Make kicking players a group decision

[Grimwold]

Since kicking someone often ruins the game for everyone at the table, it should definitely be a group decision!

Then make 'someone quitting a game' a group decision, since it's the cause of the ruined game.
Not sure how to implement this.

In my opinion, kicking somebody is as bad as quitting since you end up with the same result: a game that cannot be ended properly. Hence, I will redthumb kickers just as much as quitters.

That is your opinion, mine is not to throw the stone at someone leaving AFTER the game is ruined by someone quitting.

I just don't get the haste some/many people here seem to have. It's a game, it should be enjoyed.

I don't get it ... You said you don't get it, then you explain why people do it : It's a game, it should be enjoyed.
If I want to enjoyed watching a screen doing nothing, I watch a movie, not a boardgame. Boardgames are enjoyable when you play them.

Relax! I understand getting annoyed if there's analysis paralysis in real-time games, but if someone doesn't play the way you like (too aggressive, too slow, too whatever) just finish the game and don't play with them another time.

If someone play a game in a way I don't like it ... well so be it ... As long as it is within the rules and not a bug exploit. I have nothing to say.

If it's a turn-based game though .... why would you even care if it's a few hours or days later that you make your next move?

You answered your question yourself above : "It's a game, it should be enjoyed."
If the person is not able to use a joker, if the person is not even able to write a "sry emergency, will come back in 2 days max" because they doesn't know Time Jokers exist. That is a lack of respect. What is enjoyable about being disrespected.
If someone doesn't respect me, why I should let them waste my time ?

What about people who can only play during a specific period ? Is this OK to ruin his game without a basic explanation ?


Sorry, if someone quit, there is nothing to assume they will be back.

[RazorOz]

That wouldn't solve anything imo. The whole point of my issue is game after game gets ruined because someone is over by just a bit when they could have literally just been about to log on and make their move! If you were then able to abandon without penalty, the game would still be ruined because someone got impatient after someone else ran over by one minute!

The entire point is I get fed up of having to quit games for the sake of an hour because other people don't want to try to give the benefit of the doubt! When a player's turn gets skipped, the person skipping the turn ruins the game for people like me!

If you care that much about people taking their turns on time, play in real time and not turn based!

While I don't expel players very often, there are some counter points. Let's say I'm going on holiday in 2 weeks, and want all my turn based games done by then, someone slowing the game down a lot can then put me in a sticky position if the game significantly overruns. There's also another issue I've run into, that players can use a player in the red to their advantage. So I've been in games before where someone will have been in the red for the last 10 turns, but then on the last turn when player C now realises they've lost they time them out to void the game. This is problematic, because it effectively means by continuing the game I could never win, I could only lose or void.

If your concern is about the game being void, you can seek/hope they bring in the new feature for whatever game you are playing where the game plays to the conclusion regardless of someone leaving the game or not. This is the best solution for games not totally ruined by a player dropping out, because it stops any idea of abusing the system, and also makes the most egregious examples of someone quitting either after another player has already won or effectively won irrelevant. I don't know who the decision is up to though for each game, or what BGA's plans are to roll this out to more games.

[nik592]

If it's a turn-based game though .... why would you even care if it's a few hours or days later that you make your next move?

Hours, usually no. Days, often times yes. I find that a game that only gets a turn every few days loses flow and becomes less enjoyable to play ("what was I doing in this game again?"). Disappearing from a game that's 3-4 turns per day for days at a time is pretty disrespectful (unless it's a genuine emergency, which should be pretty infrequent) - how long should I wait before I decide you're not coming back?

And I say this as someone who very rarely boots players from any game, but someone disappearing for days is where I draw my line. You may draw yours elsewhere. Ultimately though, I don't think player skipping needs to be unanimous in regular play - if you don't like the time settings, play friendly and there are none.

[Crystal1501]

Since kicking someone often ruins the game for everyone at the table, it should definitely be a group decision!

In my opinion, kicking somebody is as bad as quitting since you end up with the same result: a game that cannot be ended properly. Hence, I will redthumb kickers just as much as quitters.

I just don't get the haste some/many people here seem to have. It's a game, it should be enjoyed. Relax! I understand getting annoyed if there's analysis paralysis in real-time games, but if someone doesn't play the way you like (too aggressive, too slow, too whatever) just finish the game and don't play with them another time. If it's a turn-based game though .... why would you even care if it's a few hours or days later that you make your next move?

Thank you! This was exactly the entire point I was trying to make!

[Crystal1501]

While I don't expel players very often, there are some counter points. Let's say I'm going on holiday in 2 weeks, and want all my turn based games done by then, someone slowing the game down a lot can then put me in a sticky position if the game significantly overruns.

You actually make a very good point, this is one angle I haven't considered... as it just so happens, I'm going on holiday in October, and I want to also have my games cleared. The only thing I will point out is I did suggest a time period where, if a player has run over by less than 6 hours, it's a group decision, however if it's been run over by more than 6 hours only one player needs to expel. 6 hours is just an example, and this suggestion is in my original post, but I appreciate you bringing up a valid point which isn't just a version of 'I don't want to wait for slowpokes!'

