There had been 36 moves played. Opponent timed out. Then why did the game got annulled. Mostly I’ve seen this happen when players resigned in initial moves. I kindly request some clarity. Thank you for all the work.
Click on the question mark to read an explanation.
The server’s mass correspondence timeout protection system has annulled this game.
Q4. What is considered “mass”?
Because this user had timed out in 5 matches. Two of which were not annulled.
For example: On the same day this game of his also timed out https://online-go.com/game/80832296
Mass = 2 or more…
Games in which the player was in a losing position according to AI (I don’t remember the precise criteria) are not annulled.
You were leading by 9.8 points at move 36, that’s not much, that’s why the game was annulled. If you had a much clearer lead then the game would have been rated.
This subject has been debated for years in multiple threads, most recently here: Still puzzled by annulments?
Indeed!
Perhaps the ongoing nature of the debate suggests OGS hasn’t landed on a very satisfying protocol just yet? 
To rely on an AI-evaluated prediction of a game’s outcome during mid-game play presumes that the players will each play as well as a bot. But if this were ever true we’d have much larger concerns than timeouts to pursue - i.e., cheating.
In my short tenure as a Go player, I have repeatedly seen my games turn from compelling wins to miserable losses … and sometimes back again. I am not a bot, nor have I (unintentionally) played one.
When humans timeout in games that are reasonably well underway, they abandon a commitment made to another human. I believe, when timing out, they are forfeiting the game and therefore their opponent deserves a win.
When AI bots start timing out, that’s when we might ask them how it might have turned out.
[This concern about system-wide ranking continues to baffle me… In major sports, if a team doesn’t show up, they lose. No one worries about how this might affect pairings of future match-ups. That’s a silly concern.]
It’s not really analogous. In major sports, teams are generally not playing dozens or even hundreds of games simultaneously. If someone times out in just one game of Go then they lose, which is more comparable. It’s also far more reasonable to time out in a correspondence game of Go than to not show up to a live professional sporting match. As far as I know, and I’m not very into sports, rating is not used for match ups in most sports like they are on this site. In the AFL, for example, all teams play all other teams. Some sports may sort people into divisions and so forth based on skill, but there are only so many other possible opponents for them to play. In the online space there is a vast multitude of people with vastly different skills, so rating becomes a lot more important for finding good matches.
Would some mod please shut down this duplicate thread and cut-and-paste the posts into the current thread. This duplication is ridiculous.
With all due respect, I believe this is likely where our viewpoints part.
I can think of no circumstances under which it is “reasonable to timeout of a correspondence game.” None.
Perhaps a broad based internet blackout might excuse timing out in a live blitz game (like OGS experienced this morning). Otherwise, it’s no excuse. That’s why we warn live game players against timing out. It’s unacceptable on OGS.
I fear that annulling games in response to poor behavior encourages more poor behavior.
That’s not true, timing out is acceptable. Managing the clock is a part of the game. But there’s not a blanket acceptance of it, some people abuse it to frustrate their opponents.
I guess I must be confused… If we’re talking about live games, then no, it’s certainly not acceptable.
The OGS volunteer community moderators routinely dispense warnings for live game timeouts. And for repeat offenders, the consequences can be escalated further, which might include suspension of access.
I would not describe timing out as being acceptable. 
It certainly is acceptable. Timing out is not necessarily acceptable, but it’s also not necessarily unacceptable. You can even see in the guidelines that for blitz games specifically timeouts are, for the most part, not counted as an offence:
Losses by timeout are usually escaping, but never in Blitz games, which are expected to timeout often. On the other hand, 30 sec. is certainly enough time to resign, if the players are experienced and the position is simple. But where does one draw the line? Currently, this is a judgment call. The “Final action” line in the report shows the time between the last move and (1) the escape (before stone removal), or (2) the start of stone removal (if the escape occurred during stone removal).
In fact, if we are going by what counts as an offence on OGS, currently there is no such thing as an escape offence for correspondence games:
Escaping is allowed in correspondence games. These reports should be voted “No escaping evident.” (Note: this is under review - but it is the current ruling)
You might not like this, and there is much debate about it, but it’s clear that, currently, timing out is not automatically treated as an offence.
