why on line gamers are so impatient?

[Trouncing]

There should be a way to counteract this or at least avoid playing with Player 2 in the future.

Player 1 can red thumb Player 2 (I don't want to play with this player again -> personal reasons) to avoid playing with them again in the future.

Player 1 might want to consider giving player 3 a red thumb as well, otherwise this might happen again in a future game with someone else ejecting player 3.

And it should affect both of their Karmas IMO. In an ELO skip, Player 2 receives a net positive ELO and also negatively affects Player 3 karma while penalizing the ELO of Player 1, who only did the crime of playing well. There should be some type of recourse.

[Cile]

There should be a way to counteract this or at least avoid playing with Player 2 in the future.

Player 1 can red thumb Player 2 (I don't want to play with this player again -> personal reasons) to avoid playing with them again in the future.

Player 1 might want to consider giving player 3 a red thumb as well, otherwise this might happen again in a future game with someone else ejecting player 3.

And it should affect both of their Karmas IMO. In an ELO skip, Player 2 receives a net positive ELO and also negatively affects Player 3 karma while penalizing the ELO of Player 1, who only did the crime of playing well. There should be some type of recourse.

Player 1 also gains ELO.

Lets say 3 players sit down to a game and player 3 never takes their first turn. Should player 2 be penalized for booting player 3? How do you propose the system be set up to punish player 2 for kicking 3 late in the game to avoid the loss, but not punish player 2 for kicking player 3 if player 3 has actually abandoned the game?

The punishment is on player 3. If they stayed within their time limit there never would have been the option for Player 2 to boot them.

[Trouncing]

Player 1 can red thumb Player 2 (I don't want to play with this player again -> personal reasons) to avoid playing with them again in the future.

Player 1 might want to consider giving player 3 a red thumb as well, otherwise this might happen again in a future game with someone else ejecting player 3.

And it should affect both of their Karmas IMO. In an ELO skip, Player 2 receives a net positive ELO and also negatively affects Player 3 karma while penalizing the ELO of Player 1, who only did the crime of playing well. There should be some type of recourse.

Player 1 also gains ELO.

Lets say 3 players sit down to a game and player 3 never takes their first turn. Should player 2 be penalized for booting player 3? How do you propose the system be set up to punish player 2 for kicking 3 late in the game to avoid the loss, but not punish player 2 for kicking player 3 if player 3 has actually abandoned the game?

The punishment is on player 3. If they stayed within their time limit there never would have been the option for Player 2 to boot them.

A replay accessed by game ID will easily be able to establish the difference. The same procedure exists for accusations of kingmaking.

In your situation with 0% played literally no one will complain about player 3 being booted. This is a completely different situation than I described, with 99% played, where player 2 did not want to lose, and player 3 was still playing.

[Cile]

And it should affect both of their Karmas IMO. In an ELO skip, Player 2 receives a net positive ELO and also negatively affects Player 3 karma while penalizing the ELO of Player 1, who only did the crime of playing well. There should be some type of recourse.

Player 1 also gains ELO.

Lets say 3 players sit down to a game and player 3 never takes their first turn. Should player 2 be penalized for booting player 3? How do you propose the system be set up to punish player 2 for kicking 3 late in the game to avoid the loss, but not punish player 2 for kicking player 3 if player 3 has actually abandoned the game?

The punishment is on player 3. If they stayed within their time limit there never would have been the option for Player 2 to boot them.

A replay accessed by game ID will easily be able to establish the difference. The same procedure exists for accusations of kingmaking.

In your situation with 0% played literally no one will complain about player 3 being booted. This is a completely different situation than I described, with 99% played, where player 2 did not want to lose, and player 3 was still playing.

So a mod has to check the replay for every game where a player is ejected for running for of time? (Because there will be someone in every game convinced they were winning.) They don't have the manpower for that.

The best they could do is take the power out of player's hands and have the system automatically kick players who run out of time. You don't have to worry about Player 2 trying to save their ELO if it was the system that kicked player 3. I'd be in favour of that.

[Trouncing]

Player 1 also gains ELO.

Lets say 3 players sit down to a game and player 3 never takes their first turn. Should player 2 be penalized for booting player 3? How do you propose the system be set up to punish player 2 for kicking 3 late in the game to avoid the loss, but not punish player 2 for kicking player 3 if player 3 has actually abandoned the game?

The punishment is on player 3. If they stayed within their time limit there never would have been the option for Player 2 to boot them.

A replay accessed by game ID will easily be able to establish the difference. The same procedure exists for accusations of kingmaking.

In your situation with 0% played literally no one will complain about player 3 being booted. This is a completely different situation than I described, with 99% played, where player 2 did not want to lose, and player 3 was still playing.

So a mod has to check the replay for every game where a player is ejected for running for of time? (Because there will be someone in every game convinced they were winning.) They don't have the manpower for that.

The best they could do is take the power out of player's hands and have the system automatically kick players who run out of time. You don't have to worry about Player 2 trying to save their ELO if it was the system that kicked player 3. I'd be in favour of that.

