Why no invisible status showing one offline?

[Shivaware]

Do you mean this part?

On Board Game Arena, you should not:

Give some piece of information about the current game situation that disturbs the normal game flow.

It's not clear if this rule was meant to apply to publicly available information, or if it's referring to people disclosing secret information, such as in a game like Hanabi. There is a recent discussion in the Catan forum about a player pointing out that someone is about to win unless a specific action is taken. Most people seem to think that is a normal part of the game.

All that said, there's a big difference between table talk, and some bystander offering unsolicited advice. I would probably red thumb such a spectator, or have a discussion with them if they were a "friend".

I believe they mean the part just after that, do not communicate about a game. The part you quote does seem to be more along the lines of sharing secret information.

Pointing out that someone is about to win would fall under the "don't communicate" part and certainly should be considered cheating. If the player didn't realize that they were in position to win, then you just gave them the information that they can win, possibly leading them to unfairly winning because of what you said.

Here is what the next part actually says:

Communicate with another player about the game privately (for example with an instant messenging app).

I think the "privately" part is key here, so it certainly doesn't apply to a spectator commenting in the game chat about the game state.

[FrankJones]

I think we can use a bit of common sense here. Sending some a private message of "Here is the move you need to make to win and avoid losing" has the same effect as saying that same comment in the in-game chat. And it is equally unacceptable. Otherwise, anyone could just message a world Elo#1 player for a specific game and say, "Please tell me what moves to make, but you need to do it in the public chat and not privately."

A small amount of common sense is all that is necessary to realize why that would not be allowed.

[Shivaware]

I've already said that a spectator offering unsolicited advice is obnoxious and probably deserves a red thumb or unfriending. I don't think it's worth it for BGA to get involved any further, and it appears they feel similarly.

If you attempt to report this by selecting the following reason:

ObnoxiousUser ruined a game by playing randomly, playing very slowly, or by giving information in the chat box

you receive this response:

We totally understand that this behavor is painful, especially in cooperative games.

However, we cannot force players to play in a given manner, as long as they follow the rules.

We also cannot force a player to play faster: if you are in this situation, you should select a faster time option before starting your game.

This is why in this situation, you should give this player a Red Thumb instead of reporting him / her to moderators.

This is the main problem I have with using language like "is against the rules" and "would not be allowed", especially when you need to rules-lawyer the situations to fit into categories which explicitly have no consequences other than red thumbs or vigorous tut-tutting from forum participants.

[FrankJones]

I've already said that a spectator offering unsolicited advice is obnoxious and probably deserves a red thumb or unfriending. I don't think it's worth it for BGA to get involved any further, and it appears they feel similarly.

Looks as though we need to agree to disagree.

[tbhp]

Here is what the next part actually says:

Communicate with another player about the game privately (for example with an instant messenging app).

I think the "privately" part is key here, so it certainly doesn't apply to a spectator commenting in the game chat about the game state.

It seems like an oversight on their part. If cheating in private is bad, how is doing it in public any better? It just makes you an honest cheater.

(although one may say that it is not a player's fault if some idiot decided to comment on their game, whereas in the case of private messaging, they have a higher responsibility)

I've already said that a spectator offering unsolicited advice is obnoxious and probably deserves a red thumb or unfriending. I don't think it's worth it for BGA to get involved any further, and it appears they feel similarly.

Then why do they forbid the practice when it's in private? It seems that they do try to involve themselves in this, they likely just overlooked that people might do it in the game chat too.

[Shivaware]

Here is what the next part actually says:

Communicate with another player about the game privately (for example with an instant messenging app).

I think the "privately" part is key here, so it certainly doesn't apply to a spectator commenting in the game chat about the game state.

It seems like an oversight on their part. If cheating in private is bad, how is doing it in public any better? It just makes you an honest cheater.

(although one may say that it is not a player's fault if some idiot decided to comment on their game, whereas in the case of private messaging, they have a higher responsibility)

I've already said that a spectator offering unsolicited advice is obnoxious and probably deserves a red thumb or unfriending. I don't think it's worth it for BGA to get involved any further, and it appears they feel similarly.

Then why do they forbid the practice when it's in private? It seems that they do try to involve themselves in this, they likely just overlooked that people might do it in the game chat too.

I guess I should have gone into more detail when I answered earlier, but the thing about not communicating privately seems to be about preventing players in the same game arranging some kind of alliance in secret. I think BGA is fine with people negotiating and bargaining within a game as long as everything is done out in the open.

[FrankJones]

I guess I should have gone into more detail when I answered earlier, but the thing about not communicating privately seems to be about preventing players in the same game arranging some kind of alliance in secret. I think BGA is fine with people negotiating and bargaining within a game as long as everything is done out in the open.

Sure, within a game, the players actually playing can use the chat - especially if the game involves trades, deals, negotiation.

But a person NOT in the game jumping in the chat and giving help to one player? That's not okay.

And in a 4-person game that does not have a game mechanic of deal-making and such, it would be wrong for player A to say to player B, "You must take that card, or else player C will win!" How would that be appropriate or fair?

[tbhp]

I guess I should have gone into more detail when I answered earlier, but the thing about not communicating privately seems to be about preventing players in the same game arranging some kind of alliance in secret. I think BGA is fine with people negotiating and bargaining within a game as long as everything is done out in the open.

Sure, within a game, the players actually playing can use the chat - especially if the game involves trades, deals, negotiation.

But a person NOT in the game jumping in the chat and giving help to one player? That's not okay.

And in a 4-person game that does not have a game mechanic of deal-making and such, it would be wrong for player A to say to player B, "You must take that card, or else player C will win!" How would that be appropriate or fair?

I agree that it's unfair, but it makes me wonder, what would happen if it occurred in real life? If in a real life Chess tournament between grandmasters, a person in the crowd shouted a winning move to one of the players, and the player had not realized they could make that move and then proceeded to win thanks to the advice, what would happen?

I suppose the person who shouted would be thrown out of the room, and maybe would even get banned from walking into a professional tournament again. But would the victory of the winning player be declared invalid or anything? Probably not. I mean, it's not their fault that someone decided to tell them the winning move. And at the end of the day, a player has the agency to follow or not follow what someone else says.

[Mathew5000]

If in a real life Chess tournament between grandmasters, a person in the crowd shouted a winning move to one of the players, and the player had not realized they could make that move and then proceeded to win thanks to the advice, what would happen?

FIDE Laws of Chess https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 :

11.3.1 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. [italics mine]

12.7 ... Players in other games must not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. Spectators are not allowed to interfere in a game. The arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.

12.9 Options available to the arbiter concerning penalties:
...
12.9.6 declaring the game to be lost by the offending player...

So if it's an egregious case where the player contravenes rule 11.3.1 by using advice shouted out by a spectator, and it's that exact advice wihch directly leads to the win, it would be reasonable for the arbiter to give the win to the other player instead.

Thanks to ChatGPT for elucidating this: https://chatgpt.com/share/69f78db6-2384 ... 8aa80708c1

[sweet-crocodile761]

Was very surprised to see this wasn't an option!