# tilde thing on KGS

11 views

### Dan Stromberg

Mar 5, 2003, 1:20:55 PM3/5/03
to
Will someone please tell me how the new ~ thing on KGS works?

I understand it indicates a player who only plays stronger players, but how is
it calculated? Is it weighted at all by the difference in ratings of games?
Does it include board sizes other than 19x19?

### Patrick Bridges

Mar 5, 2003, 3:38:39 PM3/5/03
to
Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> writes:

Here's what I know from an old email wms sent. though this may not be
up-to-date:

unfriendly (get the ~) if
(num games vs. weaker or unrated) * 3 + 5 < (total finished games)

The "+5" is so newcomers won't be called unfriendly right away. You
have to play a bunch of games, against almost all stronger players, to
become "unfriendly".

So,

Games Played | Games against weaker/unrated players
| needed to avoid the '~'
----------------|----------------------
5 | 0
10 | 2
20 | 4
50 | 15
100 | 32

So, in the limit, as it currently stands you have to play about 1/3rd
of your games against unrated players to avoid getting a '~'

--
Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.unm.edu GPG ID = CB074C71
GPG fingerprint = FEEA ECFF 1E23 148C 2804 FDD9 DB63 6993 CB07 4C71

"Anyone that can't make money on Sports Night should get out of the
money-making business" - Calvin, on the last episode of Sports Night

### -

Mar 5, 2003, 4:26:40 PM3/5/03
to

Very interesting. Is this -why- KGS is a "friendly place" to play?
What are the effects on ratings systems as the result of:

(a) number/frequency of games played
(b) same opponent versus different opponent played

What are the -consequences- of being stigmatized by a tilde ?
Does KGS also have pink swastikas and yellow triangles?
Are there any "easy hate ovens" for ages nine and up?

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> writes:
>> Will someone please tell me how the new ~ thing on KGS works?
>>
>> I understand it indicates a player who only plays stronger players,
>> but how is it calculated? Is it weighted at all by the difference
>> in ratings of games? Does it include board sizes other than 19x19?

### Dan Stromberg

Mar 5, 2003, 5:52:56 PM3/5/03
to
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:26:40 -0800, - wrote:

> Very interesting. Is this -why- KGS is a "friendly place" to
play?

KGS is probably friendly as a consequence of its size. The player
pictures probably don't hurt either.

The feature we're discussing is new.

> What are the -consequences- of being stigmatized by a tilde ? Does

Some people will probably decline to play you if you have a ~ until you
play enough weaker players to get rid of it. "Why help someone learn if
they aren't willing to spread around their knowledge?" Others won't care.

On the one hand, it's more altruistic to play anyone, selfish or not.

On the other hand, it's more altruistic to teach people who don't mind
teaching others, to spread the knowledge around maximally.

> KGS also have pink swastikas and yellow triangles? Are there any
> "easy hate ovens" for ages nine and up?

What's it to you? Are you one of those people who only plays stronger
players? Do you honestly think subtly discouraging selfishness compares
to the holocaust?

Personally, I like the feature. I think it's overdue. You've long had
the ability to check someone's games out to see if they're not giving back
on KGS - the ~ is just a convenient shorthand.

### -

Mar 5, 2003, 6:15:33 PM3/5/03
to

> - wrote:
>> Very interesting. Is this -why- KGS is a "friendly place" to play?

Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> wrote:
> KGS is probably friendly as a consequence of its size.
> The player pictures probably don't hurt either.
>
> The feature we're discussing is new.

So does "more size" = "friendly", or "less size" = "friendly" ?

>> What are the -consequences- of being stigmatized by a tilde ? Does

> Some people will probably decline to play you if you have a ~ until you
> play enough weaker players to get rid of it. "Why help someone learn if
> they aren't willing to spread around their knowledge?" Others won't care.

Your conclusion is that the tilde stigma identifies those whom
some people will probably decline to play? You term -that- friendly?
You characterize skill at Go, as "knowledge" ? You would want to
compel players to "spread it around" ? How does this improve Go?

> On the one hand, it's more altruistic to play anyone, selfish or not.

Or it could be selfish to play anyone, such as slaughtering beginners.

> On the other hand, it's more altruistic to teach people who don't mind
> teaching others, to spread the knowledge around maximally.

You omitted a key intermediary step, called "critical thinking."
What happened to individuals with independent minds and hearts?

>> KGS also have pink swastikas and yellow triangles? Are there any
>> "easy hate ovens" for ages nine and up?

> What's it to you? Are you one of those people who only plays stronger
> players? Do you honestly think subtly discouraging selfishness compares
> to the holocaust?

If I only play stronger players then I would lose all the time.
One of the components to cult Nazism was "discouragement of
selfishness." The Nazis were known as "national socialists", btw.
Each form of totalitarianism, whether Nazi or communist, denies to
individuals their freedom & liberty by use of stigmatization tactics.
I suggest that you review the writings of Ayn Rand, one more time.
Though she had never embraced God to the satisfaction of Whittaker
Chambers, she did make a break from "forced altruist" totalitarianism.

> Personally, I like the feature. I think it's overdue. You've long had
> the ability to check someone's games out to see if they're not giving back
> on KGS - the ~ is just a convenient shorthand.

Which speaks toward the issue of whether KGS tolerates freedom
and liberty, and whether such ideals are being promoted for society.

- regards
- jb

### Patrick Bridges

Mar 5, 2003, 6:46:11 PM3/5/03
to
jazze...@coolmail.com (-) writes:

> Which speaks toward the issue of whether KGS tolerates freedom
> and liberty, and whether such ideals are being promoted for society.

We'll, you're free to get on KGS and talk to anyone you want and
decide for yourself, JB.

### -

Mar 5, 2003, 7:15:19 PM3/5/03
to

> jazze...@coolmail.com (-) writes:
>> Which speaks toward the issue of whether KGS tolerates freedom
>> and liberty, and whether such ideals are being promoted for society.

Patrick Bridges <bri...@cs.unm.edu> wrote:
> We'll, you're free to get on KGS and talk to anyone you want and
> decide for yourself, JB.

Why do I need to talk to others on KGS? I connect with Go Servers to
play Go. If there's any talking necessary it can happen right here.

- regards
- jb

+-( background materials )-+
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislating Tyranny
http://www.dojgov.net/Legislate_tyranny.htm

prisoners religious affiliations
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/crimechart.html

milestones along the road to Iraqattaq
http://www.contextbooks.com/waroniraq/

Cheney's company was on Corporate Welfare
http://www.public-i.org/story_01_080200.htm

Adolf Hitler ~ everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask
[in alphabetical order]

[in alphabetical order]

Fw: Re: Articles of Impeachment for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft
http://AmericanDefenseLeague.com -- American Defense League
http://CompuSerb.com -- Compu Serb
http://GermanDefenseLeague.com -- German Defense League
http://JewishConspiracies.com -- Jewish Conspiracies
http://JewsForUSA.com -- Jews For USA
http://KosherTax.com -- Kosher Tax
http://KillerJews.com -- Killer Jews
http://MediaLies.com -- Media Lies
http://SDLUSA.com -- SDL USA
http://SerbianDefenseLeague.com -- Serbian Defense League
http://SuckerUSA.com -- Sucker USA
http://VoteForUSA.com -- Vote For USA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

### William Shubert

Mar 5, 2003, 11:02:11 PM3/5/03
to
Usually I try to stay out of flame wars, but this one was just too
funny. There's an old usenet saying, that all arguments end with
somebody comparing their opponents to Nazi Germany; at this time, the
of reasonable points to make so they have no choice but to fall back
on the "You're just like the Nazis" comment.

This is the first time that I have seen a single post so short that
starts a fight, ends the fight, *and* concedes defeat! Wow!

PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
now to see how things go.

jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote in message news:<3e666a73...@news.cis.dfn.de>...

### Pieter Mioch

Mar 5, 2003, 11:57:40 PM3/5/03
to

"Patrick Bridges" <bri...@cs.unm.edu> wrote

> Here's what I know from an old email wms sent. though this may not be
> up-to-date:
> unfriendly (get the ~) if
> (num games vs. weaker or unrated) * 3 + 5 < (total finished games)

Nothwithstanding the pleasent playing atmosphere on kgs the "unfriendly mark
reward" feels wrong, i dont like it.
The point is that to interpretate somebodies playing habits along these
straight ruler lines you will probably be wrong about the "friendly/ not
friendly" some of the time. A strong argument could be made as to -never-
allow any kind of negative rewards if there is even 0.01% chance you might
be wrong.

Pieter (wave on KGS)

### -

Mar 6, 2003, 1:14:10 AM3/6/03
to

w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote:
> Usually I try to stay out of flame wars, but this one was just too
> funny. There's an old usenet saying, that all arguments end with
> somebody comparing their opponents to Nazi Germany; at this time,
> run out of reasonable points to make so they have no choice but to
> fall back on the "You're just like the Nazis" comment.

That's Godwin's Law, btw. In this case the argument does not
"end" there, but starts off with it on the very first commentary. You
commit the analogical fallacy when referencing other usenet threads,
which looks suspiciously like "wishful thinking," a rather weak ploy.
One of the "Inductive Fallacies", according to: ( presented again )

[ ... ]

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support
an inductive generalization about a population

Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative
of the sample as a whole

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared
are relevantly dissimilar

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument
is denied despite the evidence to the contrary

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome
of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

[ ... ]

===========

Nobody is calling anybody a Nazi. A query asks whether stigmatization
accomplishes aims of segregation, not dissimilar to the use of pink
swastikas and/or yellow triangles. Of course Nazis may have done
something the same or similar, but to conclude that anybody is a
Nazi by deployment of the same or similar tactics, would also commit
the "analogical fallacy." We are not here to be discussing the other
usenet threads generally, but confine remarks to THIS specific topic.

> This is the first time that I have seen a single post so short that
> starts a fight, ends the fight, *and* concedes defeat! Wow!

> PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
> mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
> how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
> than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
> may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
> now to see how things go.

The Nazis also conducted (medical) "experiments." Of course I am
not suggesting that you are a Nazi merely because they can detect the
same or similar tactics in operation. George W. Bush "does not rely
on polling data" because he doesn't need to know "how to get at you."
Enforced "friendliness" ? Hmmm, wonder what else the world comes to.

- regards
- jb

-------------------------------------------------------------------

### gowan

Mar 6, 2003, 12:28:20 PM3/6/03
to
w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote in message news:<670194dc.03030...@posting.google.com>..

> PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
> mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
> how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
> than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
> may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
> now to see how things go.
>

I also vote against this feature and, in fact, if it stays, would have
to award KGS a "~" I think any system that "forces" people to play
others to avoid receiving a value-laden stigma is inherently
unfriendly. I don't like having to keep track of whether I'm playing
weaker or stronger players.

While you're at it, though, why not punish people who refuse to play
unrated games? Isn't that "unfriendly" behavior? Next I suppose
you'll be trying to force people to be happy.

But seriously, I don't see the need for the ~ system. If, indeed, too
many people are refusing to play weaker players won't this be a
self-correcting situation? After all, if someone wants to play black
all the time there must be people willing to play him/her, a weaker
player.

### Patrick Bridges

Mar 6, 2003, 12:19:07 PM3/6/03
to
"Pieter Mioch" <pmioch@-removeme-ma.ccnw.ne.jp> writes:

> Nothwithstanding the pleasent playing atmosphere on kgs the "unfriendly mark
> reward" feels wrong, i dont like it.
> The point is that to interpretate somebodies playing habits along these
> straight ruler lines you will probably be wrong about the "friendly/ not
> friendly" some of the time. A strong argument could be made as to -never-
> allow any kind of negative rewards if there is even 0.01% chance you might
> be wrong.

I'm of two minds about the feature. I really don't like to play people
who don't play weaker players; Much of my help in getting stronger
(though I'm still just a weak 3k) was based on the generosity of other
stronger players helping me out. People who want my help in getting
stronger but aren't willing to return the favor annoy me. I can see
your point, though, that there's a chance we might unfairly stigmatize
people. What if you're a 30k and the only people *to* play are
stronger players?

### Dan Stromberg

Mar 6, 2003, 1:22:17 PM3/6/03
to
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:19:07 -0800, Patrick Bridges wrote:

> "Pieter Mioch" <pmioch@-removeme-ma.ccnw.ne.jp> writes:
>
>> Nothwithstanding the pleasent playing atmosphere on kgs the "unfriendly
>> mark reward" feels wrong, i dont like it. The point is that to
>> interpretate somebodies playing habits along these straight ruler lines
>> you will probably be wrong about the "friendly/ not friendly" some of
>> the time. A strong argument could be made as to -never- allow any kind
>> of negative rewards if there is even 0.01% chance you might be wrong.
>
> I'm of two minds about the feature. I really don't like to play people
> who don't play weaker players; Much of my help in getting stronger
> (though I'm still just a weak 3k) was based on the generosity of other
> stronger players helping me out. People who want my help in getting
> stronger but aren't willing to return the favor annoy me. I can see your
> point, though, that there's a chance we might unfairly stigmatize
> people. What if you're a 30k and the only people *to* play are stronger
> players?

Maybe 25k - 30k shouldn't be subject to the ~ rule?

### dave

Mar 6, 2003, 1:49:10 PM3/6/03
to
not so free any more. There is a new policy introduced last week which limits what you can chat about, and how long you can chat. The chat window in the english room, informally at present, is being reserved for newbie help and limited conversations about go. Although what is acceptable and non acceptable go talk has not been defined. Anything else and you will be asked to move to another room either in private by an admin or by the use of a BOLD face message which is posted to the room.

### -

Mar 6, 2003, 1:48:19 PM3/6/03
to

>> "Pieter Mioch" <pmioch@-removeme-ma.ccnw.ne.jp> writes:
>>> Nothwithstanding the pleasent playing atmosphere on kgs the
>>> "unfriendly mark reward" feels wrong, i dont like it. The point is that to
>>> interpretate somebodies playing habits along these straight ruler lines
>>> you will probably be wrong about the "friendly/ not friendly" some of
>>> the time. A strong argument could be made as to -never- allow any kind
>>> of negative rewards if there is even 0.01% chance you might be wrong.

> Patrick Bridges wrote:
>> I'm of two minds about the feature. I really don't like to play people
>> who don't play weaker players; Much of my help in getting stronger
>> (though I'm still just a weak 3k) was based on the generosity of other
>> stronger players helping me out. People who want my help in getting
>> stronger but aren't willing to return the favor annoy me. I can see your
>> point, though, that there's a chance we might unfairly stigmatize
>> people. What if you're a 30k and the only people *to* play are stronger
>> players?

Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> wrote:
> Maybe 25k - 30k shouldn't be subject to the ~ rule?

I see ... now it has become a "rule" ? Fascism breeds a peculiar
form of disrespect, and it can even stimulate "intifada terrorism."
The "mark of the beast" occurs in the endtimes. The onus of learning
Go is -not- the teacher's responsibility: it is that of the learner.

Your tilde might apply to some weaker players, generally, but weaker
players should not be forced into "teaching" other weaker players.

As long as KGS retains its tilde convention, there will never be
any means of claiming that KGS is a "friendly" place to play. People
resent such forms of labelling. Such rules serve chiefly to attract
resentful people. In the meantime, non-resentful people find other
means for expressing their Go Ambitions, perhaps the other Servers.

