Triple-punishment after browser crash - ideas to mitigate punishment for tech issues

[Strode]

But how would anyone know that the tech issue actually occurred? If you want leniency on this, fine, but accept the fact that it will mean no more time limits. Because anyone who runs out of time can blame it on a tech issue.

[Jest Phulin]

Let me see if I can rephrase the original post in this topic.

--------
Something happened that, while I don't believe was my fault, was my responsibility. (I could have a more stable browser and/or more stable internet service provider, but I don't.) This thing that happened is indistinguishable to BGA servers from rage quitting if the initial game state is not to my liking.

The punishment for this thing that happened I think is too severe, and I don't think it should apply to me, even though this punishment is clearly stated in several parts of this website. I think the punishment should be changed, rather than me changing my behavior (to such options as slower games or even turn-based) for a month.

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

At least, that's how I read the original post. What did I get wrong, if anything?

[Rukus McUallas]

But how would anyone know that the tech issue actually occurred? If you want leniency on this, fine, but accept the fact that it will mean no more time limits. Because anyone who runs out of time can blame it on a tech issue.

Sure, tech issues and quitting are hard to distinguish. But there are indicators. The simplest one would be, if somebody is in the lead. Just as an example. Another factor could be frequency (related to total number of plays for example). Mitigation will not lead to the end of time limits or other horror scenarios if done reasonably.

[Rukus McUallas]

Let me see if I can rephrase the original post in this topic.

--------
Something happened that, while I don't believe was my fault, was my responsibility. (I could have a more stable browser and/or more stable internet service provider, but I don't.) This thing that happened is indistinguishable to BGA servers from rage quitting if the initial game state is not to my liking.

The punishment for this thing that happened I think is too severe, and I don't think it should apply to me, even though this punishment is clearly stated in several parts of this website. I think the punishment should be changed, rather than me changing my behavior (to such options as slower games or even turn-based) for a month.

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

At least, that's how I read the original post. What did I get wrong, if anything?

If you don't want to have a productive discussion, fine. But there's no reason for not too well disguised digs that are borderline offensive.

[Jest Phulin]

Sure, tech issues and quitting are hard to distinguish. But there are indicators. The simplest one would be, if somebody is in the lead.

Wait, wasn't the argument about this happening when the game started, and thus nobody is in the lead? How specifically can BGA servers tell the difference? Remember, the rule needs to be able to be applied to all games, not be game-specific.

[Jest Phulin]

Let me see if I can rephrase the original post in this topic.

At least, that's how I read the original post. What did I get wrong, if anything?

If you don't want to have a productive discussion, fine. But there's no reason for not too well disguised digs that are borderline offensive.

So, I'm assuming I got everything right as there was no comment on the argument, only the method.

[Rukus McUallas]

Sure, tech issues and quitting are hard to distinguish. But there are indicators. The simplest one would be, if somebody is in the lead.

Wait, wasn't the argument about this happening when the game started, and thus nobody is in the lead? How specifically can BGA servers tell the difference? Remember, the rule needs to be able to be applied to all games, not be game-specific.

You're trying hard to misread my posts ... this is one example for one possible situation. Tech issues can happen all the time during a game or even when a person is not even logged in.

[Rukus McUallas]

Let me see if I can rephrase the original post in this topic.

At least, that's how I read the original post. What did I get wrong, if anything?

If you don't want to have a productive discussion, fine. But there's no reason for not too well disguised digs that are borderline offensive.

So, I'm assuming I got everything right as there was no comment on the argument, only the method.

Yes, I started this thread, after it happened to me. Are you happy for your wannabe gotcha moment? I experienced a problem and my common sense told me that this can happen to others as well. This then led me to thinking about a possible solution, not only for me, but for others as well.

If you are willing to contribute to a solution, do it. I'm done wasting my time with your provocations.

[Jest Phulin]

These last two posts are again attacks on the method of argument, not on the argument itself. There was a suggestion to change the system. I am pointing out that this change has issues, including that it is a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist.

One major issue is how to prevent players from quitting without penalty. How specifically are the BGA servers supposed to distinguish between a technical issue and an intentional disconnect?

[RedAlert39]

I get that it * to lose a game because of technical issues, but ultimately it's your responsibility to manage them and deal with the consequences. Not BGA's (via more lenient punishments) or other players' (by penalizing them for booting you). You need to respect the time of the people you've started a game with, either by bringing a reliable setup to play the game with, or by accepting the penalty when you don't.

*moderator edit: please be aware that this is a family-friendly platform and cursing is not allowed.