Players out of time - code of conduct

[tbhp]

When a jury sends a criminal to jail, they aren't affecting anyone but the criminal.

They are affecting their family. According to your argument it is the Jury's fault for splitting up a family and removing their source of income. The children should be blaming the Jury for their parent going to jail.

So you are comparing the innocent people in a multiplayer game to the family of a criminal going to jail?

What is the greater good you are achieving when you are kicking out someone that justifies ruining the games for the other players involved? There is no equivalence between the two situations. We have no choice but to put criminals who are a danger to society behind bars. You have a choice to save the game and "rehabilitate" the offending player by working together to finish the game in time.

Putting them in jail serves to preserve the thing we want to protect, which is the general well being of society. When you kick out someone, you are destroying the very thing the system aims to protect, which is the integrity of the game being played.

The turn timers are part of the integrity of the game. It has already been violated by the person who ignored the time limits of the table.

Timers are an abstract concept. If the game ends up finishing normally, the violation will only have been theoretical. No one cares if on the game's results page it shows that someone went out of time. People care if the game doesn't have a final score and a fully completed state because someone was kicked out before it could end.

[BarnardsStar]

Well, you don't have to do those calculations if you don't plan on kicking out people and being disingenuous about it. Most of us don't. But if someone is gonna be like "I didn't sign up for a game that could be that long", they should have the math to back it up.

Remind me who even said that? I’ve been going back through the conversation and I don’t recall anybody saying anything like that, but 7 pages is already a lot to sift through. But as far as I can tell, you’re the one who introduced this argument when you started talking about tournament tables and just letting them run to their maximum duration. When others pointed out that non-tournament tables don’t have a maximum duration you started making up maximum durations and acting as if this were people’s problem in the first place.

But I don’t see anybody else actually saying that. You’re the only one in this thread to mention taking a trip, for instance. Nobody else brought that up.

I do see references to things “taking too long” but I take that to mean the overall tempo of the game, not its absolute duration. People signed up to play a game at 4x/day speed, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect a speed approximating that rate. But then you come along and try to convince us that we have to wait… and wait… and wait… instead of playing, which is what we actually came here to do.

[BarnardsStar]

So you are comparing the innocent people in a multiplayer game to the family of a criminal going to jail?

You’re right, this is a completely inappropriate analogy…

Because an hour after the game is over, none of the players will care. But an hour after the criminal goes to jail, their (innocent!) family will still be bereft.

[tbhp]

.
It would be more honest to say "even though I know the game can last months in theory, I was hoping that the other player would play fast enough that it only lasts days. Upon seeing that they were playing slower than I'd like, I got bored and decided to expel them".

So it is inappropriate to join a table and expect people to play faster than the posted table speed, but perfectly acceptable to play slower than the posted table speed?

If someone gets kicked out in a 2 players game, I wouldn't say they have room to complain. After all, they agreed not only to a theoretical maximum duration, but also to a move duration beyond which they can be kicked out. I think both players are in the wrong in that case. One for ignoring the speed rules, and the other for doing something that doesn't really have a reason to be done, in my opinion. Both things can be true.

Things are different when it's a multiplayer game and you are hurting innocent people in the process. In this case I'd put the blame a lot more on the person who did the kicking out, because they are choosing to harm people who really didn't ask for anything.

[tbhp]

Well, you don't have to do those calculations if you don't plan on kicking out people and being disingenuous about it. Most of us don't. But if someone is gonna be like "I didn't sign up for a game that could be that long", they should have the math to back it up.

Remind me who even said that? I’ve been going back through the conversation and I don’t recall anybody saying anything like that, but 7 pages is already a lot to sift through. But as far as I can tell, you’re the one who introduced this argument when you started talking about tournament tables and just letting them run to their maximum duration. When others pointed out that non-tournament tables don’t have a maximum duration you started making up maximum durations and acting as if this were people’s problem in the first place.

But I don’t see anybody else actually saying that. You’re the only one in this thread to mention taking a trip, for instance. Nobody else brought that up.

I do see references to things “taking too long” but I take that to mean the overall tempo of the game, not its absolute duration. People signed up to play a game at 4x/day speed, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect a speed approximating that rate. But then you come along and try to convince us that we have to wait… and wait… and wait… instead of playing, which is what we actually came here to do.

You're right that I steered to discussion towards overall game time rather than frequency of play. But that's because in my view, the maximum time is the only real defense one could invoke (for example if they have a trip planned, in that case that would be a practical impossibility).