In all of this, KGS Admins also neglect to mention observations
of games, and that learners benefit even by stronger players who
do not play weaker players. Yet the tilde convention is not crediting
exhibitions of games that were observed by many weaker players.

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Whacked Out Raelian Leftists to go naked in DC & LA

On the next International Day for Women, March 8th, the Raelian Women
will join the march for Peace in Washington DC and in Los Angeles,
made up of a human rainbow of races, nationalities, spiritual
preferences, embracing all differences to give Peace a chance.

At the end of the march (see locations below) the Raelian women and men
will disrobe, down to the bare extent of the law, with great religiosity,
to the intermittent sound of a Tibetan bell. The words of a universal
prayer will then be read and all will stand in a warm circle of Love and
Hope with only their Bare Femininity (found in both men and women) to
transform war instincts into peaceful, happy, life bearing thoughts to
ensure our planet's future. Come and join this Circle of Love!

http://www.rael.org/raelianwomen/invitation.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------

### -

Mar 6, 2003, 2:18:11 PM3/6/03
to

>> jazze...@coolmail.com (-) writes:
>>> Which speaks toward the issue of whether KGS tolerates freedom
>>> and liberty, and whether such ideals are being promoted for society.

> Patrick Bridges wrote:
>> We'll, you're free to get on KGS and talk to anyone you want and
>> decide for yourself, JB.

dave <d...@d.com> wrote:
> not so free any more. There is a new policy introduced last week which
> limits what you can chat about, and how long you can chat. The chat
> window in the english room, informally at present, is being reserved for
> newbie help and limited conversations about go. Although what is
> acceptable and non acceptable go talk has not been defined. Anything
> else and you will be asked to move to another room either in private by an
> admin or by the use of a BOLD face message which is posted to the room.

I would favor allowing admins to act in the capacity of admins.
That's why admins exist. I support an institution of multiple Go
Servers, and I want to see all of the legitimate Go Servers prosper.
These issues, concerning the yakkers on Go Servers, have already
been discussed at length many years ago on the r.g.g. newsgroup.
Those who want to be yakkers on "inappropriate topics" need to find
a chatroom elsewhere, maybe an "adult" chatroom if that's their cup
of tea. Staff people at a Go Club would first gently, and then more
forcefully, usher disrupters out the door, as with most any facility
where people congregate for purposes of socialization. The right
of association also implies a right not to be associated with others
who do not share in the same or similar goals for that association.

The Game of Go also has "prisoners" when stones are captured,
who by definition are put "out of play" and may not be seen or heard
from, except as accounting tokens when scoring the end of the game.
There are some misconceptions concerning freedom and liberty, but
your visit to a local law library, or the university political science
library, may dispel many of those misconceptions. You will not find
liberty in conditions of anarchy, but you will find primarily the "law
of the jungle" which does not treat unfortunates very well at all and
thereby does not satisfy Dostoevsky's definition for civilization.
Conditions of anarchy have been romanticized, and yet many of those
in the Islamic countries may be said to prefer 100 years of tyranny
over one day of anarchy. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,"
but this is "eternal vigilance" for what? Against what? By whom?
People do not enjoy liberty when they have no rights of the person,
and the array of rights are inherenly selective for certain lifestyle
environments heavily dependent upon traditional culture norms.
Discussion of culture norms and _mores_ is entirely apropos, and
can occur here if necessary, but it has already transpired for the
most part, and the same or similar conclusions would very likely
be reached. Much discussion, for example, over improving the
Constitution, or passing this or that statute law, is redundant. I
have asked those who want a Constitutional Convention what
they would change, with the proviso that what they offer would
need to be sufficiently acceptable to meet not only a strict majority
but also a -supermajority- of 2/3rds in both houses of Congress,
and also a 3/4ths -supermajority- of State Legislatures. Rather
frequently, they cannot in good conscience propose any changes.
Rather frequently, the "improvements" billed are instead reversions
to prior conditions less attractive. Remember that "evolution" is a
blind watchmaker (Dawkins) and that "evolution" = "de-evolution"
in the sense that changes could just as well be detrimental. Indeed,
for the organisms "already highly evolved" the likelihood of a random
change being detrimental exceeds the likelihood of an improvement.

The notion that admins would never need to "ban" some wayward
individuals is itself faulty. No civil society has ever existed
without some form of "ordered liberty" by means of a police force, and
facilities for incarceration. Again, the Game of Go has prisoners,
but what did you suppose those "prisoners" were representing?

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lemma 3.3 Algorithm prime(n) can be implemented such that its running
time is O(log^19(n)).

Proof. Consider one iteration of the while-loop.
By Lemma 4.14, the GCD-computation takes O(log^3(n)) time.
By Lemma 4.18, we can decide in O(sqrt(r)*log^2(r)) whether r is a
prime number.
By Lemma 4.19, the largest prime factor q of r-1 can be computed in
O(sqrt(r)*log^2(r)) time.
By Lemma 4.16, we can compute N((r-1)/q) mod r in
O(log^2(n) + log^3(r)) time.
It follows that one iteration of the while-loop takes
O(log^3(n) + sqrt(r)*log^2(r)) time. Since there are O(log^6(n))
iterations (see Lemma 3.1), the entire while-loop takes O(log^9(n) +
sqrt(r)*log^2(r)*log^6(n)) time. Since r = O(log^6(n)), this is
O(log^9(n)*(loglog(n))^2).

Next, we consider one iteration of the for-loop.
By Lemma 4.17, it takes O(r^2*log^3(n)) time to compute the
coefficients of the polynomial (x-a)^n mod (x^r -1) in Zn[x].
The polynomial (x^n -a) mod (x^r -1) can be computed within the same time
bound. Hence, the entire for-loop takes O(r^2*sqrt(r)*log^4(n)) time.
Since r = O(log^6(n)), this is O(log^19(n)).
Finally, by Lemma 4.27, testing if n is a perfect power takes
O(log^4(n)*(loglog(n))) time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
from "Primality testing in polynomial time" by Michiel Smid,
December 3, 2002, p.11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Carl Skrabacz

Mar 6, 2003, 3:10:49 PM3/6/03
to
KGS is great in providing a player's recent game history, and I can check
that before requesting or accepting game requests (I usually check a
player's history after he has repeatedly rejected my games offer - it is
pretty obvious from the history when a player is "one of those" who always
rejects lower ranked players).
I don't like the ~. It is not necessary, and it has an unfriendly feel to
it.

Out of curiosity, can someone tell me the history behind it? Was the
feature added as a way to help correct a problem in the ratings system, or
for any other reason?

Carl Skrabacz

### Patrick Bridges

Mar 6, 2003, 3:17:51 PM3/6/03
to
dave <d...@d.com> writes:

> not so free any more. There is a new policy introduced last week which limits
> what you can chat about, and how long you can chat.

Not so. There is no such formal policy that limits anything. There is
a *request* that you keep topics in main rooms relevant to go and take
non-go-related topics to other rooms; there is, however, no
requirement that you do so.

### Patrick Bridges

Mar 6, 2003, 3:48:12 PM3/6/03
to
"Carl Skrabacz" <skrabac...@lucentREMOVE.com> writes:

> Out of curiosity, can someone tell me the history behind [~]? Was the

> feature added as a way to help correct a problem in the ratings system, or
> for any other reason?

I don't think so. My *guess* is that it's just something that Bill
added because he wanted to encourage people to play weaker players.

For the record, KGS just underwent some pretty large changes; The room
structure was changed to make it easier for people to create their own
semi-permanent rooms for conversations instead of having to use
temporary or main playing rooms for conversations; the ability to
leave messages for people was added, as were a variety of other
things. The '~' was one of a number of features that were added, many
of which are still being tested out and I'm sure will be changed based
upon user feedback.

