What to do about someone who's almost untouchable on ELO board?

[FrankJones]

I have a game going right now that is excruciating. My opponent logs in a few times a day, but usually does not make a move. Didn't respond to my greeting when the game started. This player has had 3 forfeits and q14 time violations in recent games.

I have already given a red thumb because this is nonsense. If this player goes 0:01 into the red, I will instantly forfeit him, or her.

Since you've helpfully given enough information to uniquely identify this player,

Which is done constantly in forums but yet him and others wanted to make a big deal about it in the wrldtrvlr thread

I failed to realize I was giving enough information to identify a specific player. That's on me, my fault.

But I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was merely using an example to further illustrate what Meeplelowda was talking about. I was giving an example of a situation in which, IF the player ran out of clock, I wouldn't be in much of a mood to give leeway. At the moment, none of my opponents have gone into negative or done anything wrong.

I'm still allowed to give a red thumb if I see that the player(s) have a history of time forfeits and clock violations, and also do not respond to a greeting in the chat when the game starts. The red thumb s my way of trying to avoid being in a time forfeit situation in the first place.

The filters are not helpful. Restricting players below 85% is meaningless. I wish BGA had a different filter: "block players from joining who have more than 1 time forfeit or more than 3 clock violations in the recent history".

Every opponent I've had who has ever gone into the red one time has such a history, whereas the players who have "0 and 0" showing in the profile do not go into the red on time. These players typically also have a lot of games in progress, indicating playing too many games to keep up with. Again, I'd rather avoid such players so that I don't run into a clock issue in the first place.

Again - Meeplelowda was giving a hypothetical situation in which leeway is unlikely to be granted, and I was merely agreeing.

[tbhp]

If how they are playing causes them to run out of time, by definition they doing something wrong. Maybe they should spend less time waiting for "inspiration" and just move.

No they shouldn't, that's the point. Taking your time to play is in the spirit of playing turn based. If they run out of time, then at this point they may get punished. But it makes no sense to think they should be judged more harshly than anyone else who runs out of time.

And once again you are going on as if you are the unique arbiter of what is just and moral like you have in other threads. So I'm going to do us both a favor and block your posts now.

I have no qualms calling out behaviors that seem wrong to me, as everyone should. If you truly believe you are right, then you should stay in a discussion and argue your side, not leave it.

[tbhp]

4) But, if I see the player has been logging in and making moves in other games, but choosing not to make moves in the game against me, I won't be in a mood to grant leeway if the timer goes into the red.

That's the behavior I take issue with. They are perfectly within their right to take the time they need to play, so to hold it against them personally seems immature and entitled.

Their playstyle may be frustrating, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be judged for it. We should only judge people who do things that are wrong, not people who do things they are allowed to do that may also happen to annoy us. That's not a good way to treat people.

It's surprising considering our discussions that you are on this side of the argument, since you seem to be a tolerant person in general.

[FrankJones]

4) But, if I see the player has been logging in and making moves in other games, but choosing not to make moves in the game against me, I won't be in a mood to grant leeway if the timer goes into the red.

That's the behavior I take issue with. They are perfectly within their right to take the time they need to play, so to hold it against them personally seems immature and entitled.

Their playstyle may be frustrating, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be judged for it. We should only judge people who do things that are wrong, not people who do things they are allowed to do that may also happen to annoy us. That's not a good way to treat people.

It's surprising considering our discussions that you are on this side of the argument, since you seem to be a tolerant person in general.

I agree with you.

I'm not ever sure whether I've ever expelled someone from a game for running out of clock.
When an opponent gets low on clock and runs out, I communicate politely: "'Hey, is everything okay, you're running behind on clock".
Usually, the person responds politely with an explanation. Family difficulties, medical, etc.
No problem. Life takes priority. I understand that. I've been there myself. I burned through all 4 of my time jokers last year early on because of such difficulties.

But, if the opponent is logging in and out throughout the day, making moves in other games, and not communicating anything to me in the chat, and then runs out of time, what am I supposed to do?

