-if a player's rating can't indicate their skill level to some extent correctly, then what good is it to have a rating system?
-How are players supposed to know the "strength" of a another player if the rating system is so flawed? (a player with "Grandmaster" rating having the skill level of a "Novice")
-Why are players that have been reported to abuse the "flaw" in how the system (forces a player to place a stone after the opponent reject's the marked stones) not banned?
Does that mean that their behavior is acceptable? Or does it mean that it isn't their fault that said "flaw" has not been corrected?
-A good way to discourage players from "farming" on newbies:
Set a maximum rating difference; if the rating difference between opposing players fall outside that difference, the ratings of both players will be swapped if player with lower rating wins the match.
Eg:
-Set Max Rating Difference to: 100
-Bob has 300 rating
-Joe has 50 rating
-Rating Difference = 250
-Bob wins: Joe loses rating and Bob gains rating.
-Joe wins: Bob is reduced to 50 rating and Joe is raised to 300 rating.
--Reasoning: Bob, with 300 rating, SHOULD have advantage over Joe, who has 50 rating. If Joe wins, then it should be a clear indication that Joe is "stronger" than Bob. This encourages players to play against opponents that are closer to their rating. With the odds stacked against Joe, the reward for winning is fair.
The "rating difference value" is open to change...