In other news, attendance on KGS continues to grow nicely, with KGS
topping off at more than 480 users (488 IIRC) several days ago. In the
past 24 hours, peak attendance was 434 users. :) This is of course not
nearly as many as some other servers, but its nice to see KGS doing
well. :)

### -

Mar 6, 2003, 4:18:01 PM3/6/03
to

> dave <d...@d.com> writes:
>> ... not so free any more. There is a new policy introduced last week
>> which limits what you can chat about, and how long you can chat.

Patrick Bridges <bri...@cs.unm.edu> wrote:
> Not so. There is no such formal policy that limits anything. There is
> a *request* that you keep topics in main rooms relevant to go and take
> non-go-related topics to other rooms; there is, however, no
> requirement that you do so.

However there is another formal or informal policy which goes
into effect when the *request* is not obeyed, such as getting a tilde
or some other punctuation character, or a turd-burglar designation.

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Human Skin made with Ink Jet Printer

According to bioengineer, Thomas Boland, at Clemson University
in South Carolina, a future is coming in which ink jet printer
technology will provide hospitals with full grown organs for
transplant into diseased patients - starting from a flat sheet!

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=467&category=Science
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

### -

Mar 6, 2003, 4:28:08 PM3/6/03
to

Patrick Bridges <bri...@cs.unm.edu> wrote:
>
>
> In other news, attendance on KGS continues to grow nicely, with KGS
> topping off at more than 480 users (488 IIRC) several days ago. In the
> past 24 hours, peak attendance was 434 users. :) This is of course not
> nearly as many as some other servers, but its nice to see KGS doing
> well. :)

According to this kind of "logic" Planet Earth would be "doing
well" if it had 15 billion people instead of its paltry 6 billion ...

Of course "doing well" entails much more than mere numbers.
In some circles, "doing well" implies quality assurance, and the
opportunity for individuals within the system to make their own way
rather than having everything already pre-mapped for them, from
cradle to grave. How will there be "voice from the wilderness" if
you take away all of the wilderness? "Another brick in the wall..."
"Hey, teacher ... leave those kids alone ..." -( Pink Floyd )-

Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2, Revelations 18:21-22

- regards
- jb

----------------------------------------------------------------
Go News 2003
http://www.kyoto.zaq.ne.jp/momoyama/news/news.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

### Simon Frankau

Mar 6, 2003, 4:56:14 PM3/6/03
to
On 6 Mar 2003 09:28:20 -0800, gowan <gow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote in message news:<670194dc.03030...@posting.google.com>..
>> PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
>> mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
>> how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
>> than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
>> may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
>> now to see how things go.
>>
>
>I also vote against this feature and, in fact, if it stays, would have
>to award KGS a "~" I think any system that "forces" people to play
>others to avoid receiving a value-laden stigma is inherently
>unfriendly. I don't like having to keep track of whether I'm playing
>weaker or stronger players.
>
>While you're at it, though, why not punish people who refuse to play
>unrated games? Isn't that "unfriendly" behavior? Next I suppose
>you'll be trying to force people to be happy.
[snip]

Having any automatic ranking system at all might be unnecessary. In
our local club we generally have a dan player setting our kyu grades,
but people occasionally give themselves 'unofficial' rankings if
they've been on a winning or losing streak. If most people are honest,
you could probably run a go server off people setting their own ranks,
as long as game records are available, and there's social pressure to
display a realistic rank.

As it is, systems with automatic ranking are popular, but they're open
to abuse. There are people who sandbag with under-ranked accounts, and
those who have overinflated accounts through carefully picking their
fights. If you wish to use the ranking system, I don't think it's
unfair to be expected to not break it. Only playing stronger players
could break the system.

Marking players who only play stronger players seems rather
unpleasant, but at the same time noone's demanding that people don't
play the marked players. Perhaps it would be useful as part of a wider
system identifying whether people mostly play weaker or stronger
players, how active they are, how their grade's shifting at the moment
and so on.

As for those who refuse who refuse to play unrated games... I suppose
it's about whether you're playing to improve your KGS ranking, or your
ability at the game. I know which I'd prefer to improve. Having said
that, playing unrated games or not doesn't really break the ranking
system either way. If people play unrated games, it may reduce the
amount of data available, but doesn't produce misleading data.

In summary, maybe it's not just about people being
'unfriendly'. Perhaps, there's an element of encouraging people to
make a working ranking system.

Simon.

### William M. Shubert

Mar 6, 2003, 10:44:24 PM3/6/03
to
I'm hoping that anybody smart enough to play go is also smart enough to
realize that a 30k is pretty much guaranteed to get the "~" mark!!! What I
may have to do though, is if you start out 30k, get the "~", then move up
to 15k through fast improvement, your old games as a 30k shouldn't count
against you anymore. I'll keep an eye on things, if I see that happening
I'll make some changes.

I also agree, it would be bad to give the "~" to people who get it by
accident, but it *is* pretty hard to get by accident, and if you do get it
that way, it's easy to lose!!! I'm sure that anybody who puts up a game
offer on KGS with the note, "Looking for weaker player, want to lose my ~"
will have no trouble finding an opponent...and if that does happen, then
isn't the "~" doing exactly what it is supposed to do? If it does
encourage people to play under their rank, which should make KGS
friendlier all around!!!

Seriously, the "~" is just an experiment. After a few months, if I decide
it's causing more pain than fun, I'll get rid of it...but if I never tried
new things on KGS, it wouldn't be nearly as fun as it is today.

### William M. Shubert

Mar 6, 2003, 10:50:36 PM3/6/03
to
What Patrick said is right. People complained that there was too much
high-school-grade chatter in the main English room on KGS, so to test the
waters I put up a banner asking people to please take such talk to a
social room; at the same time, I made it easier to make social rooms to
meet your friends in. There was never any rule, just the suggestion, and
nobody was punished in any way for ignoring the suggestion.

As it happens, this idea didn't go over too well. I'll probably be taking
down the banner soon; maybe I'll try making a "serious go room" instead,
and tell people who are annoyed by all the chitchat to go there. Maybe
nothing will work, and there will always be somebody annoyed by somebody
else, who knows? Oh well. I'm not so proud that I won't admit when I made
a mistake, and clearly asking people to leave the main room to talk was
one of them...maybe the "~" will end up being a mistake too, we'll have to
see.

### JKP

Mar 7, 2003, 2:25:09 AM3/7/03
to
My 2 eurocents:

I (beginner, currently 27k) first thought that the tilde is a good thing.

Then I played a game against a much better player. I lost, thanked for the
game and got a response that playing with me was a waste of time ...

That's no big deal, I have met unfriendly people before and most on kgs are
not such, but I started thinking whether this has something to do with the
tilde.

Namely, I don't want to play against stronger players who don't want to play
against weaker players. So it could be that the tilde is more harm than good
if people start playing weaker players just to avoid getting the tilde,
while they have no interest in the game or teaching others.

JKP

### Antonio

Mar 7, 2003, 3:07:33 AM3/7/03
to
gow...@hotmail.com (gowan) wrote in message news:<fab2a28f.03030...@posting.google.com>...

The tilde"~" feature is a great idea and you don't have to keep track
of anything at all. It is very difficult to get the tilde and it is
impossible to get it "by chance".
The tilde is not a stigma, some guys could be proud of it. I have been
a go player for 27 years and have meet a lot of nasty guys. I do not
want to play to them anymore.
I'm sure that a big majority of go players agree with me. At least,
all my friends agree.
KGS is a great place and the tilde is a just feature.

