Players out of time - code of conduct

[Michael Keating]

Recently I've had at least one player running out of time in almost every (turn-based) game I played.
Not a single one of them apologized or gave a reason as to why they couldn't play, which I find rather impolite.

Now I could skip them, but I also want to complete the games regularly, which we usually do.

How do you guys handle this? Do you skip or just wait?

I had taken a break from BGA for several months, before that was not a problem, but now, someone running out of time seems rather common. Is it just me or are you experiencing the same?

Just boot them out, no exceptions, no mercy, no empathy. I'm absolutely sick of people that waste everyone's time.

[BarnardsStar]

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?

No, I wouldn’t, but I also wouldn’t kvetch and moan over it because it happened. It’s one game, it’s just a game, so what?

Now, I will be the first to admit that tournament games, because of the broader impact a single game can have in tournament standings, should be handled differently. They also have a maximum time and because of these twin factors, I’m generally happy enough to wait for that maximum time to at least give the game a chance to end normally.

But normal games (which you love to deride as “casual play”)? They don’t have that sort of absolute maxmimum. And so…

*taps the sign ⬇︎*

Face it, people are gonna do what they’re gonna do

[tbhp]

No, I wouldn’t, but I also wouldn’t kvetch and moan over it because it happened. It’s one game, it’s just a game, so what?

Well, I just learned a new word today.

I think the words you are using are not appropriate to the circumstances. It would not be kvetching and moaning to complain about something unfair that happened to you. It is your right and indeed your duty to do it, because we should all want to uphold the principles of fair competition. If you let it slide for one game, then you are condoning it for every game where it happens.

Now, I will be the first to admit that tournament games, because of the broader impact a single game can have in tournament standings, should be handled differently. They also have a maximum time and because of these twin factors, I’m generally happy enough to wait for that maximum time to at least give the game a chance to end normally.

I agree that fairness most matters for tournaments and not so much "casual" games. But the user I was arguing with gave no indication that he would behave differently in a tournament game (I mean, given his justifications, I'm not sure why he would). And we do know that it happens regularly in tournaments, which is a problem.

[Cile]

Nothing is preventing your from having multiple games going on.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Your response was "that's a you problem." This responses is either disingenuous at best or you're just not listening to other people.

[tbhp]

Nothing is preventing your from having multiple games going on.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Your response was "that's a you problem." This responses is either disingenuous at best or you're just not listening to other people.

No, you made mention of your own issue with having several instances of the same game. The other user I'm replying to in your quote never made mention of having the same problem. That's why I told them nothing is stopping them from starting other games.

[Cile]

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.

My argument is not based on empathy. My argument is based on the clearly stated intention of the person creating the table and the rules of the site.

Your argument is just an appeal to empathy, and when I respond to it asking where the empathy is for me the response is "that's your problem."

You are dismissing empathy for me, while extending empathy to the fictional other people at the table that agree with you. That's not how empathy arguments work. If you want to argue based on empathy then you have to consider empathy for everyone in the situation. Otherwise it becomes clear that you are simply arguing for the outcome you personally want, using empathy as an excuse when it suits you ("what about the people who agree with me?") and dismissing empathy when it works against you ("that's your problem").

You can't just dismiss it as "my problem" because I will make it your problem when I boot the out of time player from the table. Dismissing my feelings is not going to sway me to change my behavior. The rules of the site allow it, I'm going to do it. If you're going to be upset about it that sounds problematic for you.

[Cile]

Nothing is preventing your from having multiple games going on.

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Your response was "that's a you problem." This responses is either disingenuous at best or you're just not listening to other people.

No, you made mention of your own issue with having several instances of the same game. The other user I'm replying to in your quote never made mention of having the same problem. That's why I told them nothing is stopping them from starting other games.

I am not the only user in the thread to express that issue. A reasonable reason was presented. Does every user that disagrees with you have to state if that true for themselves? Why would they bother when you'll just dismiss it with "that's a you problem"?

[tbhp]

This was addressed earlier in the thread. Your response was "that's a you problem." This responses is either disingenuous at best or you're just not listening to other people.

No, you made mention of your own issue with having several instances of the same game. The other user I'm replying to in your quote never made mention of having the same problem. That's why I told them nothing is stopping them from starting other games.

I am not the only user in the thread to express that issue. A reasonable reason was presented. Does every user that disagrees with you have to state if that true for themselves? Why would they bother when you'll just dismiss it with "that's a you problem"?

You seem to be making everything revolve around you again. Why would I assume that your unusual case of not wanting several instances of the same game would apply to other people who disagree with me?

The other user said a vague "I'd like to start another game". I wasn't sure (and I'm still not) why they would think that they can't start another game, so I told them nothing is preventing them from doing that. You are the one projecting and imagining that everyone is like you and that their reasons for saying that must be the same as yours.

[Cile]

No, you made mention of your own issue with having several instances of the same game. The other user I'm replying to in your quote never made mention of having the same problem. That's why I told them nothing is stopping them from starting other games.

I am not the only user in the thread to express that issue. A reasonable reason was presented. Does every user that disagrees with you have to state if that true for themselves? Why would they bother when you'll just dismiss it with "that's a you problem"?

You seem to be making everything revolve around you again. Why would I assume that your unusual case of not wanting several instances of the same game would apply to other people who disagree with me?

The other user said a vague "I'd like to start another game". I wasn't sure (and I'm still not) why they would think that they can't start another game, so I told them nothing is preventing them from doing that. You are the one projecting and imagining that everyone is like you and that their reasons for saying that must be the same as yours.

Again, I'm not the only user in this thread to express that despite you immediately dismissing it as unimportant. There is no reason to assume it is unusual other than the fact that it is not the case for you, and you assume you are the default.

You are assuming there is no reason this user can't start another game when one potential reason had already been presented, and they may have a different reason of their own. The fact that they have not done so would imply they have a reason for not doing so, but you go straight to assuming they are unreasonable instead of assuming they have a reason.

[tbhp]

I am not the only user in the thread to express that issue. A reasonable reason was presented. Does every user that disagrees with you have to state if that true for themselves? Why would they bother when you'll just dismiss it with "that's a you problem"?

You seem to be making everything revolve around you again. Why would I assume that your unusual case of not wanting several instances of the same game would apply to other people who disagree with me?

The other user said a vague "I'd like to start another game". I wasn't sure (and I'm still not) why they would think that they can't start another game, so I told them nothing is preventing them from doing that. You are the one projecting and imagining that everyone is like you and that their reasons for saying that must be the same as yours.

Again, I'm not the only user in this thread to express that despite you immediately dismissing it as unimportant. There is no reason to assume it is unusual other than the fact that it is not the case for you, and you assume you are the default.

You are assuming there is no reason this user can't start another game when one potential reason had already been presented, and they may have a different reason of their own. The fact that they have not done so would imply they have a reason for not doing so, but you go straight to assuming they are unreasonable instead of assuming they have a reason.

I mean, I often check ongoing games of other users, and I've never noticed anyone limiting themselves to a maximum of one table for each game they play. I think it is unusual.

When I said "nothing is stopping you", I didn't mean that there can't exist reasons that may apply to other people. I was talking to this user, not to you. So the "nothing" was in the context of what I know of them so far, not of anyone else. That's how the phrase is supposed to be used.

I was trying to debate and delve into their own reason for saying that. You're the one feeling the need to insert yourself in a discussion that had nothing to do with you, and try to push your reason as the being the explanation for their comment.