Tournament - disallow kicking a player out

[Thomcat]

In a recent tournament, my opponent stalled for time while I was winning.
I had a low time remaining, and the game had low turns remaining (3 cards left in the third round of Lost Cities).
Fourteen hours later I fell asleep, and my opponent took their turn, waited the remaining time, then kicked me out -- with 6 hours total game time still remaining.
This cost me the game, ranking in the tournament, and reputation as well.

Kicking a player out of a tournament game for expired time should be disallowed.
In this case it was bad sportsmanship.
In any case, other players in a swiss system tournament will all wait until all games are done.
Tournaments are a different situation than single games - a player must have a minimum ranking to even play.

--Thom

PS the specific game that inspired this suggestion:
https://boardgamearena.com/#!gamereview?table=50403957

[Jest Phulin]

While I agree that (from your description) your opponent's behavior was not sporting, it is not a reason to change the time policy.

There are plenty of posts along the lines of "I was clearly winning the game, and someone used the site-wide time policy to steal my victory!!!" The time policy is not some obscure rule that is only known to people who delve into the rule book. It is a well-documented rule that players are reminded of when joining every table and every tournament. Claiming that you should have the victory (or at least not the loss) for violating that rule is similar to claiming you should be able to build two buildings of the same name in 7 Wonders, or getting full production in Puerto Rico even though components have run out. It is a rule and can be enforced.

If you think that this is only a silly rule for this site, you might want to look at chess Grand Master Magnus Carlsen (June 2015).

Also, consider the other case, which came up far more often: "My opponent is clearly loosing, I can win in one move. They've stopped playing, and now there's nothing I can do!" This needed to be prevented. The comment of

In any case, other players in a swiss system tournament will all wait until all games are done.

reinforces this. "One player quit playing, and now the entire tournament can't continue."

Bottom line: while there are fringe cases that make it unpleasant when the time rule is enforced, it is a rule and enforcing it tends to do more good than harm.

[RicardoRix]

This situation arises very easily in tournaments with fixed time limits which are too short.

I played in a chequers tournament which was just 3-days. There was just not enough time to play all the moves.

A lot of tables were timed out and in some cases both players had less than 2 hours on the clock. It seems really harsh and against the spirit of the game and tournament. I don't think anyone wanted it to end this way.

[Thomcat]

Thank you Jest for the point of view; you raise some very good points.

I was suggesting not allowing a player to be kicked out of a tournament game. Time limits would still be in place, and each game would end when time was expired regardless.

In my specific case, my opponent would have to take a turn to advance my clock, and I could respond to each move. The only alternative is to to stop playing at all, and then they would lose due to lack of thinking time.

Thank you again for the courteous reply.

[Jest Phulin]

(Side note: I tend to play devil's advocate. I like to make sure ramifications of implementing a suggestion are thought of.)

I was suggesting not allowing a player to be kicked out of a tournament game. Time limits would still be in place, and each game would end when time was expired regardless.

What would the results of a game that ended on overall time be?
If it were a win for the person who had the most points, there would be little reason to make a move if you had the lead on your turn.
If it were a loss for the person with the lowest clock, there would be no difference from the current system, so no reason for a change.
If it were a tie, someone could guarantee a mid-range result in a swiss system by not playing -- they would never have a loss, only ties.

Again, the time system is not an inherent part of most games, but there are some who treat the BGA experience as a game, and prestige as the score.

[nmego]

Imagine 2 players playing each other in a tournament, with their timezones 12 hours apart.
And each of them sleeps at the time when the other player plays their move.
There is no doubt that the game would end in a time-out for one player. And there is basically no way to get past that except to stay up late and hope to catch the other player online. And that is assuming that they're willing to finish their game live at that time. And this is assuming that they aren't going to time-stall about it.

(I admit this is kind of an extreme example, but you can tone down the variables (the difference in timezones etc..) and it wouldn't be much of a difference I think)

The problem with the current timer settings in tournaments is that it leaves a lot of room for exploits. And it is not too hard to figure out. I think something like "playing hours" would be ideal.

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

Most people wouldn't be on bga 12 hours a day. Actually I think most people who play tournaments log in a few times a day (3-4) to see if their turn has come yet or not. But what if, you and your opponent are both doing this at the same time. And you both aren't lucky enough to catch the other player? (Actually, I think that the probability of that happening is pretty high)

I think a lot of people do this on mobile, because it is portable, you can do it anywhere, you can check it any time in the day etc..

I think one way to fix it would be to add support for background notifications. On either mobile or desktop. Something like discord notifications. Though, an app on either desktop or mobile would be needed. Which would take a lot of time. Just some food for thought.

[dudi2]

background notifications already exist: https://boardgamearena.com/#!preference ... ifications

"playing hours" also already exist.

Many tournament creators set tournament time settings not suitable to many people resulting in time-outs.

I personally only join tournaments where I have enough time. For short games I only join games with at least 5 days per match, for longer games 7 days per match. If I create tournaments, I always choose 15 days per match, which in many games should be long enough.

If for someone there are not enough suitable tournaments created he is able to get premium to create his own tournaments with a better time setting.

[RicardoRix]

This is all true, but given the default ways to create tournaments are with fixed time limits.

A time increment per move would help solve the problem.

All of this is likely futile talk because apparently there is a brand new tournament system coming sometime soon.

[Thomcat]

What would the results of a game that ended on overall time be?

If it were a win for the person who had the most points, there would be little reason to make a move if you had the lead on your turn.
If it were a loss for the person with the lowest clock, there would be no difference from the current system, so no reason for a change.
If it were a tie, someone could guarantee a mid-range result in a swiss system by not playing -- they would never have a loss, only ties.

Again, the time system is not an inherent part of most games, but there are some who treat the BGA experience as a game, and prestige as the score.

To your last part, unfortunately true.

To answer your question, the system now awards the "win" to the person with positive time remaining once the total time expires.

* While both players have a positive time, the higher score player can't just "wait" out their opponent and win.

* If the player with the higher score ends up with a negative time. They would lose the unfinished game because of time - but arguably, they should, because they have used all the time they were allowed. See Chess rules.

A system that encourages players to finish the game is the best choice in this case.

Back to my specific example, I had a lower score than my opponent but two cards in hand that would make a higher score. They likely knew this and chose not to play - but not far enough so their time went negative. The ability to kick me out of the unfinished game gave them power they didn't have, and got them the win -- along with both a loss AND a reputation penalty for me. Very unsportsmanlike!

[Jest Phulin]

OK, I'm a little confused.

For most games, the time allowed per player is in the form of HH:MM:SS thinking time to start, with hh:mm:ss added each move. When a player's time reaches 0, the system automatically generates an out-of-time penalty, and other players at the table are allowed to expel them (which will count as a loss for the expelled player, and a tie for the win for all remaining players, adjusted by the percentage of the game already completed).

For tournaments, the first HH:MM:SS is one-half the total time allotted per game, with hh:mm:ss being zero added each turn. This ensures that the game will end, or one person will have a negative clock, by the time allotted.

Why should one player be allowed to go negative simply because the added time is zero? In a game where the initial HH:MM:SS is in terms of minutes, this effectively penalizes a player who plays quickly. (And, no, there is no real difference between the time management of real-time vs turn-based games. The only difference is how easily the system allows you to disconnect and reconnect to a table.)