Players out of time - code of conduct

[Jellby]

Thought experiment: 4-player game...
Player A runs out of time
Player B does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for C and D
Player C does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for B and D
Player D does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for B and C

[tbhp]

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).

Nothing is preventing your from having multiple games going on. I don't understand the logic of "this is taking too long so it's better to just abandon what I started". It reminds me of people in real life who never know what they want and whose interests are fleeting. I mean, life is full of things that ask for our attention at intermittent, sometimes unpredictable intervals. How are games different? If you are following a show, does it bother you that you have to wait one week between each episode, meaning you'll have to keep yourself busy with other things in the meantime? Even if it can make you impatient to wait for certain things, I don't understand how just throwing away something you were interested in can be seen as a better alternative.

On the second point, well, that's kinda what I suspect when people defend kicking out, that deep down they just see that as an easy way to grab a win. In those cases, this is obviously not a behavior we should defend on a competitive website. The admission also weakens your first point. I mean, if kicking out someone had the opposite effect of giving you a loss, not a win, would you still use the feature then? If not, then it means that what you care most about is getting the win.

[tbhp]

Thought experiment: 4-player game...
Player A runs out of time
Player B does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for C and D
Player C does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for B and D
Player D does not expel them, even if they'd like to do it, because it would "ruin" the game for B and C

The part you are missing is that players B, C and D may not like to do it. And even if they do, they should have in mind that the other two players may not like it.

I frequently play 4 players tournament games, where sometimes someone will go out of time, and it only happened once that someone was kicked out. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this example. In most of the cases people don't kick out.

[tbhp]

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.

Bold to assume that none of the players will care. But my argument was that we have no choice but to put criminals in jail, whereas we have a choice (and a strong incentive even) to keep playing games where someone is out of time.

The other user is equating a real life criminal hurting people to someone committing the "crime" of going out of time on a board game site. That's the ridiculous comparison.

[Shivaware]

Thank you for an interesting discussion.
To clarify 2 things:
1.If someone writes in the game channel that he can't play the next day for a certain reason, I have absolutely no problem with them going over time. My problem are players who neither give reasons nor apologize for being late.

It's sad that very few people acknowledge these long delays, but I'm sure there are cases where they are overwhelmed in real life, so writing apologies in games are probably a low priority. One person recently quit a bunch of tournament games and apologized on their profile page because they were dealing with a real-life situation. I thought that was a very kind gesture. Unfortunately, I've also encountered people that seemed to have no regard for their delays.

Maybe when someone is overtime, after they complete their move, BGA could pop up a dialog asking if they were sorry about taking so long, and their answer gets reported in the game log.

My takeaway from this discussion:
I'll look at the reputation of a player running out of time. If the reputation is spotless, I'll be more lenient, if the reputation shows someone going out of time and/or quitting all the time, I'll be more trigger-happy.
And before kicking someone, I'll ask in the channel what the other players think about it.

This is a thoughtful and generous approach.

[Jellby]

The part you are missing is that players B, C and D may not like to do it. And even if they do, they should have in mind that the other two players may not like it.

No, the part you are missing is that I said it's a thought experiment, or in other words: suppose that it is as I wrote.

Yes, they should have in mind that the other two players may not like it. The player who ran out of time should also have in mind that the other three players may not like it. And after having that in mind, and also having in mind that they themselves do like it (and that what they do not like is not expelling), they take a decision. It might be a decision other players do not like. It might be a decision other players love. It might be a decision other players do not care about. Also, if another player takes a decision you (or anyone else) don't like, you should also have in mind that the alternative could have been much worse for the other player.

[tbhp]

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.

I have empathy for everyone involved. I think it sucks that you can't play more than one instance of a game at the same time. To be honest, that sounds like it would suck even if you were always playing games at the speed you want. I mean, playing several games at once sounds a lot more fun to me, but you may have reasons to disagree.

However, you are not asking me to have empathy for you, you are declaring that I should have empathy only for you, while dismissing everyone else you are hurting. That's not how life works. You are putting me in a position where I have to choose between taking your defense, and taking the defense of those you are hurting. I'm doing the latter, because I think you are causing more harm than would be caused by the alternative of not kicking people out.

