Players out of time - code of conduct

[ErikLevin]

As others have said, the fact that being kicked from a game is punitive, the fact that you get a screen that pops up to tell you "Ooops! You did something you shouldn't have and here's some tips on how to be a good player who doesn't do that again" (as people on forums have also complained about) would suggest that the BGA stance is that people shouldn't be exceeding their timers.

No need to infer things by suggestion about BGA's stance: running out of time is against the site's code of conduct. https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=f ... sofconduct

I can also just add myself to the increasing count of "unusual" people who prefer to play one instance of a game at a time.

[FrankJones]

I'm surprised that so many people in this thread have this multiple instances of a game issue. Like I said, I basically never run into them when I check the profiles of people I encounter in my games.

Hey tbhp

You and I have discussed a lot of these matters in our private messages. For the benefit of everyone in the thread, I'll elaborate further here.

I like to play games, and ideally, I would be playing more total games, and perhaps more than one at a time of my favorite specific games. But, for me, turn-based is already susceptible to errors resulting from the intermittent nature of making moves. Though I don't expel players, I do prefer the turn-based games to move at a quick pace. The more time elapsed between moves, the more likely I am to lose my train of thought, forget or mix up my intended plan and upcoming moves, or get the goals confused.

I would probably play real-time but that's not a realistic option for me.

I want to play every game to the best of my ability. I want to win every game, and I want to reach or maintain master, expert, or strong Elo ratings (depending on the game, any of those 3 might essentially be "master elite" status).

My arena ranking suffers each season because I just don't play enough volume. But, for complex thematic games with a point-salad scoring mechanic and numerous goals, each additional game in progress of that same game reduces the quality of my plan in each of those games. There is just a lot of information to be keeping track of.

Heck, in some games in which I should play better than I do, I lose my focus and plan even when playing just one game. Wingspan, for example, where I seem to have fallen into a bad habit of losing to players rated a lot lower than I am, by making mistakes that are obvious on replay viewing. Having a second Wingspan game would exacerbate the problem.

Different people can better juggle multiple games of the same game simultaneously. This also depends on the type of game. For abstract strategy games such as Connect6 or Pente, I could probably play several of those at a time.

So, with a slow opponent, I'll just shrug and accept that my next game of that type might have to wait a bit longer than usual, because I do not like expelling players. If the delays are frequent and early, I'll likely just neutralize and move on. Especially if no explanation is given. Sometimes I'll even reach out and ask if everything is okay and get no reply back.

I have only expelled once, I think, and neutralized once. In the expulsion game, I was obviously going to win, and in the neutralized game it was early and undecided, but I thought I had a better than 50% chance of winning.

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

[nik592]

This is all just my personal approach and personal reasoning. Other people's approach may vary for various reasons.

Right. Your approach seems pretty similar to mine. I'm happy with my approach. But I (and it seems you) accept that others may choose a different one for a variety of equally valid reasons. This I think is where the disagreement comes in - tbhp seems to think that no matter what their reason, anyone who is EVER willing to end a game early for any reason is a terrible person who is potentially causing huge amounts of harm to their opponents, and if they choose to do it anyway, having now been made aware, that makes them an even worse person. There is no tolerance for the viewpoints of others.

Other people are not listening to me when I say that the issue I want to avoid is a lot more than an inconvenience. I wouldn't waste my time writing all those posts if it wasn't.

People are listening. People are acknowledging that's a completely valid reason why YOU may not wish to end a game early and why you may be disappointed when it happens. In your opinion, ending a game early is literally one of the worst things that could ever happen to you (and I do agree, that should the effect be so bad, I can't see why you would keep choosing to put yourself in a situation where you can be destroyed over and over). But that doesn't mean that everyone else has to have the same opinion and make the same choices.

I listened to other people, I acknowledged that not being able to start a new game must suck. I also explained that it is not comparable. If I were myself in the position where I have to wait before I can play another game, I would never think that this is a justification to kick out or concede on my opponent, because I realize my inconvenience is trivial compared to the possible result of those actions.

You listened, acknowledged and then dismissed their reason out of hand because you think your reason for choosing not to end a game is so much worse and everyone should do what you do. That's not acknowledging. That you think the inconvenience of having to wait to play another game is trivial in comparison to ending a game early is your opinion. Other people view those two things as roughly equivalent, or maybe think having to wait to play is much worse (for them). They make different choices. Those choices do not make those people unsympathetic or mean or whatever other negative descriptor you want to apply to make people feel bad and agree to do things your way. You can be annoyed at them, you can even red thumb them, but it's unreasonable to judge what kind of person they are based on that. I mean, I guess you can, you can do as you wish, but I (and possibly others in this thread) will judge you in a certain way for doing so.

Your argument is really weird because you wouldn't tell a person who faces social discrimination, for example, that they should just not go out in public where they risk facing said discrimination. You wouldn't tell them that they should just stay home so that they don't risk being devastated. By your logic people can't simultaneously live their life in society and also complain about the society they are living in, because according to you that's hypocritical.

