Proposition: Allow mods to change a game result


#1

One of the best ways for the devs to reduce cheating and improve the OGS experience would be to fix this. It would make cheating even more pointless than it already is.

Allow mods to change a game result.


#2

This could potentially be way more complicated with glicko than it would have been with our old system. Especially if the game in question is the last of a batch.


#3

I don’t see how that can be true because annulling would cause similar complications and yet the mods can already annul games after a game has been scored.


#4

Yeah… I don’t claim to be an expert on the system haha but in my head there warning bells go off that essentially deleting a game may be a lot easier than trying to edit the record. shrug happy to be proven wrong but it’s never been an ability the mods have had and I suspect they have a good reason for that.


#5

I suspect the same but the issue has become the elephant in the room on a couple of threads.
elephant
I was wondering if the concern was that it would generate too much work for mods but it could be restricted to those games where a mod has been called before the end. No returns for ‘change of mind’. :money_mouth_face: So people would still have to use due diligence in the scoring phase.


#6

I’m not sure whether reports take a snap shot of the game state at the time of lodging or not… But I imagine it would be simple enough to code up if they don’t


#7

Just like the game of Go, there’s always an added wrinkle. It shouldn’t surprise me that elephants have wrinkles! Maybe that’s why they don’t get talked about in rooms.


#8

It’s just the way OGS works at a deep level, I think. At the end of the game, I would assume that the server closes contact with the SGF file (or opens it, copies the info over, then closes it depending on how things operate) and that that SGF is then stored on a read-only basis. Then when the game is viewed later, the server probably generates the page dynamically from that SGF in the database. So mods would require privileges to change read-only data and to access the database remotely, and they’d need an interface over which to do it unless they’re going to manually edit the SGFs in Notepad etc.etc. etc. My speculation (and it’s only speculation) is that there are issues like this.


#9

Emulate the court system. Have an appeal mechanism in place whereby the losing party can appeal a decision to a supermoderator or board of appeals. Ultimately going all the way up to the site devs/owners (supreme court) to decide, but can be veto’d by popular opinion (if enough casual OGS members vote to override etc, aka a checks and balances of power) and ultimately all of that cross referenced and checked by a AI NN trained to count and also to detect cheating etc.

Then implement a “three strikes and you are out” rule whereby anyone who lost three appeals in a row will forfeit the right to invoking further appeals etc. But make an exception clause for that on a case by case basis that is of a discretionary review nature etc. Moderator decisions can be made entirely public and perhaps moderators who have power to judge/overturn the decision on games can even be voted into power by the community itself as a form of government of the people and by the people and for the people. I can think maybe the ability of have appeals decided by a “jury” panel, random members of OGS whom are randomly selected in good standing that can serve to decide the facts of the outcome of a decision when both sides/players having presented their evidence and etc.

If no objections are timely raised before the end of the game then both parties forfeit the right to review and the final score stands, this can easy the burden of having clogging up the system etc.


#10

No.


#11

I can only assume that TheBeginer was being facetious. His proposal sounds like bringing in truck loads of food for the elephant, and growth hormones. Whereas smurph has graced us with an excellent example of efficient play. Two stones, ‘N’ and ‘o’ placed in perfect position with respect to each other.


#12

IIRC, an admin on KGS said the admins did not want that ability. This admin had concerns that admins could be accused of abusing the ability, even when they didn’t.


#13

The admins can already be accused of abusing the ability to annul games, or banning people unreasonably, etc. but that’s part of the whole “job” of being an admin; to be an arbiter and show responsibility. If an admin truly behaves unfairly, there are still other admins a player could turn to, who could give their opinion.

And for the few misanthropic trolls that cannot respect a decision made by several admins, I believe there is no hope anyway.