Player skipped a third player 94% completion and cost me a win

[Groovenstein]

Why should they settle for a 2nd place when they could (legally) get tied 1st?

Because they would rather win at Wingspan by playing the game of Wingspan than by exploiting the quirks of a website's clock system to the detriment of a person who wasn't even at fault? I get that some people limit their notions of fair play to whatever they can get away with. I don't.

[Meeplelowda]

Do you think the appropriate response is for a player who cannot win the game to skip that player immediately, at the first available opportunity and without even saying “hey everything ok?” or “you mind playing a little faster?” thus depriving the winning player (who wasn't even the person out of time) of the benefits of their inevitable win? Does that fall within what you would consider the right thing to do? Would you feel good about that?

The others are maybe callously, but correctly, just saying in a different way what I said: the person who kicked out the person who ran out of time violated no site rule. There is no kick police to decide when someone can or can't do it. If the button is active, they can do it. By the way, there is a 20 second cooldown before the actual expulsion happens and a warning that it's about to happen, so you can't really kick someone the moment they run out of time.

Now we can debate at length (as has already been done many times in other threads) whether this person was being unsportsmanlike. Sounds like it to me, but that's just my opinion and I'm loath to kick someone near the end of an almost completed game, and I've never kicked someone just to get a tie for a win. That's the problem with 3+ player games. Any action by a player, whether it's quitting the game or expelling someone, doesn't just affect one other person. This is one reason why you can't concede in a 3+ player game.

It is my choice to behave in a way that is consistent with the way I want the world to be, which is people don't kick people out at the end of games merely because they can, because this is closer to what would happen over a real table. Others are OK living in a world where that does happen, and they behave accordingly. It's useless trying to take the moral high ground, although if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

But regardless of what side of that you come down on, the only way to respond to unsportsmanlike conduct that's within the rules is the red thumb.

[Groovenstein]

The others are maybe callously, but correctly, just saying in a different way what I said: the person who kicked out the person who ran out of time violated no site rule. There is no kick police to decide when someone can or can't do it. If the button is active, they can do it. By the way, there is a 20 second cooldown before the actual expulsion happens and a warning that it's about to happen, so you can't really kick someone the moment they run out of time.

Now we can debate at length (as has already been done many times in other threads) whether this person was being unsportsmanlike. Sounds like it to me, but that's just my opinion and I'm loath to kick someone near the end of an almost completed game, and I've never kicked someone just to get a tie for a win. That's the problem with 3+ player games. Any action by a player, whether it's quitting the game or expelling someone, doesn't just affect one other person. This is one reason why you can't concede in a 3+ player game.

But regardless of what side of that you come down on, the only way to respond to unsportsmanlike conduct that's within the rules is the red thumb.

I think you and I are on the same page here. I understand no site rule was violated. And I also understand my only remedy is the red thumb. And upon reflection, I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons for not using forums to call out unsportsmanlike stuff--could easily sprout bullying/flame wars, among other things. Just as there are good reasons for the timing rules--for example, you have to define "too long" somehow or else games could never end if someone splits, you have to give a mechanism of enforcement to the players because the moderation burden on that otherwise would be insane, etc. Every rule has issues that it is meant to address, but because rules by nature have to broad, sometimes they will end up applying to situations they really weren't meant to. "The spirit of the rule/law" as it were. When people were writing the timing rules, I can't imagine, as I'm sure you can't either, that they thought "You know what we need? A way to allow people to escape a loss by taking a win from someone else at the first possible opportunity?" It's just an unfortunate consequence of a rule that overall serves a good purpose.

So, I'm clear that it's legal. Some of the responses seem to be suggesting more than that: that the fact that it's legal means it's ok. Hard disagree there. It's unsportsmanlike, to put it charitably. I've done what I can about it. C'est la vie.

[Ceaseless]

Who is playing slower: someone who uses maximum time every turn, or someone who uses half time every turn but goes over one second on a turn late in the game? Not that that’s precisely what happened here, I’d have to review the tape, but I trust you take my point.

The player who goes over time is the one playing "slower", if that's the term you want to use. The way time was defined was agreed upon by the players before the game began. The penalty was selected by BGA. That is what was agreed upon, and so that is how it is. There are other problems with the point you're trying to bring up, but there's no need to go over them all when this one alone is sufficient.

I'll point out enforcement requires more than going 1 second over. While going overtime at all is enough to cause an instant-loss in some places, BGA also requires an additional delay waiting for them to come back before finally offering a manual choice to kick.

Perhaps more on point, someone who goes 1 mph over the speed limit is speeding, but would you describe that person as driving excessively fast? In most cases, probably not.

This analogy is pointless. There is no "more on point" here. You have not bothered to define "driving excessively fast", there is no context. Whether you're playing at a proper pace on BGA or not is easy to verify, a clock was agreed upon by the players for this very purpose.

But whatever “excessively slow” means, let’s assume for the moment that a person going over a time limit on one turn qualifies. Do you think the appropriate response is for a player who cannot win the game to skip that player immediately, at the first available opportunity and without even saying “hey everything ok?” or “you mind playing a little faster?” thus depriving the winning player (who wasn't even the person out of time) of the benefits of their inevitable win? Does that fall within what you would consider the right thing to do? Would you feel good about that?

The appropriate response is determined by the players that get a say. If all remaining players agree to wait, then that's the correct response. If one player says to kick, that's the correct response. That's their right, as defined by BGA. If I disagree with the one given the option to kick, I'm in the wrong. What they say goes, my call doesn't matter there.

