A suggestion about scoring procedure. If one player rejects the automatic computer scoring, the computer scoring should stand unless the other player agrees. As it is, anyone can cheat on the scoring by making ridiculous adjustments until the other player finally accepts it out of exasperation. It really favours cheaters over honest players.
I find that the automatic scoring system is really good, so (at least) 99 times out of 100, if one player refuses to accept it and the other player disagrees, it’s the player refusing to accept the score that’s cheating. So why does the system favour that player by requiring both players to agree to end the game? It would make more sense to have the computer scoring stand, then the reporting mechanism is there for the once in a blue moon occasion when the computer scoring is wrong and one player won’t admit it.
In a case like that, the computer isn’t wrong (with the unfinished borders, you actually don’t own the territory yet). But a situation where a player notices they don’t yet control territory they thought they controlled, and restart the game to try to capture the territory, isn’t what I was thinking of. I was thinking of a situation where a player just in blatant bad faith adjusts the computer scoring tally to make themselves win, then when the other player rejects the amendment and restarts the game, they just pass. Rinse and repeat until the other player accepts the fake scoring out of exasperation. Right now OGS has no mechanism to prevent this.
I like this solution. There’s absolutely no good faith reason why a player would try to adjust the computer scoring multiple times (if it’s good faith, after the game restarts, they’ll actually play to try to demonstrate the advantage they’re claiming the computer is missing. I would support a rule that yhe game can only be restarted once, and after that the computer scoring stands the second time.