The Heartbroken Go Player

[qnpnpmqppnp]

As I see it, stalling occurs when the game is already lost and a player is purposefully wasting the other’s time.

Timesujis are just a way to gain time to think about a better move within a game that is still undecided.

[Gia]

@jlt

If people don’t like it, they can go to the

I don’t think that’s helpful.

I doubt people opposing the decision are hellbent on accusing the mod team for personal reasons. I think there is legitimate concern and it keeps coming back because it feels important to the community.

@jlt

people who refuse to count and play pointless moves at the last second of each byo-yomi period in a game they were losing by 80 points

I do that, and to be honest I don’t like being in the same category as sandbaggers.

[Vsotvep]

I’m not sure, I would personally not count timesuji as stalling, and judging whether something is a timesuji is pretty difficult to begin with. It really depends on the game, I suppose.

Stalling to me, is playing pointless moves, especially gote moves, after all territory has closed off. But, there’s cases where people start playing on the first line halfway through midgame, which is clearly also a form of stalling / trolling.

In this game, B10 / B9 is really a grey area, which is what makes this discussion difficult. I can see Kosh’s point in this, and I can see OP’s point in this as well.

[snakesss]

@Vsotvep

It’s essential for the coherence of our moderation team that we don’t go about calling out each other’s mistakes.

I agree. Moderators overwriting each other’s decisions without consulting with each other would be even more arbitrary and disappointing. That is not what I was talking about at all.

@slowcamp

It should not surprise you that I am not able to take much comfort from your assertions that moderators are not arbitrary, nor in the the assertion that the rules applying equally to everyone when in fact the rules here were modified after my interaction with @Kosh and retroactively cited against me

This is an example of what I was talking about. I don’t even need to diverge into a related topic or recent similar issue. This entails pretty much everything i listed there. Not enough care to know that that part of the ToS was added recently because of this exact user (please note the irony there!); giving that addendum as a justification for the decision in an effort to blindly cover for a teammate’s mistake instead of trying to come up with a way of not repeating this in the future.

If you’re not convinced there is stubbornness there, I could go on to give a very recent example where the same attitude is displayed by multiple members of the team but to the more extreme.

I deem this is a “tip of the iceberg” type situation.

[Vsotvep]

@snakesss

This is an example of what I was talking about. I don’t even need to diverge into a related topic or recent similar issue. This entails pretty much everything i listed there. Not enough care to know that that part of the ToS was added recently because of this exact user (please note the irony there!); giving that addendum as a justification for the decision in an effort to blindly cover for a teammate’s mistake instead of trying to come up with a way of not repeating this in the future.

As I said above somewhere already, this rule has not been added retroactively: it was already enforced way before and usually is explained through our Terms of Service (by stalling being a form of preventing an opponent from having another game, and thus preventing them of making use of our service).

The edit in the documentation is not a new rule added after the fact, it’s a clarification that was missing of a rule that has been in use since forever.

[snakesss]

Ok, then it is ironic that I wrote that without reading. My bad

[qnpnpmqppnp]

@snakesss

that part of the ToS was added recently because of this exact user (please note the irony there!);

I’m not sure that’s the case though. Kosh mentioned adding this as part of the discussion on time tactics in another thread: How wrong is it to win the game by time tactically? - #7 by Kosh

In any case, as explained by @Vsotvep, this rule already existed it was just less explicit.

[JoachimSjqvist]

Well yeah, you pointed out our differences pretty well.

To me, a win is a win and loss is a loss. No matter how much of an asshole I or my opponent is, or how much either of us stall. If the site I play on prioritizes anything above that, then yeah, it is enough for me to switch site. It really is that important to me.

I am not being a martyr, I just thought my 2 cents as a long time lurker and player would be worth something.

So no, I don’t think stalling should be punished because:

1. It is too vague and arbitrary.
2. Situations like this can arise, where a loss is suddenly not a loss anymore.

[jlt]

@Gia

@jlt

people who refuse to count and play pointless moves at the last second of each byo-yomi period in a game they were losing by 80 points

I do that, and to be honest I don’t like being in the same category as sandbaggers.

@Gia being “pointless” or not depends on your level. When I am behind, I also try moves that don’t really work, but I am not completely sure they don’t work, and I think that’s completely normal if the game doesn’t drag on for 50-100 moves like that.

On the other hand if a 5d played like me, it could be considered as rude behavior.

