Player quit to steal a victory from me

[Sir Dom the Great]

I just had a game where I was winning comprehensively (It's a Wonderful World). It was a three player table and we were on the very last action, literally the last and the player who had also spent the game massively behind time (somewhat okay - it happens) completed most of the last turn and rather than just click confirm, left the game.

As a result I got a default victory with the other player...

I go to report him for such an egregious display of poor etiquette but you can't!!!

I'm so frustrated! Has anyone else had something happen like that? Surely that can't be okay!

[RazorOz]

Happens all the time. Red thumb the player who quit is the obvious first step. It is very frustrating, I don't know It's A Wonderful World, I have proposed before that games where someone quitting would have minimal effect on the end result, the game should play on, but I don't know if it's possible for It's A Wonderful World.

You can set reputation limits to the max too, I also untick Beginners/Apprentices because in my experience like 80% of the quitters are from those groups. It's still not bulletproof though, a lot is game dependent, some games are a lot more prone to quitters than others, eg. I never see anyone quit at Arnak, but at Heat it's a big problem that has led to me having a block list that must be in the 100s. I don't know It's A Wonderful World to know if this sort of behaviour is rare there, or if it's common place.

[RobertBr]

I'm so frustrated! Has anyone else had something happen like that? Surely that can't be okay!

Of course its okay, why would you think it wasn't? (and are you sure it wasn't the other player timing out someone, which is also allowed).

Now, if you had come to complain about the way the system handles a player being clocked in multi-player games that would be totally different. Yes, it doesn't work. But, there has never been a consensus on how the system should handle multi-player games in which one player is clocked. Its actually quite hard to solve.

But its the system, not the players, which is at fault.

[RazorOz]

Of course its okay, why would you think it wasn't? (and are you sure it wasn't the other player timing out someone, which is also allowed).

Now, if you had come to complain about the way the system handles a player being clocked in multi-player games that would be totally different. Yes, it doesn't work. But, there has never been a consensus on how the system should handle multi-player games in which one player is clocked. Its actually quite hard to solve.

But its the system, not the players, which is at fault.

Sorry, but this is total drivel. If you seriously think it's ok etiquette to play a game for an hour then quit on the last turn when you've lost then you're just plain wrong, anyone doing this is a blight to the community. I assume you're ok with someone in real life playing a game to the end then before the last turn just swiping the board, and storming out, because it's the same thing, and nobody would want to play with that player either.

[RobertBr]

... someone in real life playing a game to the end then before the last turn just swiping the board, and storming out ...

Since that is not in any way comparable with someone quitting on BGA it is a good example of drivel - comparisons between BGA and physical play need to actually be equivalent. If they are descriptions of completely different activities then they are of no value. Presumably it is because you don't understand what is happening that you are incorrectly evaluating the etiquette.

To be clear, the equivalent of what you describe on BGA would be to quit a game just before it finished, then immediately start hacking the BGA site and collapse the software architecture associated with that game, creating a massive mess that inconvenienced everyone playing that would take some time to sort out. That would be poor etiquette, and probably also a breach of the terms and conditions that would likely get someone banned.

What the OP actually described (if they correctly described what happened, and it is possible they misunderstood someone being skipped) does have a real world equivalent. It would be someone getting up from a game near the end and saying "I have to leave now, you've won this one". Normal, well adjusted, people would see that as quite within the bounds of good behaviour. They might wonder why a further explanation wasn't offered, like a family emergency, but given the substantial communication barriers internet play creates that is hardly applicable here.

The point is that the opponent the OP was playing against conceded the victory, and therefore it absolutely was within the bounds of normal gaming etiquette to leave. The problem is that the site does not handle such actions well with multiplayer games. In real life the player would presumably agree a resolution with the other players - on BGA they have no choice, the site makes that decision for them. But since the site clearly permits that option it is acceptable for someone to do it, and does not constitute poor etiquette.

[Sir Dom the Great]

Just to clarify, when I say they quit at the last possible moment, I mean that absolutely literally. All they had to do was click one final button to end the game properly, instead they chose to quit. They even completed most of their final action!

[Cile]

. It would be someone getting up from a game near the end and saying "I have to leave now, you've won this one".

Seeing as we're being pedantic here, the real world equivalent would be if you were at a group the required you to win the game a couple time before you could go sit at the "competitive table" and one of the players takes his last move then just gets up and storms off, refusing to sign your card that you've won. Because most real life gaming situations do not have a ranking system, and a threshold you need to overcome to be able to sit at the table.