[BarnardsStar]

However, you are not asking me to have empathy for you, you are declaring that I should have empathy only for you, while dismissing everyone else you are hurting.

I believe we established, in an earlier thread (I believe it was the one about “conceding on the last turn”), that you are the only one here who sees this as a massive harm to people. Most people here would not call early termination of a game “harm to the players”.

And that’s where the rub is, and why people will never agree with you and why we will never convince you in turn. You see this as a massive harm that outweighs all other considerations, whereas most people see early termination of a game as merely an irritation or inconvenience. Your unwillingness to see things any other way means these arguments constantly go nowhere.

Face it, people are gonna do what they’re gonna do, and your inability to put your arguments in terms they will empathize with means you will never convince them otherwise.

[tbhp]

The part you are missing is that players B, C and D may not like to do it. And even if they do, they should have in mind that the other two players may not like it.

No, the part you are missing is that I said it's a thought experiment, or in other words: suppose that it is as I wrote.

Yes, they should have in mind that the other two players may not like it. The player who ran out of time should also have in mind that the other three players may not like it. And after having that in mind, and also having in mind that they themselves do like it (and that what they do not like is not expelling), they take a decision. It might be a decision other players do not like. It might be a decision other players love. It might be a decision other players do not care about. Also, if another player takes a decision you (or anyone else) don't like, you should also have in mind that the alternative could have been much worse for the other player.

If it is as you wrote, then it's a paradox. But we know real life is not like that. We know players may not like the consequences of kicking out. So we should at least ask everyone their opinion before we do anything, as has been suggested above.

It's possible that everyone would wrongly assume that the others would not like it, and therefore everyone would be mindful of the others for no reason in reality. This is why I support the idea of asking other people.

Well, in the 4 players games I play, I would always take the side of the out of time player, so there would never be a majority of players agreeing to kick out, only a tie at worst.

[tbhp]

However, you are not asking me to have empathy for you, you are declaring that I should have empathy only for you, while dismissing everyone else you are hurting.

I believe we established, in an earlier thread (I believe it was the one about “conceding on the last turn”), that you are the only one here who sees this as a massive harm to people. Most people here would not call early termination of a game “harm to the players”.

And that’s where the rub is, and why people will never agree with you and why we will never convince you in turn. You see this as a massive harm that outweighs all other considerations, whereas most people see early termination of a game as merely an irritation or inconvenience. Your unwillingness to see things any other way means these arguments constantly go nowhere.

Face it, people are gonna do what they’re gonna do, and your inability to put your arguments in terms they will empathize with means you will never convince them otherwise.

Someone berated them in the first page for kicking out people in multiplayer games. That's what started this line of discussion.

This seems like the sort of thing where people will say they "don't care" until it personally affects them. Would you take the side of someone who caused you to lose an important game because they "had" to kick out someone? Would you take the side of someone who ruined the beautiful board you were building because they decided to end the game before you could complete it?

Every now and then, someone will post in a tournament chat or on this board that something like that happened to them. It's a huge issue that the site is still allowing people to kick out in multiplayer games, yet the site doesn't seem to care, and people who are not affected act apathetic to the issue.

I'm aware that not everyone may care about those things, but since I can't personally ask every player of every game in question, I have to take the approach that it's possible they care, and weigh this possible harm against the harm that this user receives when they are prevented from kicking out someone. And I think there's no comparison. Having games ended on you before their completion can literally destroy people. I won't take the risk of defending that even if it's just a potentiality.

I appreciate you putting this whole thing in perspective, but I don't believe it has to be the dead end you think it's doomed to be. I believe we can collectively come to an agreement that preserves the integrity that people with my perspective seek. This is already how things work for real life sports. Unfair results like what happens in multiplayer games on here would never be seen as normal in the real world. And early game terminations wouldn't be considered normal in professional broadcasted competitions. There's no reason board games can't be held to the same standards.