Community Moderation Guideline: "Stalling"

Preface: these guidelines have been developed collaboratively by the Community Moderator volunteers.

They're open for discussion and update, via the OGS forums.

Although you can, please don't edit these unless your edits have been endorsed in a suitable way.

The Guidelines

1. Stalling definition. Stalling usually takes three forms:

• repeatedly playing moves (whether dead stones or passes) that serve no purpose, infilling one’s own territory for no reason,

• repeatedly rejecting the correct score, or

• clicking the autoscore repeatedly when no change has occurred.

  Generally, a useless move elicits a pass from the opponent; if the opponent responds to a move, then the move should be presumed legitimate in most cases. A notable exception is that beginners tend to capture dead stones when they don’t need to.

  Clicking the autoscore repeatedly (more than once after the initial scoring) produces two thumbnails identified with the person who clicked it (rather than the initial four thumbnails).

2. Looking for aji. If the aji is real, then an attempt to exploit it is not stalling, even if the aji is easily defended (e.g., by filling a cutting point). The difficult decision occurs when an attempt is hopeless, and the accused may be too weak to recognize the futility. Clues to help discern the intent of the accused include the player’s rank and experience, previous warnings, and whether the attempt was short or prolonged. If the CM is unsure, see Guideline #12.

3. Closing borders and filling dame are not stalling. These actions are allowed under all rulesets.

4. A player who is far behind in the score, but still playing, is not stalling. The score is irrelevant to the question of stalling.

5. Playing slowly is not stalling. One rare exception is if a player announces in the chat an intention to do this as a form of retaliation/trolling. Another exception (seen recently) was a player who played his last 50 moves in 29+ seconds each in a 30-sec byo-yomi, contrary to all his previous moves.

6. Winners can stall. Although comparatively rare, sometimes the winner will stall to force the opponent to resign (this is a fact, based on talks with a couple players who did this). No-one is obliged to resign. The correct way to indicate that a game is over is to pass.

7. Stalling plus score cheating. Many players who fail to win by stalling, will then attempt to score cheat. If the reporter has not reported both in separate reports, then recategorize the stalling report as score cheating.

8. Stalling reported as score cheating. Sometimes repeated resumptions are reported as score cheating. If this is done, the report should be recategorized as stalling.

9. Failure to accept the correct score. People sometimes report this as stalling. If they do so, then recategorize it as Stopped Playing, even if no disconnection or timeout occurred.

10. A Server Decision does not prove stalling. It is triggered by three passes and requires a certain level of win expectation (99%, I think). It does not care whether any actual stalling, as defined for the sake of a warning, has occurred. It is ending a game with no chance of winning for the loser. Significantly, a Server Decision does not issue a warning for stalling; it is just facilitating the ending of the game.

11. Repeat offenders. If someone has already received a warning for Stalling, then a second report should be escalated (if the offense is verified) for final warning, and a third report should be escalated for possible suspension.

12. Annulment. “Frustration wins” (a term coined by mark5000) should be voted “Annul and warn.” These bogus wins occur because the legitimate winner tires of the opponent’s stalling and chooses to resign or escape. Such “wins” are less common now, because of the Server Decision process. However, they still occur among beginners who, for example, continue capturing the opponent’s self-atari moves. Frustration wins also occur because a player stalls by repeatedly rejecting the correct score.

13. Dissenter’s note. When a CM clicks a choice that differs from an existing vote, a box appears where an explanation can be given. This can be used to point out a mistake in the earlier vote or a mitigating factor. Its use is optional and should be anonymous.

14. If you’re unsure, it’s okay to press the “Ignore” button and move on. Let other CMs worry about reports that don’t seem clear to you.