I see that OP currently has an ELO of 57 in It's a Wonderful World, and you require an ELO of at least 100 to play in the arena. I know I personally prefer to play games in the Arena because I am far less likely to encounter players who can't keep up with the time limits of the table. If I were playing a new game and a sore loser abandoned it at the end denying me from hitting the 100 ELO threshold I would be frustrated as well, because those are exactly the type of players I am trying to avoid by playing in the Arena and now I can't get into the Arena to avoid them.

This is not someone conceding the game. When you concede you don't play out your turn, and if you have played out your final turn it's faster to click "end turn" then abandon the game. This is poor sportsmanship plain and simple. Unfortunately for OP you can't report someone for poor sportsmanship and all you can do is give them a red thumb and hope you don't encounter another person like them.

[RazorOz]

... someone in real life playing a game to the end then before the last turn just swiping the board, and storming out ...

Since that is not in any way comparable with someone quitting on BGA it is a good example of drivel - comparisons between BGA and physical play need to actually be equivalent. If they are descriptions of completely different activities then they are of no value. Presumably it is because you don't understand what is happening that you are incorrectly evaluating the etiquette.

To be clear, the equivalent of what you describe on BGA would be to quit a game just before it finished, then immediately start hacking the BGA site and collapse the software architecture associated with that game, creating a massive mess that inconvenienced everyone playing that would take some time to sort out. That would be poor etiquette, and probably also a breach of the terms and conditions that would likely get someone banned.

What the OP actually described (if they correctly described what happened, and it is possible they misunderstood someone being skipped) does have a real world equivalent. It would be someone getting up from a game near the end and saying "I have to leave now, you've won this one". Normal, well adjusted, people would see that as quite within the bounds of good behaviour. They might wonder why a further explanation wasn't offered, like a family emergency, but given the substantial communication barriers internet play creates that is hardly applicable here.

The point is that the opponent the OP was playing against conceded the victory, and therefore it absolutely was within the bounds of normal gaming etiquette to leave. The problem is that the site does not handle such actions well with multiplayer games. In real life the player would presumably agree a resolution with the other players - on BGA they have no choice, the site makes that decision for them. But since the site clearly permits that option it is acceptable for someone to do it, and does not constitute poor etiquette.

You are the one incorrectly evaluating. They said someone played until the last turn then either just disappeared or quit, and didn't complete the game.

No, it wouldn't, swiping the table is the perfect analogy, because it ruins the game for just the players in your game. It doesn't ruin the game for the people playing 5 tables over like your analogy of hacking the site does by affecting everyone, again you're one evaluating things incorrectly.

Wrong again, what you are describing would be conceding the game, which does exist at many games, they didn't concede the game, so this analogy is incorrect.

It's really funny you say I'm misevaluating the situation when you're going on about someone being skipped, someone conceding, nowhere in the OP did either of these things get mentioned. No-one of any moral fibre would think it's ok to get to the last turn of the game then just quit the game so it's incomplete, and this is why the swiping the table analogy does fit, by swiping the table you prevent a result, which is the same you are doing by quitting.

To be clear the site does punish such actions, you can argue the punishments aren't severe enough, but they are not condoning such actions like you are hinting at.

[Jellby]

It doesn't "ruin the game", it just messes up with the rankings and statistics. But surely, if you spent one hour playing the game, you enjoyed that hour and whatever the player does doesn't change it?

In any case, the behaviour is not nice, but you better just accept it, red-thumb if you want, and move on. The player who quit got a karma penalty, hopefully they won't do it again. Getting mad because you got one less victory will get you nowhere.

[RazorOz]

It doesn't "ruin the game", it just messes up with the rankings and statistics. But surely, if you spent one hour playing the game, you enjoyed that hour and whatever the player does doesn't change it?

In any case, the behaviour is not nice, but you better just accept it, red-thumb if you want, and move on. The player who quit got a karma penalty, hopefully they won't do it again. Getting mad because you got one less victory will get you nowhere.

I would argue it does ruin the game, albeit of course it's subjective. There's a point to the idea that if you spent one hour playing the game, you might have enjoyed playing for that hour, but at the same time it's deeply unsatisfying when a game doesn't come to a proper conclusion, which is why I said the analogy about someone swiping the board at the end of the game in real life.

Someone also mentioned Arena, something that is designed to be more of a competitive environment, and this principle is also true of tournaments. They were right when they said this happens less in Arena, a big part of that is probably what I touched upon that Beginners/Apprentices can't play Arena by design, but it still happens, and when it does it's even more deeply unsatisfying, because when your win gets stolen from you like this, you aren't getting that win/those points back (and to be clear I know the system works a bit better for 2 player games, but the OP is referring to multi-player games), as I would assume we all agree that our time is finite, so the time playing that game is effectively wasted. Indeed that gets into why such actions are poor etiquette to begin with, as by doing this, what you are really doing is valuing your time more than others, which is clearly poor behaviour in any area of life.