### Antonio

Mar 7, 2003, 10:07:27 AM3/7/03
to
jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote in message news:<3e6794d2...@news.cis.dfn.de>...

> >> "Pieter Mioch" <pmioch@-removeme-ma.ccnw.ne.jp> writes:
> >>> Nothwithstanding the pleasent playing atmosphere on kgs the
> >>> "unfriendly mark reward" feels wrong, i dont like it. The point is that to
> >>> interpretate somebodies playing habits along these straight ruler lines
> >>> you will probably be wrong about the "friendly/ not friendly" some of
> >>> the time. A strong argument could be made as to -never- allow any kind
> >>> of negative rewards if there is even 0.01% chance you might be wrong.
>
> Patrick Bridges wrote:
> >> I'm of two minds about the feature. I really don't like to play people
> >> who don't play weaker players; Much of my help in getting stronger
> >> (though I'm still just a weak 3k) was based on the generosity of other
> >> stronger players helping me out. People who want my help in getting
> >> stronger but aren't willing to return the favor annoy me. I can see your
> >> point, though, that there's a chance we might unfairly stigmatize
> >> people. What if you're a 30k and the only people *to* play are stronger
> >> players?
>
> Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> wrote:
> > Maybe 25k - 30k shouldn't be subject to the ~ rule?
>
>
> I see ... now it has become a "rule" ? Fascism breeds a peculiar
> form of disrespect, and it can even stimulate "intifada terrorism."
> The "mark of the beast" occurs in the endtimes. The onus of learning
> Go is -not- the teacher's responsibility: it is that of the learner.
>

Come on! You say "fascism"? Go is just a game and KGS is free. I'm a
very experienced players (if not a strong one) and I know very well
the kind of player that almost never plays to weaker ones. I know them
and I want them to get the tilde.
By the way, you said in a previous message that "If someone only plays
stronger players then he would lose all the time". Have you heard

### -

Mar 7, 2003, 1:47:42 PM3/7/03
to

>> Dan Stromberg <stro...@dcs.nac.uci.edu> wrote:
>>> Maybe 25k - 30k shouldn't be subject to the ~ rule?

> "-" wrote:
>> I see ... now it has become a "rule" ? Fascism breeds a peculiar
>> form of disrespect, and it can even stimulate "intifada terrorism."
>> The "mark of the beast" occurs in the endtimes. The onus of learning
>> Go is -not- the teacher's responsibility: it is that of the learner.

tol...@hotmail.com (Antonio) wrote:
> Come on! You say "fascism"? Go is just a game and KGS is free.
> I'm a very experienced players (if not a strong one) and I know very
> well the kind of player that almost never plays to weaker ones. I know
> them and I want them to get the tilde.

Fascism wears a "friendly" face. Wanting something negative for
others is discourteous.

> By the way, you said in a previous message that "If someone only
> plays stronger players then he would lose all the time". Have you

Have you ever heard of "training wheels" ?

- regards
- jb

### Jeff Thompson

Mar 7, 2003, 2:35:56 PM3/7/03
to
I have been playing on KGS for a long time and have watched it grow.
marking players with an "!" denoting how many weaker players they
help.

Here's just an idea. For every 50 games you play against a weaker
player, you get a "!" after your name in the game dialog. After 250,
you get a "*" and a "!" for every 50, so at 350 you see
TompyGo[5k]*!!. That would be rewarding players that play weaker
opponents. Maybe even use a different character, such as "\$" for
playing opponents more than 9 stones weaker.

Many times I post 13x13 games with "Beginners welcome..." in the info.
Every once in a while a dan level player joins the game. I really
appreciate this. I rarely ask for help from stronger players on KGS,
but when I have done so help has been given.

My opinion is that I would like to see KGS go away from negative
adornments and move to postive ones. I am glad to see KGS growing,
changing, and adding value to the world go community.

As far as the English room chitchat goes, perhaps it is time to change
how KGS works a little. Instead of being dumped into the English
room, there should be a Lobby where everyone goes upon log in. This
Lobby should not allow games. In order to play a game, you must join
a seperate room. The Lobby can handle chaos, off topic chatter,
smoking, muddy shoes, etc. Here in the Lobby is where banners, even
stock messages over time intervals telling users how to proceed to
to those loitering or unsure how to enter. Moving from the Lobby to a
friendly chat room will be just as easy as moving to a friendly game
room. Consciously transitioning rooms like this will give the user a
moment to make the transition himself.

Anyway, just my \$.02,
Jeff

### -

Mar 7, 2003, 2:51:28 PM3/7/03
to

je...@datalogics.com (Jeff Thompson) wrote:
> ...

> Here's just an idea. For every 50 games you play against a weaker
> player, you get a "!" after your name in the game dialog. After 250,
> you get a "*" and a "!" for every 50, so at 350 you see
> TompyGo[5k]*!!. That would be rewarding players that play weaker
> opponents. Maybe even use a different character, such as "\$" for
> playing opponents more than 9 stones weaker.

This strikes me as an imaginative compromise, indeed. The
KGS players should be each -identified- by a "geek code" which
provides +-[brackets]-+ according to playing style, favorite josekis,
percentage of adjourned or }}}unfinished{{{ games, escaperism,
percentage "won or lost by" resignations versus high scoring
differences, percentage of sandbaggers, percentage playing
out the clock, percentage with foul mouths in chat-rooms, and
percentage who harass admins with childish remarks and other
forms of youthful indiscretion. Additionally, there could be some
designators for sympathy to forms of marxist communism, and of
course the degree to which players believe that "legal = impolite."
Eventually -all- of the punctuation symbols would be used up, to
provide something like: TompyGo[5k]*^@(\$%^!@!&^+++-_~`+='"}}\
This would certainly be an ASSet to promoting "friendliness" at KGS.

> My opinion is that I would like to see KGS go away from negative
> adornments and move to postive ones. I am glad to see KGS growing,
> changing, and adding value to the world go community.

Indeed. You have institutions add the values, not individuals?

> As far as the English room chitchat goes, perhaps it is time to change
> how KGS works a little. Instead of being dumped into the English
> room, there should be a Lobby where everyone goes upon log in. This
> Lobby should not allow games. In order to play a game, you must join
> a seperate room. The Lobby can handle chaos, off topic chatter,
> smoking, muddy shoes, etc. Here in the Lobby is where banners, even
> stock messages over time intervals telling users how to proceed to
> to those loitering or unsure how to enter. Moving from the Lobby to a
> friendly chat room will be just as easy as moving to a friendly game
> room. Consciously transitioning rooms like this will give the user a
> moment to make the transition himself.

With sufficient programming skill, individuals can be bumped into
the proper rooms or channels, depending on the languages they deploy.

> Anyway, just my \$.02,

Worth much more than that. Don't undersell yourself.

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Bush/Blair English Dictionary - new terms added

------------------------

The Bush/Blair English Dictionary

Al Quaida: muslim.

Anti-Semite: one who opposes the Israeli policy of ethnically
cleansing Palestinians.

Axis of Evil: the three countries most resistant to US imperialism.

Bravery: the ability to order the death of 200,000 Iraqis without

Canadian: a type of ground target used for live bombing practice.

Coalition of the Willing: Bulgaria.

Cowardice: refusing to kill civilians to promote US oil interests in
the Middle East.

Diplomatic Problem: a problem with a country that posseses nuclear
weapons. see 'North Korea'.

Disarmament: the process of destroying all of one's defensive systems
immediately before an American invasion.

Foreign Aid: a mutlibillion dollar bribe to a foreign country to
support a policy that is overwhelmingly opposed by the country's
population.

Friend: a tyrant or dictator installed by the US that still obeys
orders.