Personally, I can be pretty generous with the clock if I think a player isn't messing with me. I'll probably let them continue. Now, if I think they'll make a big deal out of me kicking them, then I'll throw that all out the window and kick them as soon as I can. I have no patience for that attitude. When it's my call, what I say goes, and that's the correct decision.

I also have no sympathy for anyone that chose to play a game with more than 2 players then complain when that blows up in their face. Adding more players to a game has always been a way to reduce the fairness of the game. Play with more than 2 players and you will be punished for the mistakes of other players. That's just how it is.

It’s bizarre to me, sad really, that the comments thus far have a lot to direct at a person who committed the apparently unpardonable sin of—we don’t even know, thinking too long, having a coughing fit, a pressing issue with their kid, a temporarily choppy internet connection?—going a second over on a clock, and nothing about someone who sleazebagged their way out of an L.

So it goes, I guess.

A player went over time, and got hit for it, losing the game, some rating, and some reputation points. Which requires more than 1 second overtime, as noted earlier. A minor BGA issue got met with a minor BGA punishment. Everyone else got stuck dealing with someone who timed out, and got their game ended early, which is awkward for those that were hoping for a better outcome. The one making a big deal out of it is you.
If someone has an unexpected IRL issue, the BGA "punishment" is barely anything. It's not like they're going out of their way to do something serious. A player can shrug it off as an uncommon event, unless they're planning on regularly having these sorts of issues.

[Groovenstein]

...

I get that some people limit their notions of fair play to whatever they can get away with. I don't.

[Suoivax]

...

I get that some people limit their notions of fair play to whatever they can get away with. I don't.

So enforcing agreed upon rules is considered "getting away with" something?

[Jellby]

Who is playing slower: someone who uses maximum time every turn, or someone who uses half time every turn but goes over one second on a turn late in the game?

It's not a speed contest. It's a simple thing: you're allowed to take X time per turn, but no more. If you take X-1 time every turn, you're doing fine. Maybe you're annoying others, but they agreed to play with that setting, so they have nothing to complain about. If you play instantly every turn but take X+1 in one turn, you broke the rules and you can be expelled. Maybe you had a good reason to to take longer, but you agreed to play with that setting.

[Groovenstein]

Who is playing slower: someone who uses maximum time every turn, or someone who uses half time every turn but goes over one second on a turn late in the game?

It's not a speed contest. It's a simple thing: you're allowed to take X time per turn, but no more. If you take X-1 time every turn, you're doing fine. Maybe you're annoying others, but they agreed to play with that setting, so they have nothing to complain about. If you play instantly every turn but take X+1 in one turn, you broke the rules and you can be expelled. Maybe you had a good reason to to take longer, but you agreed to play with that setting.

I started this thread with a question. It was answered. So for me, this discussion has run its course. But you gave me a thoughtful reply, so I will offer one more reply, and you may take the last word if you would like.

I agree that what this person did was allowed. I also agree that it was within the agreed-upon settings. I simply do not agree that something is honorable or sportsmanlike or should be done merely because it is allowed.

I want to win at Wingspan by playing Wingspan. I do not want to win at Wingspan by playing “exploit timer settings to win a game I would otherwise lose.” Timer settings serve a number of purposes: for one, preventing players from avoiding losses by abandoning a game. In some cases, preventing players from getting a genuine competitive advantage. Keeping the overall time of games to a reasonable level. Many others, I’m sure. But I find it, shall we say, unlikely, that when BGA decided to add a timer function, they thought, “You know why we really need timers? So people who are about to lose can avoid their loss.” (A funny thought, when one of the reasons to have a timer is to prevent people from avoiding losses by abandoning.)

This particular case presents an especially weak argument for skipping. The person skipping had no other way to win. The person winning was not the offending player. The game was nearly over. It was the first time violation in the game. Nothing could change the result. No competitive advantage was gained. And the person skipping almost certainly knew all this—this was a 400+ elo player who used the skip option immediately when the clock hit 0.

No one is arguing they didn’t have the right to do it, just as, I’m sure, no one is arguing that I don’t have the right to think it was weak sauce. But at bottom, this discussion really isn’t about what people have the right to do, but what is right to do.

Last word is yours, friend. Cheers.

[FrankJones]

Very unsportsmanlike play by the person who did the skipping. I wish there were a list of such players so those of us who care about sportsmanship could avoid them altogether.

But there isn't. My personal remedy? I avoid playing multiplayer games. I wish there were a way to just continue the game without the skipped player - but, that would not function properly in some games. So, there is no ideal solution.

[Kakapogoglu]

This is exactly the kind of situation where two things come into play : strict application of the rules (that we accept indeed, but do we have another choice if we want to play ?), and respect / fair play. If a player takes too long and frequently exceeds their time limit in round 1, then yes, after a while, they can be kicked out without hesitation. If there are only two moves left in the entire game, I'm sorry, but the guy who was about to lose saved his skin for his own ELO. That's the application of the rules, but not fair play at all. Rules are there to provide a framework, but sometimes they can be reshaped and applied intelligently and respectfully.

It reminds me of a four-player match I played a while ago, turn-based. The other three players (whom I didn't choose) were Asian and therefore played in a similar time zone. As for me (European), when my turn came, it was morning in Asia and night in Europe. Despite I was active and played every day, several hours would logically pass before I could wake up and play. With the multiple activations of hummingbirds, hunting or egg powers, I eventually went over my time limit in round 4. I was easily winning the game by more than 20 points, and at the first opportunity, they didn't hesitate to kick me out. In this situation, whether it happens to me or someone else, it's unfair. That kind of things wouldn't come in mind if we played the real physical game : you have two moves left, you finish the game, period.