So to summarize:

• playing moves that have a small, but not ridiculously small, chance to work against an opponent of the same level as you is OK.
• playing 50 moves in a row that you know don’t work is rude behavior.

In one of my games on Tygem, my opponent played like 50 self-ataris, or filled his eyes, etc., each time at the last second of 30s byo-yomi periods. That was very annoying.

[qnpnpmqppnp]

In one of my games on Tygem, my opponent played like 50 self-ataris, or filled his eyes, etc., each time at the last second of 30s byo-yomi periods. That was very annoying.

Exactly the kind of childish stuff I would prefer to keep out of this site, even if the price to pay is a wrong call from a mod once in a blue moon.

[Gia]

I understand that. Even I have reported a couple of newbies for filling their own liberties (not to be punished or to affect the game result, but because I believe moderators explaining how and why this is not ok is more proper and they have a better way of doing than me as a random opponent getting into that discussion).

[Feijoa]

@fmansa

If the bar for annulling a game is 2 useless moves in 2

Especially “useless” moves leading to a win!

@Vsotvep

The level of the players is usually taken into account by moderators when making decisions.

I’m also 8k, and it’s very common for me to see one or two hopeless invasions at the end, even when my opponent is winning. I think it’s fun and important to practice defending against these and would never think of complaining about them. Just yesterday for example a 6k player tried one on me even though he was already winning!

[txwolf]

Fox has this draw request, drive me nuts.

My nephew was a top high school chess player in US. In a final tournament game, his opponent needed a draw, while he had to win. So his opponent offered the draw after only a few moves. It was obviously a mistake to accept, but he did. Never disclosed the true reason why. But he was a child. What could you do? His master was furious and chided him: if you ever do this again, I will not teach you. lol

[txwolf]

@qnpnpmqppnp

Timesujis are just a way to gain time to think about a better move within a game that is still undecided.

Correct. And using that, one often loses a ko threat

[stone.defender]

There is also alternative to time-suji:

If there is part of the board that eats your attention, it may be good idea to play here even if it is useless by Go sense. So you may start to think more clearly about more useful parts of the board.

[fmansa]

@JoachimSjqvist

So no, I don’t think stalling should be punished because:

1. It is too vague and arbitrary.
2. Situations like this can arise, where a loss is suddenly not a loss anymore.

Ohh no… it happened to me a couple of times, and believe it or not it is very boring, and that’s one of the reasons why moderation is necessary. It’s very hard to write a clear and concise rule for these cases.

The “only” problem with the present case is that asking for having a game annulled after you commit a mistake and lose is bad sportsmanship and shouldn’t be rewarded with a game annullation.

[mark5000]

This is putting words in my mouth. I never insisted on @Kosh’s decision or sought to cover for him at all. In all likelihood, we may reinstate the ranking points for this game. Based on what I know right now, I think we should. I only wanted to diffuse the temperature until I could hear from @Kosh. (It didn’t work.)

I realize that you and I have a mixed history, but I don’t really know why. You used to ask the best questions in my lecture series. If I recall correctly, the last time you got upset with me was for being too hesitant to interfere in suspected AI use. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, I guess. You can’t please everyone. Just know that we really do try.

[Gia]

Just in case it needs saying: @Kosh making a mistake (maybe) is OK, it happens.

We all chose the most difficult game (anyone mentions chess I’ll bite you) as a hobby on our own accord, expecting flawlessness would be funny, to say the least.

Let’s just discuss the opinions on the matter going forward.

[Gia]

P. S. Some people have a flair for the lively descriptions, it’s somewhat unkind to fault their case for that.

Personal style shouldn’t come under criticism as an argument.

Stones and poetry
Both a scholar’s
Art.

[Kosh]

@Vsotvep

I believe we have an unwritten rule not to overturn each other’s decisions without discussion. I don’t insist on the annulment being the correct action, but I do insist on having to wait for Kosh before I would take any action, out of respect for my fellow moderators not to undo their actions without discussion first.

I am quite content to be overruled by any of the more senior moderators (ie. all of them), though I appreciate the implied courtesy.

It is entirely possible that I made the wrong call here though not all the story has been told. Fortunately anoek has made it possible for us to un-annul games so @slowcamp consider your appeal successful.

The timing of the doco/wiki update was entirely coincidental and I didn’t even make the connection until reading this thread. As Vsotvep said, the rule has always been in place. I simply clarified in the wiki (which anyone could have done) when @Gia brought it to our attention that it is not clearly spelled out anywhere.