You aren't seeing the problem that is Player 2 cheating Player 1 out of the ELO by way of Player 3. There is already a process for kingmaking so if they have the manpower for that it is the same process for this. Either way no extra stress beyond creating the category.

I am becoming convinced that you simply do not condone any negative action against kicking players, regardless of circumstance. How do you propose to solve the problem that is Player 2 cheating Player 1 out of a win? Let them get away with it?

[Jellby]

You aren't seeing the problem that is Player 2 cheating Player 1 out of the ELO by way of Player 3.

With "cheating", do you mean that Player 3 intentionally runs out of time (either by colluding, or by being a sockpuppet account)? If so, that is covered by other cases (helping another player or using multiple accounts). If it's simply that Player 2 takes advantage of Player 3's action (or inaction), that's not cheating, it's no worse than taking advantage of a bad move (actually, it's better, because Player 1 won't lose anyway).

[Cile]

How do you propose to solve the problem that is Player 2 cheating Player 1 out of a win? Let them get away with it?

I don't propose anything different from the system already in place. Player 1 still gets credited with a win and gains ELO. If the game is 95% completed they only lose out of 5% of ELO, and frankly I don't care about ELO.

Yes, I like to see my ELO increase, but if the system is working properly you will settle into the correct ELO anyway. If it isn't then the problem isn't with player 3 getting kicked. I don't "win" anything for having a higher ELO, it's just a tool for finding opponents of roughly equal skill.

If the system has to be changed in some way (it doesn't) I would propose harsher penalties for players running out of time, such as higher karma loss, and restrictions in creating/joining tables for a period of time regardless of if a player kicks them. If players were less indifferent about "dipping into the red" Player 2 would not have the opportunity to boot them and "rob" Player 1 of the victory.

[Gulchen]

I realize this is just

If the system has to be changed in some way (it doesn't)

, ​ but in that case, I'd suggest that

harsher penalties for players running out of time, such as higher karma loss, and
restrictions in creating/joining tables for a period of time regardless of if a player kicks them.

be just for multi-player games: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ In 2-player games, there is no separate ​ ​ ​ Player 1 ​ , ​ Player 3 ​ ​ ​ for this.

[ChiefPointThief]

How do you propose to solve the problem that is Player 2 cheating Player 1 out of a win? Let them get away with it?

I don't propose anything different from the system already in place. Player 1 still gets credited with a win and gains ELO. If the game is 95% completed they only lose out of 5% of ELO, and frankly I don't care about ELO.

This isn't true. You can meet the winning condtions w/ game being at 99.999% completion. Someone can quit before you finish your turn and you can receive no elo (by no I mean under 0.something)

Yes, I like to see my ELO increase, but if the system is working properly you will settle into the correct ELO anyway. If it isn't then the problem isn't with player 3 getting kicked. I don't "win" anything for having a higher ELO, it's just a tool for finding opponents of roughly equal skill.

This is also incorrect. I'm aware of a player who abuses this tactic. They wait until they are one move away from losing and then they kick the player out of time. They did this to me and when I looked at their game history just going back one month I saw almost a dozen games they used this tactic. They managed to reach world elo leader (650 elo) doing this in a somewhat popular game when realistically they are a 400 elo player at best. On the flip side if you are constantly not being credited for games you were winning but player 2 kicks player 3 and takes your victory away then your elo will be lower and not properly represent your skill level.

Also you do "win" xp for reaching higher levels and top ranks on the leaderboard. If you don't care about things like that that is perfectly fine but others do. Did you see how many people were upset about the summer challenge? In some games that I reached a certain level I've challenged myself to reach a higher level. It isn't about "winning" a prize but a personal goal.

If the system has to be changed in some way (it doesn't) I would propose harsher penalties for players running out of time, such as higher karma loss, and restrictions in creating/joining tables for a period of time regardless of if a player kicks them. If players were less indifferent about "dipping into the red" Player 2 would not have the opportunity to boot them and "rob" Player 1 of the victory.

I care more about me being credited for my win than punishing someone. Maybe overall the topic at hand wouldn't occur as much but it still doesn't fix the problem of player 1 not getting a victory. Would bga be willing to make the penalty severe enough to see a change? It is now 10% first offense and 20% after. Would making it 50% for first time help? I could also see people coming here to complain explaining how they had a busy day yesterday and now their karma is at 0%.

[ChiefPointThief]

The best way I've found to avoid this problem is to not play fast turn based games.

Some time back I was creating fast turn based games daily. In almost all of my games someone fell into the red. After about a week or so when the first batch was finishing I noticed the games I was in last place finished but all the games I was winning the losing player timed out the person over time. It is a lose lose situation. When you are winning someone can time out one of the other players and when you are losing and don't time out someone you just lose. This made me disinterested in playing the remaining games. For the games in early progress that I still had left I even started messaging players asking them to watch their time. Now it felt like I was babysitting people. Overall playing like this isn't fun. I stay away from tournaments w/ fast settings as well. There are some tournaments that can go the duration with like 20% of games actually played to completion.

I can't remember the exact speed of these games. But I don't have this problem at all w/ 4 moves per day or lower.