A related discussion about how big can surround territory be before it is feasible for an invasion take hold:
In that thread, we even played some test games.
Relevant Sensei’s Library article: Biggest Corner at Sensei's Library
2 Likes
Good. The condescension and combative attitude is not appropriate for a moderator.
2 Likes
During his time as a moderator @Conrad_Melville made a MASSIVE contribution to this site. It’s inevitable that the 1% of subjective scenarios are what ends up being explored and/or criticised but the other 99% just gets quietly handled leaving OGS the better for it.
I have always felt grateful to have a place like OGS to play Go at. It was only once I had moderator access that I learned the largest part of that thanks should go to Conrad. It’s the people with passion and heart that are most motivated to act as moderators so it should not surprise anyone if these human beings sometimes express their feelings.
11 Likes
2 Likes
Don't mind me, I'm just a nerdy wall of text
If no one else does, I feel compelled to point out that these comments sound heavily reminiscent of the ones often used to defend characters such as bosses of toxic workplaces, violent police officers, domestic violence perpetrators, and even (I guess we’re invoking Godwin’s Law) fascist dictators. They can be and often are all described as “people with passion and heart” who are the “most motivated” to use their privileges and powers, and “they have done a lot of good, not just the bad stuff!”
Of course what happened here is not even in the ballpark, in fact I think everyone involved kept a somewhat acceptable civil behaviour, especially compared to the Internet average, and hopefully should be able to just call it a day and move on.
But still, to me these arguments sound as disingenuous, rhetorically fallacious and empty in this situation as much as in those more serious ones. And in the same way they’re equally tricky to deconstruct and expose as the empty rhetoric that I believe they really are under the surface. [see note]
To avoid writing a freaking philosophical treatise, I’ll just say that:
-
Implicitly describing what happened here as a “person with passion and heart […] expressing their feelings” feels a bit disingenuous and dismissive.
-
Passion and heart, if misguided, are much worse than no motivation at all. I’d say more than anything a moderator needs judgement, empathy, and (suprise surprise) moderation, and I don’t see those qualities in the behaviour exhibited here.
-
Compounding with that, IMHO it doesn’t matter how much good someone has done, it doesn’t give them a free pass for anything, and since being a moderator is a privilege and a responsibility, I still subjectively agree with the assessment that they’re not fit to be one, even if this sentiment is based on only seeing 1% of their behaviour. And I don’t see this as an attack on their person, just a cold, perhaps unempathetic assessment.
-
Finally, I actually need to call into question the rhetorical bomb of this “MASSIVE contribution” that you dropped without elaboration. Judging from your wording, for all I know you’re just looking at statistics showing Conrad_Melville banning more users than any other moderator. If that’s all it is, and unless there’s been a process to double-check that those interventions were warranted, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything, for the exact reasons that were being discussed in this very topic. If you give a badge to a hammer-swinging madman and record their murders as enforcements of justice, they will look like a diligent and zealous officer of the law on paper. Of course, I could be wrong, but I still need to question it.
[note:] by the way, I’m not insinuating that you intentionally made manipulative and disingenuous arguments; when it comes to rhetorical fallacies, especially appeals to emotion, the person making them is often the first one to believe the arguments to be valid. I’m attacking the arguments, not you.
After all this, I feel the need to reiterate that I don’t believe Conrad_Melville committed any “evil deeds” here or anything. But I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric many times in the past, and every time I hear it, it sounds more empty and annoying.
I’m not sure what I’m looking for with this reply. I felt the need to voice these concerns, but I’m worried about it potentially causing a fuss. I’m kinda hoping nobody replies to me.
Edit: In light of the next replies, I’d like to add that I now appreciate Kosh’s comment more as an attempt to de-escalate and to promote empathy. The arguments touched are still tricky and nuanced, so I don’t necessarily regret posting this reply.
4 Likes
As a (former) moderator, let me preface this with stating that I frequently found myself in a similar position as ArsenLapin in the discussion above, in an escalating argument about moderation with Conrad Melville. These discussion were generally exhausting and more or less the polar opposite of enjoyable, so much so that I deliberately did not respond to this topic to avoid finding myself in one more of such confrontations.
But despite this, I wish to confirm what @Kosh stated, that without a doubt Conrad Melville made a MASSIVE contribution to this site. He was without a doubt one of the most active moderators, he was great at keeping the most nasty trolls away from the site, often discovering them before they could do serious damage (and I mean seriously serious damage), he did great detective work tracking historical accounts of such trolls, he kept a close watch on active games and caught many actual cheaters (e.g. people who would persistently mark the entire board in their colour) that would’ve otherwise gone unreported for many more games, and even after retiring as a moderator, he kept reporting many such cases. I do not remember any abuse of moderator powers or unjustly banning any accounts, and he was always reasonable in reverting any mistakes when they would occur (which was not significantly more often than with any of the other moderators).