This again. They're not saying you SHOULD avoid tournaments, they're saying if the affect of having a game end early is so very devastating for you, you would choose not to do it. Some people who face social discrimination do avoid public spaces where they have experienced it because of the emotional impact on them. Others have decided to not let said social discrimination impact them - they acknowledge the discrimination reflects more about the person administering it than it does to them. They stand up to the person who is discriminating.

If you are trying to suggest that someone who discriminates socially is on the same level as someone who chooses to end a board game early, and that your playing tournaments anyway is you choosing not to let early game termination impact you and this is you standing up to the people who do the ending? As I've said, I can't argue with that - the two are not remotely equivalent.

You are trying to put the blame on the person, when it's the unfair system you should be denouncing.

As are you. People who end games early are bad because they hurt other people. If that be the case, then why give players to kick (or concede)? If the timer is meant to be merely aspirational, a gentle reminder that people have taken a long time with their turn, then have timers with no consequences. You can exceed your timer as much as you want, and it'll give you a time penalty and red font for your time and red hourglass and all those things that you think are sufficient deterrent to people wasting others time, but don't give the option to kick (and still have games time out after a certain amount of inactivity so they're not clogging the server forever). But I guess BGA admin are among those terrible people who believe devastation to others by ending a game early is a reasonable thing.

If you believe that you shouldn't be blaming the person, but the unfair system, then you should be advocating for kicking/conceding not to be possible, and accepting that some people choose to use those options as suits them. Not their fault, they're just in a system that allows them to make choices they shouldn't be allowed to make. Just as you accept that some people choose to run tournaments without the no-kick option turned on.

As I've said, I personally avoid ending games early too. It's a disappointment for me too. In some ways, I wish there were different rules around it. But this is the system BGA have chosen to run with and while I might be disappointed with how that plays out sometimes, I can see the reasons for it, and I accept that's how it is. I get the choice to not end my games early (mostly). Other people get different choices. I can choose to avoid those people on BGA if I want. But those people are not doing anything wrong - they just see things differently to me.

As others have said, the fact that being kicked from a game is punitive, the fact that you get a screen that pops up to tell you "Ooops! You did something you shouldn't have and here's some tips on how to be a good player who doesn't do that again" (as people on forums have also complained about) would suggest that the BGA stance is that people shouldn't be exceeding their timers.

No need to infer things by suggestion about BGA's stance: running out of time is against the site's code of conduct. https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=f ... sofconduct

Fair enough. I didn't really go looking, was just going off of this post that said it wasn't anywhere in the "rules":

This is why BGA needs a setting at table creation to "automatically remove players who are out of time". It shouldn't be up to the users to enforce the rules, and it's absurd to blame those who are following the rules everyone agreed to at table creation for not wanting to continue playing with someone who isn't following them.

You don't enforce any rules by kicking players out of time, because there are no such rules. I'd quoted the FAQ in another similar thread:

"If the player seems to be away, we advise you to wait a few minutes: this player may be experiencing some network problems or have left temporarily. If the player does not come back, and their clock has become negative, then you may kick this player out of the game."

That's all, that's it. You may kick, you may not kick. The official stance of BGA on running out of time is that they don't have a stance. Players decide. And since players think differently about that matter, we'll have many many more thread to come about this issue.

[Meeplelowda]

Those choices do not make those people unsympathetic or mean or whatever other negative descriptor you want to apply to make people feel bad and agree to do things your way.

You forgot lacking empathy.

As I've said, I personally avoid ending games early too. It's a disappointment for me too.

The funny thing is that many of us who have chimed in saying we want the *option* to expel a player actually prefer not to exercise the option. Like I said above, the last two games I played where someone went over I didn't expel.

Here is a conversation that by example explains my philosophy:

Me: This is the only game you are not staying on time with. You should not join a 4 move per day game if you can't handle it.

Me: If this is your first time and you didn't know, I can give you some grace. But you aren't even trying to catch up. You are falling farther behind and I don't want this to take 2 months.

Player: Sorry I didn't pay attention about the number of move. I will be more careful

Me: Thanks. I appreciate the response. Some people do this and don't even apologize.

Player: Your welcome and thanks to you to explain me this point

Me: It's ok to make mistakes. I try to be kind if someone communicates. Peace

Player: Many thanks
Player: Just a question : is there some "pause" during the night time for the player ? Or the time still running ?

Me: Only for games that are 8 moves/day or more. For those it pauses for 12 hours every day.
Me: You can still make moves, but you don't lose any time during those hours.

Player: It's depend on each person's time zone ?

Me: No. It will be the same hours worldwide, but it will be displayed in your local time so you don't have to convert it.

Player: Ok thank you Sorry but for me it's time to sleep...

Me: No worries. Like I said I understand and I appreciate that you responded.
Me: I can't speak for the other player, but you won't have any problems from me (unless you disappear for a week).