Hero: 1. a well-fed American sitting on multimillion dollar military
hardware dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on impoverished people. 2.
any American sitting on multimillion dollar military hardware when it
explodes.

International Community: 1. everyone except the millions of people
who marched against, or oppose the war. 2. an international group of
politicians and corporate leaders who meet behind closed doors to
decide how best to stay in power and enrich their supporters by
maiming, mutilating and killing.

Irrelevant Debating Society: an organization that fails to rubberstamp
US directives, see 'UN'.

Old Europe: the most powerful and advanced countries in Europe.

of antiwar protests.

Patriot Act: legislation to curb the civil liberties of patriots.

Pope: a holy leader not yet convinced that war is morally good.

Rogue State: a country that purchases biological and/or chemical
weapons from the US and does not use them all up or destroy them
within two US elections.

Saddam Hussein: the unelected leader of a country that has a history
of using weapons of mass destruction, who has attempted to invade a
middle-eastern country for oil interests in defiance of the world.

Self-Defence: the act of attacking another country.

Spineless: daring to oppose the US.

Terrorist: a Palestinian who sacrifices his life to blow up an Israeli
tank or attack Israili soldiers who occupy his land and murder his
family.

Traitor: peace activist.

Tyrant: a dictator or despot installed by the US that no longer obeys
orders.

Unreasonable Veto: (british term.) any veto or vetos.

War: the act of dropping bombs from a safe height on an already
hard-pressed people, whose infrastructure is in ruins and who live
under an oppressive regime, see 'Turkey Shoot'.

War Crime: attempting to fight invading US forces.

Weapon of Mass Destruction: any weapon owned by Saddam Hussein.

War on Terrorism: the war against all Middle-Eastern countries
excluding those where 9-11 terrorists originated.

Worm: a leader who shows backbone in opposing the US.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

### Chris Schack

Mar 7, 2003, 1:12:50 PM3/7/03
to

gow...@hotmail.com (gowan) wrote:
>w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote in message news:<670194dc.03030...@posting.google.com>..
>> PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
>> mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
>> how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
>> than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
>> may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
>> now to see how things go.
>>
>
>I also vote against this feature and, in fact, if it stays, would have
>to award KGS a "~" I think any system that "forces" people to play
>others to avoid receiving a value-laden stigma is inherently
>unfriendly. I don't like having to keep track of whether I'm playing
>weaker or stronger players.

Given some of the criteria for players you see, the ~ may not work as
well as expected anyway. A number of people are willing to play those
one rank below them, but no more, avoiding being against a handicap.
Then, if they decide they need more games against weaker players still,
THEY could always do the challenging as needed...

Chris Schack

### Michael Sullivan

Mar 7, 2003, 10:30:58 PM3/7/03
to
JKP <ju...@sirkus.com> wrote:

> My 2 eurocents:
>
> I (beginner, currently 27k) first thought that the tilde is a good thing.
>
> Then I played a game against a much better player. I lost, thanked for the
> game and got a response that playing with me was a waste of time ...

That's incredibly rude.

OTOH, I do think it doesn't make much sense to play giant handicap games
against players many many ranks better. You will learn much more
playing a 15k player at 9 stones, than playing me (1k) at 20. Which is
not to say I wouldn't play you, but I'd want to play at 5-9 stones
unrated and offer lots of comments as the game played -- more a lesson
than a game. This is what I do on dragon -- I don't play rated games
with players more than 5 stones or so weaker. Partly because I'm not
all that strong at giving handicaps, so it would skew my rating, and
partly because if I play all out, I'm probably sometimes playing poor
(but tricky) moves that shouldn't be imitated, and other times playing
moves that are too far above the head of my opponent to make for a
useful learning experience. Playing at a lesser handicap, I can make
the game a better teaching experience, by specifically playing a
simpler, purer game and offering insight as the game progresses.

So, to some extent I agree that it's a waste of time for relatively
strong players to play 30k players. I think 30k players should mostly
play each other and watch stronger players until they start to get
really basic tactics (defending/making cuts on the second and third
lines, basic big eye placements, basic walking of the stones, etc.)

At that point, teaching games with strong players become a *lot* more
useful.

> Namely, I don't want to play against stronger players who don't want to play
> against weaker players. So it could be that the tilde is more harm than good
> if people start playing weaker players just to avoid getting the tilde,
> while they have no interest in the game or teaching others.

That's an interesting point. A question would be -- do weaker players
have trouble finding games? Or finding teaching games?

I really like dragon's system where players all have a field in their
info which basically talks about whether they are open for
teaching/handicap games with weaker players. Perfectly okay not to be,
but weaker players can look at this and see who to invite for teaching
games.

Michael

Mar 8, 2003, 10:30:17 AM3/8/03
to
William M. Shubert <w...@igoweb.org> scrawled across my screen:

> Seriously, the "~" is just an experiment. After a few months, if I
> decide it's causing more pain than fun, I'll get rid of it...but if I
> never tried new things on KGS, it wouldn't be nearly as fun as it is
> today.

I have yet to decide whether I like it or not, to be honest - but that's not
the point.

I wouldn't normally bother to say this but given the level of negative
comment that's coming I think it's probably worth saying:

Whether it ends up good or bad, trying it is a good thing. Because otherwise
people will always wonder what would have happened if you had. Moreover,
give it time, people - give it time to settle, give yourselves time to get
used to it - before you decide whether you like it or not.

Not that I object to the negative things being posted - it's all very
interesting - but I thought I'd post my tuppennorth about why I think it's a
*good* thing to try.

Cheers,

Jenny

Mar 8, 2003, 10:33:47 AM3/8/03
to
Michael Sullivan <m...@panix.com> scrawled across my screen:

> That's an interesting point. A question would be -- do weaker players
> have trouble finding games? Or finding teaching games?

Partial answer to that - when I didn't have a ranking, people were refusing
to play me, except people I knew IRL. So it was hard to *get* a ranking.

I assume people were thinking it wasn't worth playing someone without a rank
because they might be so vastly different to theirs, and I quite see their
point, but it was aggravating. Fortunately I knew people IRL who have
rankings and played them to get my own. But I shall be bearing this in mind
when playing in future!

Jenny

### Steve

Mar 8, 2003, 7:36:15 PM3/8/03
to

"Carl Skrabacz" <skrabac...@lucentREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:b48a1c\$m...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...

>
> Out of curiosity, can someone tell me the history behind it? Was the
> feature added as a way to help correct a problem in the ratings system, or
> for any other reason?
>
> Carl Skrabacz
>
>

Unless I misunderstood, it was my understanding from an earlier conversation
with Bill Shubert (the author of KGS) that the original idea was to award
those who played weaker players, not penalize those who did not. An
indicator that someone plays 2/3 games against weaker players is, in my
opinion, preferable to one which stigmatizes one who plays less that 1/3
against weaker players. I do not know why it is implemented the way it is
but I would also throw in my vote against it. I hope that if I am wrong in
my understanding, that Bill will post with a correction.

### justafriend

Mar 8, 2003, 11:47:03 PM3/8/03
to

On KGS everyone's games are saved for something like 180 days.
Therefore, why can't KGS users just look at their opponent's history
to see how many games he/she plays against weaker players before
deciding to match? There is no need for the tilde!

But since Mr. Shubert got the ball rolling, I have two other
suggestions for flagging people:

1) Let's have a warm and fuzzy flag -- a symbol signaling those
players who say "thank you for the game" after the match.

2) Let's have a symbol flagging people who play weaker players but
don't play "honest" -- that is, they win by swindling the weaker
player.