I may be the moderator with the least reason to praise Conrad Melville, but he was unequivocally a fair and diligent moderator. I can see where you are coming from with your suspicion, but at least in this case, please believe me that your suspicion is unjustified.
14 Likes
I’m glad, at least my worst suspicions were unfounded. In fact, that clears the air about a few of the things I said, and gives me something to think about. Thank you.
2 Likes
As a former moderator (of pre-nova OGS), I think it reasonable that even when still a moderator but when not operating with your moderator hat on you can behave with lower standards then when fulfilling your moderator duties (though if on your account badged as a mod not much, I was disappointed with crodgers arguing and swearing on his mod account); and once you’ve hung up your mod boots your standards can slip still further. But one of those traits that makes a good mod is a desire to de-escalate rather than escalate conflict, even if it means you don’t get the last word. Many of my disagreements with moderators have been about how their actions escalated conflict (e.g. publicly chiding people for minor infringements usually causes more arguments than a laissez-faire do nothing or private word). I do speak my mind more freely now than were I still a moderator.
3 Likes
I agree that users should not be publicly accused, but I also think that minor infringements should be stopped and that if there is a need for discussion it should be done. Intentional stalling (and other things) is not ok even if the user that stalled say that it is ok.
A laissez-faire do-nothing just to avoid conflict seems wrong to me, it is not that those who complain best can do more things that are not allowed. There are rules and we moderators have to make sure they are respected.
1 Like
Thank you, Vsotvep.
3 Likes
At this point I think we have veered way off topic from the original question.
Let’s please leave it at that - hopefully all parties got their say. If not, please start a properly named new thread.
To reiterate for newer players - you have nothing to worry about, we do not ban new players for common and understandable beginner things. We were all there, and we all had to learn to even recognize an atari at first 
And even if there was some potential problem, we would always contact you first to clear up any misunderstandings. You do not have to be scared to play things out.
@scaro974 Sorry about the digression, we do tend to over-analize a bit sometimes
Please let us know if you have more questions, we’ll try to stay more on topic.
7 Likes
Back on topic, it’s easier to invade when there are weaknesses, so it’s often better to invade before the borders are completely closed. On the other hand, closing territories may reduce liberties and expose cutting points, making it easier to destroy your opponent’s territory.
5 Likes
In this position as white, I thought it was good to pass, because the borders are almost closed and I have more territory than black. There are only two cutting points in F4 and E7 on my side that I judged safe because I can make atari and then a ladder if black plays here. The only think I have to care about is to prevent my oponent from making two eyes in my territory if he invades it. The AI says I’m winning in this position, but after my “move” (pass) it says I’m losing. Can someone explain me this situation ?
2 Likes
it says you are winning because it expects from you additional move to protect your territory, but you passed instead and that’s your error. Your territory is so big that even if there were no weaknesses there is maybe enough space to create alive group inside.
4 Likes
There is no ladder for E7 cut, watch out for liberties.
1 Like
You cannot really ladder B as it would put your own stones into atari.
If B cuts you can only run the stones out, but that starts creating trouble elsewhere.
I don’t think it is particualrly usefull to try and show all the variations, they are rather complex even for a skilled player, but the bottom line is, that white is not safe. Even if B does not cut directly he can threaten the cuts and as W will need to spend time defending, B gets some free moves to try and live. We can create a review if you are curious about some particular situations.
It’s semantics, but just to be thorough with the explanation… The AI does not say that YOU are winning. The AI says that IT could win from that position, it cannot predict human errors. It is very easy to go from winning to losing with a single move for us humans.
13 Likes
Thank you for enlightening me, now I understand why I shouldn’t pass in this position.
3 Likes
The agreement that you don’t have to play inside comes from players of some same level who understand enough the rules, the tactics like life and death and a bit more…
You don’t need that to play and discover the game, you can play inside if you want to.
If you have difficulty to agree or understand the japanese rules which are very commonly used, especially for losing points or not, system of prisoners we put back inside etc… you can play with the chinese rules in mind as an alternative.
The result of the game is like the same with both set of rules anyway but as a beginner you will not worry anymore if you lose points by playing somewhere where someone stronger will tell you not to play.
Basically the victory is decided by who occupy the most the board, altogether (boundaries and empty space inside.) Prisoners have no importance at all.
3 Likes