’ve explained why that isn’t really the case), native speaker or no, I’d tend to think the person is holding something against me. If this isn’t the case, that’s great, but I still think it’s important to make it clear when something comes across as animosity. Furthermore, the first example (Lys) I think is a lot less ambivalent than the second one (Groin, who’s since explained no animosity was actually intended).
See, what you’re doing phrasing it like this is to create a dichotomy of tolerant/intolerant. For my part I can’t see why it’s intolerant to say you’d like not to be bothered by takeback requests in rated games. I’ve explained several times (as have others) why undo requests can be bothersome, and whether something technically is a misclick or not, technical or not in nature, isn’t actually the crux of the matter. As stated, and as is clear from the above screenshot, I’d be inclined to to allow for takebacks in casual games, but would like the choice of not having to be confronted by such demands during ranked games. It’s not a matter of whether I think my opponents are ‘nefarious’ people, I don’t. I wouldn’t be on here if I thought OGS was awash with nefarious individuals out to ruin your day. It’s first and foremost a matter of what the undo request does to the subsequent tone and tension of the game. We don’t quite see eye to eye on this matter, and I can only refer to earlier posts of myself and others as to why such requests can become bothersome. As I wrote previously, we’re all differently attuned to these things. I feel, whether you accept or reject the request, it become a great burden, and I’m thankful that this burden can be taken out of the equation in ranked games such as on lichess, for example.
To make more clear, I come from real life face to face go world and in this world there are no misclick so I have that first straight attitude in my blood and did at first apply it when I started to play online.
But then I reconsidered it because I was put in that situation where misclick is a specificity of online games and it’s a bit disappointing to ruin a game because you can’t accept that someone misclick.
Now if I tell you why not? Will you think I am for it? No I just accept there could be two schools, let them live. But I still think this option can be an incentive to a school I don’t like.
But yes of course there is intolerance. I am myself intolerant for undo requests based on rethinking a move. Not a problem to me.
You can chose to be intolerant to all kind of undo requests at your will.
The choice is I accept to have some stupid move in the middle of a game so I don’t have to break my mind on undo request
Or I don’t want stupid move in the middle of a game so I accept to break my mind on a undo request.
You edited this post while I was responding. I will provide you now with a clarification and two examples.
As I just wrote, I think correspondence games are the worst when it comes to takeback requests, and the matter is really not one of whether it was a technical misclick or not. In fact, the worst situations are when there is no doubt the opponent did in fact not misclick. I understand for some people this is then a simple matter of “Well I’ll deny that and be on my merry way”, but for me it is not. I’ll give you now two examples (though I can’t link the games because of forum policy) that I hope shall clarify some things.
The first. In a tense and enjoyable correspondence game against an opponent a couple stones stronger than me, I’m suddenly confronted with a takeback request, along with a chat message along the lines of “Sorry, I’m playing too fast while tired”. I look at the move, a bit nonplussed, and only then realize I can win the game by killing a group through a throw in. If I play the throw in (that I only saw because my opponent brought my attention to the fact that the last move was a blunder) and win, all the joy of that victory is gone. If I accept the takeback… There is no tension left in the game, things are now common knowledge to the players that shouldn’t be, and the rest of the game (I accepted the takeback) felt like a sham of what went before the undo request. Had undo requests been disabled, I would have missed the killing move, he’d have saved himself, and the game would have gone on un-marred.
The second, an example not actually involving an undo request, but it might yet be clarifying. My opponent during the game suddenly floods the chat with variations, having missed the ‘Malkovich’ option. I ask a mod to delete the posts and take a week off to forget seeing them, but the situation for me has similarities to the one described in example one. The game was flawed beyond help at this point, my opponent having shared knowledge that should be kept from me. Do you see this similarity? In a ranked game, when someone asks for an undo, the game loses all of its sheen, and can never return to the state held prior to the request.
I hope these perspectives can help in clarifying where the crux of the takeback during ranked games lies for me. Interested to hear if this makes sense to anyone or if I’m alone on the moon on this one.
If your answer to the question “Should there be an option to disable undo requests” is “Why not?”, I’d say that you are (if somewhat ambivalently) positive towards it, as otherwise you’d answer clearly in the negative. The option would, if implemented as on lichess, allow for one set of players to in all games of which they’re a part, disable undo requests. Saying “Why not?” to that, knowing full well this could have a passive impact on your own ability to request takebacks during certain games, I think is a positive stance. Otherwise, I’d expect a response along the lines of “No that’s a bad idea I want my ability to always ask for takebacks untouched”, which would be your prerogative.
I think there might be a language issue as for your second post. The word intolerant really is very harsh. Could your second paragraph, according to yourself, be rewritten as follows:
“You can choose to be against all undo requests at your will.”
And still be representative of your views on the matter? Making it a matter of tolerance/intolerance sets up a dichotomy in which one side is clearly imbued with positive characteristics, while the other side is imbued with negative ones.
I think my last post reveal well the dichotomy involved.
It’s not easy choice but to me I prefer handle situations like you describe and let the door open to accept technical undos.
I can fill a page discribing many cases on my games where this opportunity gave us the chance to continue enjoying the game but I won’t.
Maybe i’m too lucky with the opponents I had, and a bit sad that your experience differs from mine, I hope you get less that kind of undo requests in your game.
Note on linguistics: the negation of a negation is not an affirmation, language is not mathematics. But ok we discussed already far too much, it’s funny to go so far.
We have very different perspectives on the matter, and I get the distinct feeling you don’t quite see where I’m coming from with this. I can only refer to my second-to-last post.
As far as ‘linguistics’ is concerned, the phrase “Why not?” certainly isn’t the negation of a negation. We don’t have to draw logics into the discussion, saying “Why not?” is without the shadow of a doubt commonly understood as an affirmative, and I’ve stated specifically how this stance would relate to the topic under discussion in my last post, with the phrase carrying further positive, affirmative qualities due to the passive implications it would carry.
Why not is obvious - we’re wasting developers’ time and our time on solving a problem that doesn’t exist. This problem only appears if we overthink undos too much. Occam’s razor states that options should not be multiplied without necessity. So I’ll just go ahead and count why not crowd in against camp.
Just because you don’t see a problem, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The necessity part of your involving ‘Occam’s razor’ is down to simple, personal preference lacking arguments not resting on said personal preference. You go on right ahead and count whatever you want as whatever you feel like you want
(As far as I’m concerned discussions are not about winning or losing, neither do I find military lingo such as having a ‘cease-fire’ appropriate, as I don’t view exchanges of different opinions comparable to shots fired or bombs dropped. PS. This is technically not a discussion about linguistics any more. The bucket of wheat has reached the grocer’s, I repeat, the bucket of wheat has reached the grocer’s! End transmission.)