While we're at it, I would also like to know if my opponent is for or
against the upcoming war in Iraq.

w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote in message news:<670194dc.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> Usually I try to stay out of flame wars, but this one was just too
> funny. There's an old usenet saying, that all arguments end with
> somebody comparing their opponents to Nazi Germany; at this time, the
> person who made the comparison admits defeat, because they've run out
> of reasonable points to make so they have no choice but to fall back
> on the "You're just like the Nazis" comment.
>
> This is the first time that I have seen a single post so short that
> starts a fight, ends the fight, *and* concedes defeat! Wow!

>
> PS - Patrick's description of the "~" feature was correct, but didn't
> mention that only games where ranks differ are counted. So no matter
> how many games you play, you have to play stronger players no more
> than twice as often as weaker players if you want to avoid the "~". I
> may change this algorithm later, it's just sort of experimental right
> now to see how things go.
>

> jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote in message news:<3e666a73...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> > Very interesting. Is this -why- KGS is a "friendly place" to play?
> > What are the effects on ratings systems as the result of:
> >
> > (a) number/frequency of games played
> > (b) same opponent versus different opponent played
> >
> > What are the -consequences- of being stigmatized by a tilde ?
> > Does KGS also have pink swastikas and yellow triangles?
> > Are there any "easy hate ovens" for ages nine and up?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - regards
> > - jb

### William Shubert

Mar 9, 2003, 12:19:46 AM3/9/03
to
About using positive instead of negative marks: It amounts to the same
thing, doesn't it? Losing the "I play under my rank sometimes" mark,
gaining the "I hardly ever play under my rank" mark...I didn't see
much difference. You suggestion about giving player a ! after every 50
games vs. players under their rank is OK, but that means that newbies
will always look like selfish players...so I think it needs to be a
ratio. (Or, like it is now, a ratio with a boost for new players so
they won't right away be marked as selfish).

As for starting on KGS by entering a lobby where games are not
allowed, I don't like that, because when people first show up on KGS,
I want them to right away see games. Most people show up, and the
first thing that they say is either "How do I start a game" or "How do
I watch a game". Adding extra steps to get to the games will only make
KGS seem less fun to new arrivals, I think.

je...@datalogics.com (Jeff Thompson) wrote in message news:<3775d299.03030...@posting.google.com>...

> I have been playing on KGS for a long time and have watched it grow.
> I dislike the idea of marking players negatively. Instead, how about
> marking players with an "!" denoting how many weaker players they
> help.
>
> Here's just an idea. For every 50 games you play against a weaker

> player, you get a "!" after your name in the game dialog...
...

### Benjamin Geiger

Mar 9, 2003, 12:56:13 AM3/9/03
to
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 20:02:11 +0000, William Shubert wrote:

> Usually I try to stay out of flame wars, but this one was just too
> funny. There's an old usenet saying, that all arguments end with
> somebody comparing their opponents to Nazi Germany; at this time, the
> person who made the comparison admits defeat, because they've run out of
> reasonable points to make so they have no choice but to fall back on the
> "You're just like the Nazis" comment.

For future reference, it's "Godwin's Law".

<http://catb.org/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html>:
# "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
# involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many
# groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned
# the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

--
Benjamin Geiger IRC: tanuki / Phoon
TDC Defender of the Beverly and
Chugger of the Cold Colas of Remove "_spamtrap"
Ice Station Cool before emailing me.

### Sensi Tiger

Mar 9, 2003, 4:37:13 AM3/9/03
to
hi William,

William Shubert wrote:

> About using positive instead of negative marks: It amounts to the same
> thing, doesn't it? Losing the "I play under my rank sometimes" mark,
> gaining the "I hardly ever play under my rank" mark...I didn't see
> much difference.

I think it is just a question of conotation... or, should i say,
feeling/atmosphere.

Most people probably won't have any mark, since the majority of players
(unless they are below 28k or above 6d) plays about the same amount of
stronger and weaker opponents. So maybe to have people rewarded for being
"generous" is better than stigmatizing those who are not. At least, it feels
more pleasant. On the other hand, both ways are possible at the same time, I
am just not sure if it's necessary to have such features at all: people
usually find out pretty soon who is rude, who likes to help weaker players
and so on. And the voice spreads fast.

just an opinion... I really like KGS;
OTOH, I don't chat a lot, but i didn't mind the gaggle of others in the
english room. sometimes it was quite fun, though i didn't participate, to
read those lines :-) i would find it disfunctional to force people going to
separate rooms for different topics.

keep up the good work!

respect,

tiger

> As for starting on KGS by entering a lobby where games are not
> allowed, I don't like that, because when people first show up on KGS,
> I want them to right away see games.

I agree

### Bill Spight

Mar 9, 2003, 9:44:48 AM3/9/03
to
Dear Bill,

> About using positive instead of negative marks: It amounts to the same
> thing, doesn't it?

Logically, perhaps, psychologically, no.

If you want to affect people's behavior, positive marks are more
effective than negative marks. (A combination may be even more
effective, at some cost in atmosphere.)

Best regards,

Bill

### -

Mar 9, 2003, 12:35:37 PM3/9/03
to

Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> If you want to affect people's behavior ...

Indeed. What does this have to do with Go?

- regards
- jb

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 9, 2003, 4:35:03 PM3/9/03
to
The reward for the generous players is not a special sign, but rather easy
identification of selfish players.
--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><>

"Steve" <rgg@eklectika..com> wrote in message
news:b4e295\$2n76\$1...@news3.infoave.net...

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 9, 2003, 4:40:45 PM3/9/03
to
The tilde is a matter of efficiency. Generous players deserve the reward of
not having to do so much work -- let the computer say directly if the
challenger is selfish.
--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><> Cl...@Smith.name www.Clay.Smith.name

"justafriend" <kazu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 9, 2003, 4:58:29 PM3/9/03
to
The tilde is less about behavior modification than it is for making it easy
for generous players to weed out selfish players.

--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><> Cl...@Smith.name www.Clay.Smith.name

"Bill Spight" <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E6B5368...@pacbell.net...

### -

Mar 9, 2003, 5:37:18 PM3/9/03
to

"Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> The tilde is a matter of efficiency. Generous players deserve the reward
> of not having to do so much work -- let the computer say directly if the
> challenger is selfish.

Ah ... yes. The computer having authority over Go Players. But
aren't you just a bit premature? :-)

- regards
- jb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 60 PCT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE LOCATED IN AND AROUND ROME
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200303071736-0185-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 9, 2003, 6:03:58 PM3/9/03
to
Even so, I think you got the point.
To be clear:

Generous players deserve the reward of not having to do so much work -- let
the computer say directly if the challenger is selfish (based on their game
history in that domain).

--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><> Cl...@Smith.name www.Clay.Smith.name

"-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e6bc1a1....@news.cis.dfn.de...

### -

Mar 9, 2003, 6:54:12 PM3/9/03
to

"Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Even so, I think you got the point.
> To be clear:
> Generous players deserve the reward of not having to do so much
> work -- let the computer say directly if the challenger is selfish
> (based on their game history in that domain).

I think you are "begging the question" presumptively, as others here
have already noticed, by assuming one could conclude that some
player is "...`selfish' (based on their game history in that domain)."
There might be many other "reasons" for a playing record history,
and a chance that some player could be unfairly stigmatized as such.
Additionally a "stigmatization penalty" could attach to those stronger
players who were actually the instructional resource for a Go Server.
What do you suppose is an overall goal here, w/r/t the "recruitment"?
Having computers assign attributes declarative of human nature is ...?

- regards
- jb

------------------------------------------------------------------

>>
>> "Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>> The tilde is a matter of efficiency. Generous players deserve the
>>> reward of not having to do so much work -- let the computer say
>>> directly if the challenger is selfish.

> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 9, 2003, 7:16:55 PM3/9/03
to
Fair enough.
Even so, Generous players deserve to have an efficient way to avoid selfish
players. The tilde certainly does this.