In one such instance, the game was "fast turn based 24 moves per day", and the opponent went into the negative 3 times. No communication. So, I canceled the game (with no penalty to the opponent). I didn't want to be in a fast-turn based game that extended too many days, possibly getting to a point where I might have difficulty getting my moves in.

[tbhp]

But, if the opponent is logging in and out throughout the day, making moves in other games, and not communicating anything to me in the chat, and then runs out of time, what am I supposed to do?

I don't know, the same as what you usually do when someone runs out of time.

I don't think it makes much sense for a personal annoyance with someone to be a factor in whether you choose to kick them out or not. The two things are independent.

Even if they actually did something wrong, the kick out feature would not be the appropriate avenue to punish them. Bad behavior gets addressed in real life, through discussion or through the law in the worst cases. It doesn't get addressed by treating people a different way when you play games with them.

That's a bit like a kid having a problem with someone and being like "I don't like you, so I'm gonna make your life hell".

In one such instance, the game was "fast turn based 24 moves per day", and the opponent went into the negative 3 times. No communication. So, I canceled the game (with no penalty to the opponent). I didn't want to be in a fast-turn based game that extended too many days, possibly getting to a point where I might have difficulty getting my moves in.

That's a bit different since it seems like it wasn't a competitive game. So maybe with communication you could have agreed to end the game.

It seems like your reason for kicking out here is less about punishing the player and more because you don't enjoy playing the game with them. But in that case, isn't that like in the conceding discussion, where you are imposing the end of the game on your opponent without asking them?

[tbhp]

Another interesting point is that treating players differently based on such factors is not only something I disagree with, it's also something that could literally be against the site's rules in some cases.

Imagine you are participating in a round robin tournament, where everyone plays each other at the same time. There is one player who plays slowly, but not in the way you describe having a problem with. Then there is another player who plays slowly, and who sometimes makes moves in other games while not making moves in your own game. So you have a problem with them, and so the moment they run out of time, you decide to kick them out. Meanwhile, the first player also ends up running out of time, but because you didn't have a problem with them, you don't kick them out, and they eventually win their game against you.

In this case, the unequal way you treated the two players would be a clear case of favoritism. Your actions unfairly skewed the results of the round robin tournament, because they were motivated not by a personal strategic gain, but by choosing to favor a player for reasons that don't have to do with the games themselves.

[Ceaseless]

Well.

No one will ever get a cheap tournament win against me for having the most thinking time left - Because, I will always have the most thinking time left.

Hypothetically, if I see an opponent has been logging in and out and making moves in other games, but not in my game and then runs out of time, I won't grant much leeway, especially if there is no communication in the in-game chat.

It's not like the OP lost those games, they didn't have any problems with going over time themselves. That's just the streak they're dealing with. Since the premise was.

Open face Chinese poker has a lot more variance than Euchre.

I was able to achieve Elo#1in a game where nobody has ever reached 370 Elo like in Euchre.

So... play a few games and go on a hot streak. This player won 10 out of 11, right? SO.. do it yourself. If you can't, maybe he's actually just really good at the game?

Taking out several players on time isn't exactly a replicable thing. Depending on what the gametstate was when those players timed out, the argument becomes that the player they're trying to catch up to didn't really get a winning streak in the gamestate so much as a lucky streak of wins by default.

[BarnardsStar]

Another interesting point is that treating players differently based on such factors is not only something I disagree with, it's also something that could literally be against the site's rules in some cases.

{insert thought experiment where treating somebody with courtesy can end up making you lose a game}

I think you need to connect the dots here a little more firmly. Which site rule do you see this as being against?

I don't think it makes much sense for a personal annoyance with someone to be a factor in whether you choose to kick them out or not. The two things are independent.

Even if they actually did something wrong, the kick out feature would not be the appropriate avenue to punish them. Bad behavior gets addressed in real life, through discussion or through the law in the worst cases.

If the personally annoyance is due to factors outside the game, like this person once kicked your dog, then I’d agree. But if the annoyance is due to them being a poor sport in the game, then I strongly disagree. Bad sportsmanship within a game is best addressed by penalties within that game, like when a baseball player yells at an umpire and gets ejected.

