Out of time but clearly playing

[cigma]

The problem with your suggestion is that it ignores the fact that you share ownership of the premises and one or two of the others want to wait. In this situation the others should be able to hold the door open just as much as you can lock them, no?

I don't think so. When players joined the game, they all accepted and committed to a certain time limit. If one player does not abide by this commitment, any other single player should have the option to end the game. What value would this commitment have otherwise?

[Trouncing]

The problem with your suggestion is that it ignores the fact that you share ownership of the premises and one or two of the others want to wait. In this situation the others should be able to hold the door open just as much as you can lock them, no?

I don't think so. When players joined the game, they all accepted and committed to a certain time limit. If one player does not abide by this commitment, any other single player should have the option to end the game. What value would this commitment have otherwise?

The bystander player or players did not commit to their 70% complete game being stopped early by a single player who wants end the game over a -0:30 clock on a player who wants to complete the game. They only accepted to keep their own timers green and expected to have a full game.

The entire point of having suggestions is improvement. To say the status quo is the reason why it shouldn't be improved is like saying people consent to buggy games because they are currently buggy.

If you were playing monopoly at your local community center with an agreed upon 1 hour, and you were 5 turns from winning at minute 45 and the third best player takes a phone call and has to let a roommate into his flat. It lasts a little longer than expected, about 12 minutes, bringing the total to 57 minutes. The runner up wants to leave, but there is money on the game and you were certain to win. Player 3 calls and is on his way up the stairs to your table and just before he gets into eyesight at minute 16, 61 minutes total player 2 flips the table.
That is the situation I am talking about. Anyone can flip the table but remaining players should be able to say "player 2 will not suffer a single second for a satisfying ending" and no longer play with the player 2s of the world. I would prefer that player 1 and 2 agree, or player 1 could wager that player 3 will finish in a certain amount of time and I made a suggestion for all 3 plus one.

[cigma]

You say: the problem is the player who kicks the one out of time.
I keep saying: the problem is the player getting out of time, because they didn't choose the time setting that matches the time they need to play.

[cigma]

The bystander player or players did not commit to their 70% complete game being stopped early by a single player who wants end the game over a -0:30 clock on a player who wants to complete the game. They only accepted to keep their own timers green and expected to have a full game.

I had to think about this again, because kicking a player doesn't happen so often in my games. But as far as I remember, if one player was kicked, all players can continue the game until the end. The only differences are that any player except the one kicked may leave the game without penalty (and usually the player who kicked them will do that immediately) and the game won't have any effect on your Elo. So there is no reason why "bystander players" can't have a full game. At least that's my experience. But I can see that the game has to be programmed to play the player who has left the game as a dummy and I admit I don't know if this is possible in each game.

[Trouncing]

The bystander player or players did not commit to their 70% complete game being stopped early by a single player who wants end the game over a -0:30 clock on a player who wants to complete the game. They only accepted to keep their own timers green and expected to have a full game.

I had to think about this again, because kicking a player doesn't happen so often in my games. But as far as I remember, if one player was kicked, all players can continue the game until the end. The only differences are that any player except the one kicked may leave the game without penalty (and usually the player who kicked them will do that immediately) and the game won't have any effect on your Elo. So there is no reason why "bystander players" can't have a full game. At least that's my experience. But I can see that the game has to be programmed to play the player who has left the game as a dummy and I admit I don't know if this is possible in each game.

To answer your question, in most games I have never seen a computer dummy worthy of the time lost, nor the competition for the ELO.

In real time and especially in CATAN recently there have been a rash of players who will lose time to the trade timer or take it from others, because most players don't use the preferences to limit how much their timer is drained. By the end of the game it is not uncommon to have 1 or 2 players with a small negative timer somewhere between -0:01 and -0:20. Most players haven't been talking at this point because they didn't want to be hit with the robber, so by the time someone first touches the skip button it can often be too late for the others to speak up and say no. Sometimes a player or players can successfully convince a skipper to stay their hand, but often the lure to save ELO in a game that competitive wins over, and an anonymous participant gets away with something that probably wasn't intended by the developers.

[Indubius]

by cigma » 13 September 2023, 06:58
...
I play a lot of tournament games. One player (usually losing) kicks another player out All. The. Time.

No, most games cannot be continued once one of the players are gone.