Neither, I was an active member and admin of OGS back in the late 2000s when the unranking of consecutive timeout rule was introduced in an attempt to address the problem of people leaving the site for a while messing up the ratings. I read this thread but did not comment on that underlying aspect due to requests from the current moderators to keep that topic out of this thread, though it does seem rather restrictive as only by understanding the problem that rule is trying to solve and the pros and cons of it (is the cure worse than the disease? Has the relative abundance of innocent serial timeouts Vs purposeful abuse for rank manipulation changed? Does OGS now have greater moderator manpower such that a manual intervention in serial timeout cases is preferable to an automated system?) that an adjustment to use an AI arbiter can be well evaluated.
As @flovo correctly points out, adding such an asymmetrical rule will lead to deflation of the rank of the serial timeouter, which is exactly the problem the current rule is intended to avoid. So if you want to not annul the serial timeouts but still avoid the mass perturbation to the ranking system you need to award both wins and losses, which will be evenly distributed on average (in the case of innocent timeouts rather than intentional rank manipulation).
I know, I can even provide the historical context; if memory serves it was luke, a 5d who timed out to 3k which precipitated this rule.
On principle I don’t like using an AI arbiter, definitely not as simple as winrate. MAYBE some of the more refined ideas of using point margin and if the same player has been leading practically all game could be made to work, but it still feels too interventionist and likely to cause as many problems as it solves. I don’t like the asymmetric only lose rule as it defeats the purpose of the rule to avoid rank deflation. And I don’t like awarding wins as it creates perverse incentive to timeout to force a win on your opponent if you are leading enough.
This situation feels rather like there is a rule that you need to punch yourself in the face, and now we are debating about how to put on some gloves so it doesn’t hurt so much, rather than asking why we have to punch ourselves in the face and could we stop doing that.
It’s also a large development effort and I’d rather that precious resource be directed at long standing deficiencies in core functionality such as the inability to request an undo on your move Allow undo request on your move or the poor placement of the submit move and pass buttons.