--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><> Cl...@Smith.name www.Clay.Smith.name

"-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e6bd25e....@news.cis.dfn.de...

### -

Mar 9, 2003, 7:52:15 PM3/9/03
to

"Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Fair enough.
> Even so, Generous players deserve to have an efficient way to avoid
> selfish players. The tilde certainly does this.

But I thought that the "selfish players" were doing the avoiding.

Now you also have "generous players" avoiding "selfish players" even
when the "selfish players" might seek to remove a tilde. Perhaps you
now need another designator to identify those players who do avoiding?
Then, who might want to avoid players who are identified as avoiding?

- regards
- jb

---------------------------------------------------------------

>>
>> "Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>> Even so, I think you got the point.
>>> To be clear:
>>> Generous players deserve the reward of not having to do so much
>>> work -- let the computer say directly if the challenger is selfish
>>> (based on their game history in that domain).

> "-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message

>> I think you are "begging the question" presumptively, as others here
>> have already noticed, by assuming one could conclude that some
>> player is "...`selfish' (based on their game history in that domain)."
>> There might be many other "reasons" for a playing record history,
>> and a chance that some player could be unfairly stigmatized as such.
>> Additionally a "stigmatization penalty" could attach to those stronger
>> players who were actually the instructional resource for a Go Server.
>> What do you suppose is an overall goal here, w/r/t the "recruitment"?
>> Having computers assign attributes declarative of human nature is ...?
>>

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------

### Chris Schack

Mar 10, 2003, 1:42:53 PM3/10/03
to

w...@igoweb.org (William Shubert) wrote:
>About using positive instead of negative marks: It amounts to the same
>thing, doesn't it? Losing the "I play under my rank sometimes" mark,
>gaining the "I hardly ever play under my rank" mark...I didn't see
>much difference. You suggestion about giving player a ! after every 50
>games vs. players under their rank is OK, but that means that newbies
>will always look like selfish players...so I think it needs to be a
>ratio. (Or, like it is now, a ratio with a boost for new players so
>they won't right away be marked as selfish).

This would especially apply to those who are not Go newbies, but are
KGS newbies. I played somebody who self-identified as 14k, but hadn't
had a rated game, a few days ago. Once he loses the ?, how would it
look that he hadn't played more than a few games against lower-rated
opponents?

Chris Schack

### Chris Schack

Mar 10, 2003, 1:51:21 PM3/10/03
to
In article <3e6b7acc....@news.cis.dfn.de>,

jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote:
>
>Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> If you want to affect people's behavior ...
>
>
> Indeed. What does this have to do with Go?

When the behavior is being unwilling to play weaker players, and
therefore not learn how to make up for handicap stones? I'd say
it has something to do with it ... funny thing is, the "stronger
players only" people just might be neglecting a part of their
development in the game.

Chris Schack

### -

Mar 10, 2003, 3:17:37 PM3/10/03
to

>> Bill Spight <Xbsp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> If you want to affect people's behavior ...

> jazze...@coolmail.com (-) wrote:
>> Indeed. What does this have to do with Go?

tmpm...@trends.net (Chris Schack) wrote:
> When the behavior is being unwilling to play weaker players,
> and therefore not learn how to make up for handicap stones?
> I'd say it has something to do with it ... funny thing is, the
> "stronger players only" people just might be neglecting
> a part of their development in the game.

What "stronger player" has not played "weaker players" ?
Yet a sub-issue here concerns whether "behavior modification" is
any component of "playing Go", (which is presumably why players
connect to Go Servers rather than to various Internet chat-rooms).

- regards
- jb

----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ORTEGA Y GASSETT
The Revolt Of The Masses
http://www.propaganda101.com/OnlineBooks/JoseOrtegaGassett/TheRevoltOfTheMasses/contents.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

### Clay Chip Smith

Mar 10, 2003, 8:36:45 PM3/10/03
to
Okay. I see what you are getting at now. Thank you for those additional
words. I am comfortable there is enough information to differentiate. See
the example below.

I am 1d in KGS.

When I receive a challenge from a 3k tilde players, then I may reasonably
conclude this is a selfish player not seeking to reform their tilde marking.

However, when I receive a challenge from a 3d tilde players, then I may
reasonably conclude this is a selfish player seeking to reform their tilde
marking.

So, I would accept the game request from the reforming player (later), but
not the unreforming player (former).

--
Best Wishes, Clay Chip Smith ><> Cl...@Smith.name www.Clay.Smith.name

"-" <jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e6be10b....@news.cis.dfn.de...

### -

Mar 10, 2003, 9:36:43 PM3/10/03
to

"Clay Chip Smith" <we...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> When I receive a challenge from a 3k tilde players, then I may reasonably
> conclude this is a selfish player not seeking to reform their tilde marking.

Again, you're "begging the question" here, because there is also
a reasonable conclusion that a player obtained a tilde marking not by
being selfish but on account of avoiding other tilde-marked players of
the same or lesser rank. Furthermore there might be no other players
or games available. Your "solution" would sideline that player, which

is not a very friendly behavior at KGS. And you would ask 3k players
to be instructors, because most 1d players are too selfish to do so...

> However, when I receive a challenge from a 3d tilde players, then I may
> reasonably conclude this is a selfish player seeking to reform their tilde
> marking.

Again, another instance of "begging the question", because the 3d
tilde player could be entirely unaware of a tilde marking. Then, the
motive became misinterpreted by you, since it had been an honest act
of generosity -before- you pointed out an incentive to remove a tilde.

> So, I would accept the game request from the reforming player (later),
> but not the unreforming player (former).

Upshot being: 1d players seek to suppress requests from 3k players,
i.e. a true meaning of "imposed friendliness" at the redoubtable KGS?
Some tilde players might be making rapid progress and deserve a game.
Yet "communist party rule" supports only a lowest common denominator.

- regards
- jb

-----------------------------------------------------------
The Science of Modern Propaganda
http://www.propaganda101.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Mar 11, 2003, 5:40:57 AM3/11/03
to
In article <N4bba.35329\$wA2.1...@twister.austin.rr.com>,
Clay Chip Smith wrote:

> However, when I receive a challenge from a 3d tilde players, then I may
> reasonably conclude this is a selfish player seeking to reform their tilde
> marking.

Hmm, I wonder if there are any 3d~ players. It seems to me that teaching is
an important part of learning about anything, not just go, and so I wouldn't
have thought it possible to reach that sort of standard as a "selfish" (for
the want of a better word...) player.

Edwin.
--
Edwin Brady - Computer Science PhD Student, University of Durham.

### icarri

Mar 11, 2003, 12:04:01 PM3/11/03
to
Its not really being selfish. To a weaker players the stronger players
refusal to teach might seem selfish however to that stronger player, if they
are starting to become aware of just how little they know about the game one
can easily understand why they might be reluctant to teach as ive heard more
often than not.
"Edwin Brady" <e.c....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnb6rf9p.q...@cs-186.dur.ac.uk...

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

### Denis Feldmann

Mar 11, 2003, 12:27:10 PM3/11/03
to
icarri wrote:
> Its not really being selfish. To a weaker players the stronger
> players refusal to teach might seem selfish however to that stronger
> player, if they are starting to become aware of just how little they
> know about the game one can easily understand why they might be
> reluctant to teach as ive heard more often than not.

Most top pro are well aware of how little they know. It doesn't prevent them
to teach. By the way, almost all teachers in any discipline are also well
aware of their ignorance... Anyway, the little they know, they usually had
someone to teach it to them. It is selfish not to transmit this knowledge.
Lastly, some warning along the lines of "what i try to teach you is
(probably) better that what you know at the moment, but is in no way the
ultimate truth" should be enough to prevent gross misconceptions.