If the game is advancing at a slower rate than you wanted, I mean, what do you expect the site to do about that? We can't control how fast people play, people may not play at the times we want them to even while never going out of time.

There's times when I'm impatient to know where a game is going to go, and my opponent is taking over a day to make their next move. It can be annoying, but it would be contradictory for me to want to expel them if they ever proceed to run out of time. How can you both be excited about a game and also want to terminate it? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Cile]

Things are different when it's a multiplayer game and you are hurting innocent people in the process. In this case I'd put the blame a lot more on the person who did the kicking out, because they are choosing to harm people who really didn't ask for anything.

That sounds like something that's problematic for you.

See, that's the interesting thing about the "that's a you problem" argument you made earlier: it makes it very easy to dismiss another person's concerns, but nothing prevents them from doing it as well. It is the neucular option you were talking about earlier.

You are trying to convince me not to do something fully allowed without consequence by the rules of the site, and then you completely dismiss my concerns saying you do not care in an incredibly rude way. So seeing as you made it clear you do not care about my concerns or to listen what I have to say, why would I listen to you and change my behavior?

[Cile]

If the game is advancing at a slower rate than you wanted, I mean, what do you expect the site to do about that?

Off the top of my head: during table creation let me state how fast I would like everyone to make their moves, and if people don't play at that speed remove them from the table or let me leave myself?

We can't control how fast people play, people may not play at the times we want them to even while never going out of time.

Correct. But if I join a table that says "players are expected to play within 8 hours of it becoming their turn" and one of the players isn't doing that, I should not be forced to continue playing with them. And I'm not.

[tbhp]

Things are different when it's a multiplayer game and you are hurting innocent people in the process. In this case I'd put the blame a lot more on the person who did the kicking out, because they are choosing to harm people who really didn't ask for anything.

That sounds like something that's problematic for you.

See, that's the interesting thing about the "that's a you problem" argument you made earlier: it makes it very easy to dismiss another person's concerns, but nothing prevents them from doing it as well. It is the neucular option you were talking about earlier.

You are trying to convince me not to do something fully allowed without consequence by the rules of the site, and then you completely dismiss my concerns saying you do not care in an incredibly rude way. So seeing as you made it clear you do not care about my concerns or to listen what I have to say, why would I listen to you and change my behavior?

So I'm talking about something that can ruin the game for other people, and you deflect to that's something that is problematic for me. It sounds like you don't want to acknowledge that you are putting your own discomfort or whatever over the experiences of multiple other people.

Like I said, it's more of a grey area when it's you versus another player. But when you are affecting multiple people for your own personal reasons, I don't see how there can be a debate.

I'm sure you know there is a distinction between morality and legality. You are allowed by the website to kick out people in multiplayer games, but that won't stop people from looking at your action and deeming it the more reprehensible one.

[Jellby]

I don't understand why you would pick anything other than #2. I mean, why did you even start playing the game if at some arbitrary point you decide you don't want to play it anymore? Why do you even play games?

Are you serious? I have two possible answers:
1. I play games to enjoy them. I don't enjoy playing one turn every two days, so if someone is so slow I'm forced to do that, I don't enjoy the game anymore, and terminate it in order to start a new game I enjoy
2. I play games to win an rise in the rankings. If someone makes the "mistake" of going over time, I'm gonna take the win (or minimize my loss).

Like I said to the other user, the time you agree on is the maximum duration of the game. The time that is allotted to each player has no relation to the duration you signed up for.

No. I don't play games with "total time". I play games with time per player. Even if I played tournaments with total time, as long as the time per player is displayed when you join the tournament (which it is, as far I can see), that's also what I sign up for. You don't get to decide which parts of the settings are important for me and which are not.

[Cile]

So I'm talking about something that can ruin the game for other people, and you deflect to that's something that is problematic for me. It sounds like you don't want to acknowledge that you are putting your own discomfort or whatever over the experiences of multiple other people.

Like I said, it's more of a grey area when it's you versus another player. But when you are affecting multiple people for your own personal reasons, I don't see how there can be a debate.

Much like the player who its exceeding their turn time is negatively affecting other players?

You already made it clear empathy is not actually the source of your argument, because you made it clear you don't care about the "discomfort or whatever or experience" of people who disagree with you. So stop trying to appeal to it. You lunched the nuke and went scorched earth on that.