[Arjuna92]

I think what in general is needed is pure and simple: communication.

Need to finish games because of vacation? Tell the others and ask to get the game done by then.
Losing interest because it's taking too long? At some point it's okay to tell the others and ask that they play more quickly. You can ask whether the others are also losing interest and whether the game should just be abandoned by the group as a whole.
Taking too long because it's difficult to fit into your life? You can also communicate and apologise.

And that's what the OP's suggestion is also about and why I support it. Communicating at the table how you are going to proceed rather than making unilateral decisions.

By the way: how would people feel about a feature request that once somebody is out of a game (quitting or having been kicked) another player could replace them and continue playing?

[Crystal1501]

A game bugged out on me. Nothing I technically couldn't push through (I just wasn't able to cancel a move), however I don't do well when things don't go to plan. I was supposed to be able to cancel but game wouldn't let me. I tried to propose to abandon and explained in chat why. Someone wasn't accepting the abandon, and I messaged him directly. He told me at that point that he hadn't seen the group chat, and even proposed the abandon himself when it would have been my third attempt to get an abandon!

Simple communication solved my problem!

[Cile]

I think what in general is needed is pure and simple: communication.

Need to finish games because of vacation? Tell the others and ask to get the game done by then.
Losing interest because it's taking too long? At some point it's okay to tell the others and ask that they play more quickly. You can ask whether the others are also losing interest and whether the game should just be abandoned by the group as a whole.

This is shifting the blame to the people playing within the rules set by the table before they joined the game.
I almost exclusively play turn based, and I have never had someone communicate why they were playing slowly and running out of time. If they gave an apology and/or a reason I would be more patient but that has never occurred.
I have had games where a player is in the red but took their turn before they got kicked and I communicated to the table asking to abandon the game because I will kick them if I see them in the red, and there has still been no communication from the player going over time.

This conversation is also ignoring the fact that the time bank exists and is very generous. A 1 move/day game has a 3 day time bank. As long as you log into the site once a day to check if it's your turn it's impossible to run out of time. Even if you skip a day on occasion you'll still be fine. I refuse to play 1 turn/day games anymore because I have had far too many games where it is obvious within the first 2 days that that is too much of a commitment for one of the players but it takes a week or two for their time bank to run out and me to kick them so I can move on to another game with someone that will respect the time limits of the table. (And yes, I do communicate "please be mindful of the time limits of the table, as I will not stay in a game with someone with their time in the red." Surprise surprise, no communication back or change in behavior.)

I have in the past made a mental note that the chronically slow player is going to run out of time at 3:07pm so I log in at 3:07 pm on order to kick them from the game so that I can leave without penalty. They are not "1 minute over time", they are "1minute + their entire time bank (over 24 hours) over time". If I could set the table at creation to "automatically boot players who run out of time" I would happily do so then players would know the expectations when they join. (Playing within your turn time should be the expectation anyway but here we are...)

I like to give full attention to the games that I am playing, so typically I only have 2 or 3 games going at a time and never duplicate games at the same time. I am not going to let 33%-50% of my games be monopolized by someone who can't pay attention to the turn times because someone else at the table has 100 games going at once so they don't care.

The player playing slow for the table is the one being rude and I should not be forced to stay at the table when I joined a game with the time limits I wanted to follow and they are ignoring them. If you think they should be given more of a grace period then play at 1turn / 2days instead of 1, the grace period is built into the turn timer + time bank.

[Crystal1501]

I have in the past made a mental note that the chronically slow player is going to run out of time at 3:07pm so I log in at 3:07 pm on order to kick them from the game so that I can leave without penalty. They are not "1 minute over time", they are "1minute + their entire time bank (over 24 hours) over time". If I could set the table at creation to "automatically boot players who run out of time" I would happily do so then players would know the expectations when they join. (Playing within your turn time should be the expectation anyway but here we are...)

I think you may have just come up with a fair compromise... if my suggestion were put in place, then this option would satisfy those who can't wait for even one minute over the allotted time!

Also, fwiw, I keep seeing the same argument about playing slower games or playing with friendly mode only... that's super unrealistic, do you all have any idea how few and far between those kinds of games are, especially friendly mode ones?

[buu441]

I have in the past made a mental note that the chronically slow player is going to run out of time at 3:07pm so I log in at 3:07 pm on order to kick them from the game so that I can leave without penalty. They are not "1 minute over time", they are "1minute + their entire time bank (over 24 hours) over time". If I could set the table at creation to "automatically boot players who run out of time" I would happily do so then players would know the expectations when they join. (Playing within your turn time should be the expectation anyway but here we are...)

I think you may have just come up with a fair compromise... if my suggestion were put in place, then this option would satisfy those who can't wait for even one minute over the allotted time!

Also, fwiw, I keep seeing the same argument about playing slower games or playing with friendly mode only... that's super unrealistic, do you all have any idea how few and far between those kinds of games are, especially friendly mode ones?

Why is it acceptable for slow players to go ruin fast paced games just because it takes them longer to find games more suitable for their speed?

Auto booting really should be the way, since a decent part of the community seems very adamant about vilifying the people who kick instead of the ones who run out of time.