Moderation for Things that Are not Against Moderation Policy

[pjt33]

And I understand it's frustrating to players winning a game to have a losing player quit, but they still receive points when a player quits.

Not always. If one player has a lot more Elo, they're now considered to have drawn with two players whom they "should" have beaten, so the negative contribution from that may outweigh the positive contribution from "beating" the player who quit. If that player was winning, they may go from gaining 10 or 20 Elo to gaining nothing.

[dschingis27]

But for the losing player, they are actually being held hostage [...]

But for the winning player, they are basically robbed. You are looking at this absurdely one-sided.

[Meeplelowda]

But for the losing player, they are actually being held hostage [...]

But for the winning player, they are basically robbed. You are looking at this absurdely one-sided.

That's how egocentricism works.

Some people treat online multi-player games like they are playing against computer opponents. Against computers, someone can just quit in the middle of a game and it only affects them. The other players on BGA are not robots, however, and one's actions do affect them.

OP, if you were invited to someone's home to play a game and provided snacks, a beverage, pleasant background music, and good conversation, would you just get up in the middle of a game and walk away from the table just because things aren't going your way? (I'm not talking about a game with an elimination mechanic, obviously) That would be pretty rude. Are you giving your BGA opponents less respect just because you didn't have to take the metro 30 minutes to get there and instead only had to click a few buttons?