Biggest change that I think would be beneficial in this: let mods change the results of games.
Someone changes the score at the last minute/got griefed and couldn’t get a mod in time/weird system bug? Mod assigns you your win, and you go on your merry way.
Nice idea, but everything on OGS is fairly immutable (can’t change results, delete comments, delete profiles) so it might require quite a big overhaul.
and anoek’s response in a different thread:
The problem with this status quo is that the stone removal phase times out, so you can’t be sure to get a moderator while disputing, and you can’t put it aside. Therefore you may sometimes ultimately forced to accept a result that can’t be reversed.
Best solution, I think, would be the ability to freeze the game. If the moderators had this, we could settle things without the time pressure of a game clock or a scoring clock. Figuring out who won can be difficult when both players are clicking away making the board look like a flashing neon sign. May also be a good idea for the game to freeze automatically when a player calls a mod. This could be abused, of course, but such abuse would be obvious and a habitual abuser could be banned.
Exactly my line of thinking.
And for the record, the current main problem that was tabled with that idea is how it would mess with live tournaments.
I’m not aware of any other issue raised last time that was proposed.
Well, OGS could add another role to the user-mod-admin pool - adjucator/referee (along with ‘Teacher’ please). Whenever a game is frozen due to a scoring dispute, the site notifies them similarly to how it would notify mods. If no adjucators answer the call, so to speak, it notifies mods. If no mods are available,…
Get more moderators?
That is not the main issue, I think. I often arrive instantly, even when there is no report, because I see the problem in the overview page. But it remains difficult to count the board quickly when the players are flipping things back and forth constantly.
In that case, your idea about either player being able to freeze the clock indefinitely is probably the best idea.
Though, you probably will need more mods to get through all the ~25k games frozen cause of seki 
There’s no pause option available to either the players or the moderator during the scoring phase.
Well, that is to say, you can click the button and the main timer shows as paused, but that doesn’t stop the scoring phase timer counting down. Maybe this is the minimal change we need to request to happen to ease up the pressure on these disputes!
Check this game as case in point.
From the chat;
[14:41]seequ_: You know, there should just be a “dispute” button that either player can hit, which’d freeze the game and give it to mods for checking at their leisure
This is probably the best solution.
No public accusations?
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that pausing a game for moderator intervention in the case of a dispute could be disruptive to live tournaments? Wouldn’t some find it more disruptive to have a game finalized incorrectly due to an unavoidable clock for scoring that could not be paused for resolving disputes?
In the tournament context, perhaps the tournament director should be granted some adjudication powers (like freezing/deciding games in cases of disputes), if there are not enough moderators to handle all of the cases.
That was exactly the point of contention, yep.
Note that live tournaments are … live. If you pause them, you hold up the next round, possibly inflicting the need for the participants to bail.
In an actual live tournament, if there’s a dispute couldn’t that also hold up the next round? They mitigate the hold up by having judges on hand to mediate. Don’t OGS live tournaments also have judges on hand to mediate? If not, maybe they should…
Are we going around in circles? One of the earlier points was that in general we can’t guarantee instant availability of a judge/moderator. Adding more moderators may alleviate that, but moderators are volunteers so achieving a “one is guaranteed to be looking at the report list right when you have a dispute” 24/7 would be unlikely.
(I have the impression that some live tournies start automatically on a schedule - is that right? In which case you can’t say “when you start a live tourney you have to stick around to moderate it”)
Personally, I think that having a scoring phase dispute pause the game until a moderator can get to it would still be an overall improvement, and if it becomes a nuisance for tournies a further solution would be found.
I don’t think we are going in circles. Here’s how I saw it:
In other words, mods are required to be around 24/7 in order to ensure that live tournaments have minimum pause times, so I don’t see how tournaments are a problem for pausing.
I agree with you that the pause game idea would be a good idea and let’s see if it causes a problem with tournaments. If it does, then a solution can be found for that.