What is the etiquette on this site for players running out of time?

[shrouded figure]

If they don't like the clock they can choose to play with no time limit. But they chose not to so it's on them.

A lot lies between "no time limit" and "automatically lose on time". While it might suit YOU better if those players all played without time limit - it doesn't suit the majority of people who have a relaxed approach towards the clock.
I usually don't kick unless the other player is inactive and even then i often choose to go to turn-based instead. But still, when my opponnent is very slow, I want to be able to say "please respect the clock and play faster". I want to be able to kick players, when they turn inactive and I have a bad feeling about continuing turn-based for whatever reason. And also I'm sometimes a bit slow as well, so I want to know when I should really hurry up and when I played so slow that I should apologize (clock shows me that).

Honestly, I don't care so much so it is not about whether it suits me. It's the people who get kicked for going over the clock and then turn around complaining about being kicked and acting like they did no wrong. So clearly they should go with what suits THEM, no time limit. Can't be kicked if there's no time limit, nothing to complain about!

Just to add my two cents that I don't go round kicking people the second they go over the time limit, only those who persistently do so or those who already time out at their first few turns. If they wrote in the chat that they have to leave for a bit then I'm willing to wait longer, at least until I myself have to go or I want to move on to other tables.

[Silene]

Honestly, I don't care so much so it is not about whether it suits me. It's the people who get kicked for going over the clock and then turn around complaining about being kicked and acting like they did no wrong. So clearly they should go with what suits THEM, no time limit. Can't be kicked if there's no time limit, nothing to complain about!

Just to add my two cents that I don't go round kicking people the second they go over the time limit, only those who persistently do so or those who already time out at their first few turns. If they wrote in the chat that they have to leave for a bit then I'm willing to wait longer, at least until I myself have to go or I want to move on to other tables.

Fair point. I mixed it up in my head with the Hardliner-Opinion that every game should be auto-loss when time is up.

In general I think skipping is ok as long as you are somewhat humane about it. Like the examples you gave. And I think if someone is clearly active and doing as fast as they can, people really don't need to click that skip button as soon as possible on every turn. I agree they are within their rights... but it's somewhat being rude. Surely you're allowed to be that, you just won't make many friends with that (but yes, consistently playing slow, still taking long turns when over time and not even apologize, I also consider rude)
In 3+ player games, please also consider the other persons on the table. Skipping one player harms the other "unguilty party" too.

[Maeves]

I think many good points has been said

-say it in the chat , please go fast or i will expell i don"t have much time
Because you don't know someone calls them, or just stuff that you don't see in the virtual. Sometimes my computer just crash, just like that, in fact most of my running out of time are because of that ^^" so yes I would be angry if someone just skip me without even ask if i'm still here, because all the other turn i play in time and when it's reload I can answer "i'm still here" but cann't play. I can understand that people need to go somewhere after the game , but if not say, i prefer to take few second to think before play even if it's make me run out of time because i think it's fair to play with all my potential.

- the option problem ( i writed about it here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23560) some people just don't look if it is quick table and after are like playing the same as it's slow table. But for that only speak and explain is the only way, and yes it's really annoying that part of the automatic pleasure.

The real question in the end is why? why are they late and why you want to skip

=> you have to go after that => say it in the chat in the beginning in the chat
=> you think as chess => say it in the chat in the beginning
=> you afraid the people isn't anymore there => ask in the chat , then skip

Speaking with people don't hurt but help understand the choice and respect it.

[pjt33]

Can anyone help me understand the culture here? Is it bad etiquette to expel someone who dips into the red as long as they're still playing the game? Are the time controls meant to be understood more as a suggestion or a guideline than as a hard wall? Or is all fair in love and board games and my opponent was just a sore loser? I'd really welcome the thoughts of anyone who's been here longer than I have!

The time controls are a bit more than just a suggestion: if you go into the red then it affects your "karma", even if no-one expels you.

Two-player games are different: if one player is expelled after running out of time, the other wins and it's fairly straightforward (although I'm not 100% certain that it doesn't reduce the ELO transfer). In games with more than two players, all of the players other than the one expelled are considered to have tied for first place. This penalises the person who was winning, so expelling someone who's still actively playing is unlikely to be popular.

[Retired Actuary]

When I see someone starting to run out of time, particularly after one long pause, I’ll message them something like, “you there?” or “yo!” That will often get a response, and I’ll be glad to extend time if people ask for it. Otherwise, it’s the red button.

Though, there was that one time I poked someone to see what was going on, and they responded, “oh, sorry, I was watching the Olympics.” I would have given him the red button right there if I could have.

[shrouded figure]

About games with >3 players, while it is true that someone being kicked messes the game result, the person to blame is not the kicker but the one who timed out. Because the one who timed out is the one who created the situation to begin with.

[Silene]

About games with >3 players, while it is true that someone being kicked messes the game result, the person to blame is not the kicker but the one who timed out. Because the one who timed out is the one who created the situation to begin with.

You could be a bit easy about it still. Especially when the 3rd player involved has been moving rather quick. You could be nice. Of course you don't have to. If I'm the 3rd player, I would blame the slow player for the cancelled game, yes. But I would also realize, that you decided to not be nice (if you skip asap without a word). Up to you to be who you wanna be.

[shrouded figure]

About games with >3 players, while it is true that someone being kicked messes the game result, the person to blame is not the kicker but the one who timed out. Because the one who timed out is the one who created the situation to begin with.

You could be a bit easy about it still. Especially when the 3rd player involved has been moving rather quick. You could be nice. Of course you don't have to. If I'm the 3rd player, I would blame the slow player for the cancelled game, yes. But I would also realize, that you decided to not be nice (if you skip asap without a word). Up to you to be who you wanna be.

Yeah, the ideal situation would be to simply move on and not send angry messages to anyone, as it won't reverse the outcome. My point was that in OP's situation the kicker is the one who gets blamed, which I 100% disagree with because I feel the blame does NOT lie with the kicker. See, OP has done nothing wrong yet that other player caused OP to doubt themselves. If that other player is so angry that they have to direct their anger somewhere, then direct it at the timed-out player not the kicker.

[pjt33]

Yeah, the ideal situation would be to simply move on and not send angry messages to anyone, as it won't reverse the outcome. My point was that in OP's situation the kicker is the one who gets blamed, which I 100% disagree with because I feel the blame does NOT lie with the kicker. See, OP has done nothing wrong yet that other player caused OP to doubt themselves. If that other player is so angry that they have to direct their anger somewhere, then direct it at the timed-out player not the kicker.

Blame does not necessarily have to be apportioned entirely to one person, and the proportions which correspond to different people depend on the context. If someone types in chat "brb, doorbell" and someone else hits the red button as soon as they get to -00:01, I would consider that the kicker is excessively impatient and I would probably red thumb them. If someone just isn't playing or responding to queries in the chat as to whether they're there and the kicker waits until they get to -00:30 before pressing the red button for the first time, I would consider that completely reasonable. Those aren't quite the extremes, but there's certainly a spectrum in between them.

[Songo]

I try really hard not to kick people, because finishing the game is more important. just a few days ago in a 3p tournament game one player had a few hours negative, and the other had 2 days xD
(it was 5 days per player clock

we still managed to finish, and i actually ended up being second in that game, and in the tournament, behind the just-a-few-hours-below-zero player

and that is fine, leaving a game unfinished feels bad


as for live games, i would only do it if they are constantly doing it and i was in a rush or something, like i had 20minutes to player race for the galaxy, which often lasts under 10, and someone was going really slow and hitting the red a lot

but seeing it as a chess clock, specially in async games, is rude imo