Player: don't worry it will not be the case Thank you so much again

Totally lacking in empathy....

[tbhp]

Here is a conversation that by example explains my philosophy

To me that dialogue sounds backhanded and condescending, like you are talking to a child. I wouldn't feel safe with someone talking that way to me in the chat, because it's like you are hanging a looming threat over their head, as in you'll be "kind" only for as long as they behave in the particular way you want them to behave.

Empathy doesn't mean warning people about the bad things you might do to them. It means putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining how your actions might affect them. You don't even ask questions about them, their perspective on ending games early, their mental state. It reads like all you are interested in is enforcing the play style you want.

The use of "grace" is very telling. It puts you in a Godlike position where this other user will receive your ire if they don't obey.

How about we just be friendly with each other without acting like we are the police and without expecting anything in return?

[Suoivax]

Here is a conversation that by example explains my philosophy

To me that dialogue sounds backhanded and condescending, like you are talking to a child. I wouldn't feel safe with someone talking that way to me in the chat, because it's like you are hanging a looming threat over their head, as in you'll be "kind" only for as long as they behave in the particular way you want them to behave.

Empathy doesn't mean warning people about the bad things you might do to them. It means putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining how your actions might affect them. You don't even ask questions about them, their perspective on ending games early, their mental state. It reads like all you are interested in is enforcing the play style you want.

The use of "grace" is very telling. It puts you in a Godlike position where this other user will receive your ire if they don't obey.

How about we just be friendly with each other without acting like we are the police and without expecting anything in return?

so.... offering help to a new player is condescending now?

[tbhp]

Here is a conversation that by example explains my philosophy

To me that dialogue sounds backhanded and condescending, like you are talking to a child. I wouldn't feel safe with someone talking that way to me in the chat, because it's like you are hanging a looming threat over their head, as in you'll be "kind" only for as long as they behave in the particular way you want them to behave.

Empathy doesn't mean warning people about the bad things you might do to them. It means putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining how your actions might affect them. You don't even ask questions about them, their perspective on ending games early, their mental state. It reads like all you are interested in is enforcing the play style you want.

The use of "grace" is very telling. It puts you in a Godlike position where this other user will receive your ire if they don't obey.

How about we just be friendly with each other without acting like we are the police and without expecting anything in return?

so.... offering help to a new player is condescending now?

Help, seriously? They are giving them the conditions under which they won't kick them out.

The part about informing them on the time zones constitutes help, sure, but the rest of the dialogue is a major veiled threat.

[Suoivax]

To me that dialogue sounds backhanded and condescending, like you are talking to a child. I wouldn't feel safe with someone talking that way to me in the chat, because it's like you are hanging a looming threat over their head, as in you'll be "kind" only for as long as they behave in the particular way you want them to behave.

Empathy doesn't mean warning people about the bad things you might do to them. It means putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining how your actions might affect them. You don't even ask questions about them, their perspective on ending games early, their mental state. It reads like all you are interested in is enforcing the play style you want.

The use of "grace" is very telling. It puts you in a Godlike position where this other user will receive your ire if they don't obey.

How about we just be friendly with each other without acting like we are the police and without expecting anything in return?

so.... offering help to a new player is condescending now?

Help, seriously? They are giving them the conditions under which they won't kick them out.

The part about informing them on the time zones constitutes help, sure, but the rest of the dialogue is a major veiled threat.

If that is what you consider a threat, it explains a LOT of your posts in this thread, lol.

[tbhp]

Since this is an interesting concept, I decided to make my version of how I think a respectful dialogue would go:

Me: Hey, you haven't been making a move for days. You should probably be careful of the other players, you know some people kick out...

Player: Oh, thanks for the head up. I've just been lazy lately and this is a decisive point in the game, so I haven't able to decide myself on a move yet.

Me: Oh, I see. You're right it's a pretty tight game. Your board looks promising though.

Player: Yeah, I think it'll look really beautiful by the end. I would hate it if the other players ended the game early.

Me: Well, you don't have to worry about anything with me, feel free to take as much time as you need.

Player: Thanks!

This is it, no overlong dialogue, no "peace" and "grace" and other fake benevolence stuff, no setting conditions, no looming threat, no treating the other person like they are a child or below you. Just straight to the point, understanding of the other person's feelings, and some friendly banter.

[Meeplelowda]

This is it, no overlong dialogue, no "peace" and "grace" and other fake benevolence stuff, no setting conditions, no looming threat, no treating the other person like they are a child or below you. Just straight to the point, understanding of the other person's feelings, and some friendly banter.

You have zero self-awareness, or you are trolling. There was nothing fake in my dialogue. I meant everything I said. That is a gloss entirely invented by you. And you have a lot of nerve talking about treating someone like they are beneath you given the arrogance you exhibit in virtually every single thing you write. I'm done with you. You behave exactly like someone who took one philosophy class in university and now thinks he is a master of rhetoric.