It seems like your reason for kicking out here is less about punishing the player and more because you don't enjoy playing the game with them. But in that case, isn't that like in the conceding discussion, where you are imposing the end of the game on your opponent without asking them?

Recall, though, that that discussion was originally about conceding at the last minute in a fit of pique. I believe Frank is on record as saying that conceding earlier in the games for genuine reasons, doesn’t bother them nearly that much. And in this specific case, I believe Frank is saying they don’t have time to play at a slower pace, there’s a reason they picked 24x/day. If they’re not going to be able to finish the game, it’s probably better to make that determination earlier.

(My apologies, Frank, if I’m putting words in your mouth.)

[FrankJones]

But, if the opponent is logging in and out throughout the day, making moves in other games, and not communicating anything to me in the chat, and then runs out of time, what am I supposed to do?

I don't know, the same as what you usually do when someone runs out of time.

I don't think it makes much sense for a personal annoyance with someone to be a factor in whether you choose to kick them out or not. The two things are independent.

Even if they actually did something wrong, the kick out feature would not be the appropriate avenue to punish them. Bad behavior gets addressed in real life, through discussion or through the law in the worst cases. It doesn't get addressed by treating people a different way when you play games with them.

That's a bit like a kid having a problem with someone and being like "I don't like you, so I'm gonna make your life hell".

In one such instance, the game was "fast turn based 24 moves per day", and the opponent went into the negative 3 times. No communication. So, I canceled the game (with no penalty to the opponent). I didn't want to be in a fast-turn based game that extended too many days, possibly getting to a point where I might have difficulty getting my moves in.

That's a bit different since it seems like it wasn't a competitive game. So maybe with communication you could have agreed to end the game.

It seems like your reason for kicking out here is less about punishing the player and more because you don't enjoy playing the game with them. But in that case, isn't that like in the conceding discussion, where you are imposing the end of the game on your opponent without asking them?

It wasn't anything about personal annoyance; I just didn't want a "fast-turn based 24 moves a day" game to drag on because my opponent was making 1 or 2 moves a day. The opponent's entire clock ran down before he even made one move. And I didn't kick the player or forfeit the player- I just simply canceled the game with no penalty. A lot of people would have expelled the player and taken a forfeit win. I didn't do that.

As for the other situation - that's just a hypothetical. If/when that situation occurs, I ask the person if everything is okay. If any satisfactory reason is given, I'll grant leeway. But if the person is just refusing to play within the agreed time and is not communicating anything, and is making moves in other games, I'm likely to say, "We need to move this game along faster please."

I generally don't multi-task within a specific game. Meaning, I don't ;like having multiple games of the same type in progress simultaneously. I get the games mixed up and make mistakes. So, if an opponent is causing a game to go slowly by not moving within the agreed upon time, it is preventing me from playing that game and also making it difficult for me to play that game at all, because of the reasons in the previous sentence. I don't want to start multiple instances of the same game at the same time.

I wouldn't expel a player without communicating something first. But when a player is logging in regularly and making moves, yet still accumulating a large number of forfeits and clock violations, and not making moves in the game against me, I'm not entirely sure what could be said that would help.

Ideally, the filters would be more useful.

[FrankJones]

Another interesting point is that treating players differently based on such factors is not only something I disagree with, it's also something that could literally be against the site's rules in some cases.

Imagine you are participating in a round robin tournament, where everyone plays each other at the same time. There is one player who plays slowly, but not in the way you describe having a problem with. Then there is another player who plays slowly, and who sometimes makes moves in other games while not making moves in your own game. So you have a problem with them, and so the moment they run out of time, you decide to kick them out. Meanwhile, the first player also ends up running out of time, but because you didn't have a problem with them, you don't kick them out, and they eventually win their game against you.

In this case, the unequal way you treated the two players would be a clear case of favoritism. Your actions unfairly skewed the results of the round robin tournament, because they were motivated not by a personal strategic gain, but by choosing to favor a player for reasons that don't have to do with the games themselves.

I wouldn't do that.