Skipping player turns and coding - curious question

[dschingis27]

https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7276/1569

https://improbable.com/classics/apples- ... omparison/
"... the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future."

[Dr Wilson]

When a player runs out of time, decide then and there whether to expel the player or continue playing

Sums up my position in a very clear way.

And I dont get the chess/queen analogy either.

[Jellby]

And I dont get the chess/queen analogy either.

You make a mistake. Your opponent has winning move, but they don't take it. Until you put a remedy to your mistake and defend appropriately, your opponent will still be able to take the winning move. That goes for a weak position or for running out of time.

Saying that once you "pass" on expelling you should, so to say, put the counter back to zero (which would mean "some positive time") is like saying that once you don't take a winning move you should let the opponent get back to the starting position (i.e. get their queen back), until they do another mistake.

I know it's not the same, no need to point the differences. What I'm doing is highlighting the similarities, which hopefully someone can grant that they exist, even if we can disagree on their relative weight.

[Jellby]

When a player runs out of time, decide then and there whether to expel the player or continue playing

Sums up my position in a very clear way.

The thing is... a player's time runs down to 0. I decide to continue playing. They don't make a move, their time now runs to -5 min, but I already decided to continue playing. Their time runs to -1 hour, but since I decided to continue playing, I'm stuck.

Or do you mean than when I decided to continue playing their timer should be set back to +2 min? If I decide to continue playing when they're already at -5 min, is their timer set to -3 min or +2 min? And of course, if I decided to continue playing, I should expect they do the same, so now should I automatically get my +2 min when I run out of time?

[Fuchur]

When a player runs out of time, decide then and there whether to expel the player or continue playing

Sums up my position in a very clear way.

The thing is... a player's time runs down to 0. I decide to continue playing. They don't make a move, their time now runs to -5 min, but I already decided to continue playing. Their time runs to -1 hour, but since I decided to continue playing, I'm stuck.

Or do you mean than when I decided to continue playing their timer should be set back to +2 min? If I decide to continue playing when they're already at -5 min, is their timer set to -3 min or +2 min? And of course, if I decided to continue playing, I should expect they do the same, so now should I automatically get my +2 min when I run out of time?

You seem to deliberately misinterpret what was said :

Somebody runs out of time -> You have to decide THEN if you want to continue or expel this player.

If you decide to continue AND he doesn't goes deeper into the red you won't get the opportunity to expel him later.
If he continues to take more than the allowed time, is getting "redder" in some way THEN you have again the ability to throw him out.

[Jellby]

If you decide to continue AND he doesn't goes deeper into the red you won't get the opportunity to expel him later.

So, if I was nice once and let them run to -5 min once, then they got back to +2, but again went down to -3... now I can't expel them and I have to allow them to run to -5 every time?

Honestly, if anything like that is ever implemented, it would just encourage me to expel everyone the moment they reach 0.

[FrankJones]

If you decide to continue AND he doesn't goes deeper into the red you won't get the opportunity to expel him later.

So, if I was nice once and let them run to -5 min once, then they got back to +2, but again went down to -3... now I can't expel them and I have to allow them to run to -5 every time?

Honestly, if anything like that is ever implemented, it would just encourage me to expel everyone the moment they reach 0.

No, that's not what anyone is saying. We're saying the exact opposite.

Notice, Fulcher said that if a player goes into the red once and you allow the player to continue (instead of expelling that player), and the player then keeps his clock in the positive (black) the remainder of the game, you would not be able to expel him.

The issue being discussed is that if a player goes more into the red than can be recovered by completing his next turn, the opponent can just "allow the game to continue" with the intent to expel the player the moment the game seems to not be going well.

The suggestion being made to avoid this scenario is to require the player with positive clock to decide then and there whether to expel the opponent or continue the game - and, continuing the game would mean the player cannot be expelled unless the player goes back into the red again, at which point the expel option would once again be presented.

[Jellby]

The suggestion being made to avoid this scenario is to require the player with positive clock to decide then and there whether to expel the opponent or continue the game - and, continuing the game would mean the player cannot be expelled unless the player goes back into the red again, at which point the expel option would once again be presented.

OK, so player A runs out of time, -5 min. I decide to continue. Player A plays and gets 2 min back, now at -3. I can't expel, because I decided to continue. Player A plays and gets 2 min back, now at -1. I still cannot expel. Player A leaves the building and never comes back, gets to -5, -10, -100... I still cannot expel.

Or, if the suggestion is that I can expel once they get to -5 again, that gives free range to get to -5 as often as they want. Still not nice.

[FrankJones]

The suggestion being made to avoid this scenario is to require the player with positive clock to decide then and there whether to expel the opponent or continue the game - and, continuing the game would mean the player cannot be expelled unless the player goes back into the red again, at which point the expel option would once again be presented.

OK, so player A runs out of time, -5 min. I decide to continue. Player A plays and gets 2 min back, now at -3. I can't expel, because I decided to continue. Player A plays and gets 2 min back, now at -1. I still cannot expel. Player A leaves the building and never comes back, gets to -5, -10, -100... I still cannot expel.

Or, if the suggestion is that I can expel once they get to -5 again, that gives free range to get to -5 as often as they want. Still not nice.

I explained my idea earlier in the thread, but it probably got lost amid the various posts.

The decision to not expel the player would essentially be giving that player a mulligan. The player would be allowed to make his or her next move, after which the incremental clock would become the minimum increment. The player would then need to make all moves in a timely manner from that pint onward, otherwise that player could be expelled (and probably would be for failing to play in a timely manner after being given a second chance.)

It's a bit convoluted, and not ideal. I realize this. Just throwing some ideas around.

Because, it's also not ideal if the player had something unavoidable come up, and upon returning to the game, makes every effort to play quickly but still ends up getting expelled.

[danielvictor]

Good idea.