Community consensus / unwritten rules about blocking?

[speedypuzzlement]

I'm mostly category #3 and very rarely category #5. Anyone is welcome to try and block me. If I do block you, my apologies - either the route is optimal for my overall plan (balancing points earned / turns used / longest continuous path / my hand's train cards) or I happened to spot the TTR equivalent of an early forced mating sequence*.

*As an example: If I've claimed "New Orleans-Miami" and "Atlanta-Miami" as part of my overall plan, I will play "Charleston-Miami" if an opponent connects to Charleston and I can rule out Atlanta as an unfulfilled destination, as Miami is the only other reason to visit Charleston in the base game.

[peters1050]

I'm OK with blocking to win, but will generally only block if it is on my way to a destination. BUT recently played a game for 2 where the other guy took 2 low point routes and spent the entire game blocking me. Only played routes to block me. As a result he "won" because I had bigger negative routes than he did. I don't consider that winning. I consider that being obnoxious.

[euklid314]

I'm OK with blocking to win, but will generally only block if it is on my way to a destination. BUT recently played a game for 2 where the other guy took 2 low point routes and spent the entire game blocking me. Only played routes to block me. As a result he "won" because I had bigger negative routes than he did. I don't consider that winning. I consider that being obnoxious.

Since you seem to be talking about game #489352381:
You opponent only had small tickets (4+7+8) and he kept all three of them and fulfilled them all. Furthermore he took longest road. Thus it is incorrect to write that he only blocked you or only won because of bigger negative points. He had no negative points at all (!) but ended with over 100 points despite his trash tickets.

It is true, however, that he spent three of his moves blocking you. But he left you lots of open connectors. Since you clearly signalled him which routes you liked and which not so much (by drawing openly and thus showing him your hand cards) he took the easier routes away from you such that you had to play flexible and take the more difficult routes that were left - which you did not do.

[Mr_Magic]

That is playing the game perfectly.

[ExaltedAngel]

will generally only block if it is on my way to a destination

That's not even blocking

[Hermione14]

I try not to block and I don't think it's very nice when other people try to block me.

[Celieboo]

People who block for no reason at all annoy me immensely. It makes me not want to play the game. I have quit a few times and BGA punishes you when you quit. The system is set up badly for folks who want to play for enjoyment rather win at all costs.

[Celieboo]

I'm OK with blocking to win, but will generally only block if it is on my way to a destination. BUT recently played a game for 2 where the other guy took 2 low point routes and spent the entire game blocking me. Only played routes to block me. As a result he "won" because I had bigger negative routes than he did. I don't consider that winning. I consider that being obnoxious.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are a lot of obnoxious players out there.

[brvheart1]

Yeah, put me in the #1 category. I don't like cat 6 people who play to win at all costs. Playing should be fun!

[Ceaseless]

This thread is still going? lol

Obviously, the answer is that there's nothing wrong with blocking. Whether a player blocks or not is their decision. If you want to try house rules, sort that out with players you know in unrated tables. If you try to implement any kind of no blocking rules in rated get your toxic cheating out of here, BGA doesn't need that nonsense.