Timing out is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. CMs shouldn’t just blindly hand out warnings just because someone timed out. CMs should consider several factors. For example, if a position is complicated, such as a double ko, it’s understandable that someone might have needed more time to consider their next move.
Timing out is not another word for escaping. Some timeouts are escapes, but some are not.
We seem to have different interpretations of what the guidelines are aiming for.
A player has no more time to make a move than is left on the clock. Whether they would like more or not is irrelevant.
But I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on interpreting how the guidance ought to be applied. That’s okay by me. 
It’s important to recognise a nuance here.
Time management is important in live go.
So if you time out because you ran out of time to think then this is perfectly fine.
BUT
if you ran out of time because you realised your position was unwinnable, and you just left without any consideration for your opponent sitting there wondering and waiting: that is not acceptable.
The challenge is determining the difference between these things, and this is one reason why we have 3 votes on each case. We also have extensive guidelines, and ongoing debate, about the concensus in this area.
In contrast, in correspondence “management of time to think” is not really “part of the game”.
“Management of time to get to the board” is a life skill, bit not a go skill, for correspondence.
So I personally am in the camp of “there is no reason for timeout in correspondence, other than actual RL disaster”.
As soon as we can get “auto vacation” in place, I’m looking forward to disallowing timeout for correspondence completely.
I sense you’ve nailed the nature of the challenge as it currently exists.
No one could confidently assess what was actually going on in someone else’s head when they ran out of allotted time while playing Go. Suggesting otherwise invites the very debate the guidelines are intended to resolve.
Put differently, asking for three votes about something of which the voters are inescapably ignorant does not solve the problem. It amplifies it.
As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.
ADDENDUM: When rules are vague, confusion reigns.
I understand there is room to disagree both on what the guidelines should be, and also on how they apply to specific situations. But some of your interpretations are just not reasonable. How do you square this:
with this:
Losses by timeout are usually escaping, but never in Blitz games, which are expected to timeout often.
The guidelines explicitly state the timeouts are, for the most part, not escapes in blitz games. But to you an extreme case like an internet blackout only might be a reasonable excuse.
Edit: removed some text that might not have been a fair characterisation of what you said. I thought you might have been making a statement about the current rules, but now I think you were making the case for how they should be.
There is data that we have about what was going on in their heads.
For example the move timing.
If the move timing was 10s, 11s, 12s, timed out in 10s this speaks volumes of running out of time to think.
If the move timing was 10s, 11s, 12s, (large group killed in response), timed out in 3 minutes… rage quit, don’t you think?
Also, despite the truism of “the multiple of annectotes is not data” nonetheless crowd-sourced guesses can be shown to be an improvement on individual guesses, and at least help us ensure that decisions made lean in the direction of concensus of the community that the Community Moderators represent.
And … someone has to decide, right?
The alternative is to say “all timing-out is OK, suck it up if your opponent rage quits and makes yo wait, we are not going to try to limit that at all”.
Concensus at this stage is that this is not the way OGS users would like it to go.
@GreenAsJade @PRHG Being a relative newbie to OGS I lack deep history as to how the guidelines evolved. It’s clear that much thought (and negotiation?) were involved.
But to my fresh eyes, they appear to be constructed in a way that permits various interpretations of the same set of facts of any particular game that timed out. They seem to be quite accommodating of a wide range of viewpoints.
I am suggesting that the need for someone to decide gets at the heart of the matter. A more clearly delineated set of rules would obviate the need for someone (or multiple voters) to decide.
For a given category of game (e.g., live vs correspondence) timeouts should either be okay or they should not be okay.
(I use the word “should” advisably, appreciating that this is my view, not necessarily the current consensus.)
Crowd-sourced input certainly has its place. Again - with great respect for how awesome the OGS platform is - I remain convinced that crowd-sourcing opinions about what was going on in someone else’s mind when their clock ran out is a fraught endeavor. 
