The allotted time is too long.

[tbhp]

Also, as stated by Meeplelowda a little above, this feature is exactly presented as something to allow people to take more time to play, having an emergency or being on vacation are just 2 possible use of this feature given as an example.

Yeah, I might be confused about that part. People always talk of them as being for emergencies/vacations, so I tend to assume that BGA presents them that way too.

The examples given still seem disingenuous though, because if you give people a feature like that, it is obvious that most people are going to use them for strategic reasons. Like when they run low on time through a fault of their own, and need more thinking time in order to attempt winning a game. Or more nefariously, when the end of the arena season is near and they may use the joker to avoid losing certain games.

So given all this, why did BGA choose "innocent" examples to illustrate the feature? It feels like they don't want to acknowledge that realistically, those jokers will mostly be used for less honorable reasons.

It's similar to how they won't publicly share all the metrics that resolve ties and times outs and things like that. When there is an issue that could invite criticism, they tend to leave us in the dark about it, probably because they themselves realize that those things aren't exactly ideal.

[nik592]

If one could guarantee that a person would only use a time joker when they absolutely needed to, you could allow unlimited time jokers. The problem is you can't guarantee that, and some people would abuse it if it's an unlimited supply. So the supply is limited to try to encourage people to save it for when they need it. It's like sick leave from a job - most places have limits on what you can use, to prevent people from taking sick days for reasons they're not really needed. That said, in both cases (time jokers and sick leave), the limit is considered to be fair to an average person. Some people will use less. Some people will use more. People who have genuine emergencies might feel it's unfair that they only get 4. People who never use them might feel it's unfair that people use any (because they can't appreciate that people might have a different experience of life that results in genuine emergencies where they need to be used). 4 is probably a good middle ground to those two perspectives.

[Sacha2142]

Also, as stated by Meeplelowda a little above, this feature is exactly presented as something to allow people to take more time to play, having an emergency or being on vacation are just 2 possible use of this feature given as an example.

Yeah, I might be confused about that part. People always talk of them as being for emergencies/vacations, so I tend to assume that BGA presents them that way too.

The examples given still seem disingenuous though, because if you give people a feature like that, it is obvious that most people are going to use them for strategic reasons. Like when they run low on time through a fault of their own, and need more thinking time in order to attempt winning a game. Or more nefariously, when the end of the arena season is near and they may use the joker to avoid losing certain games.

So given all this, why did BGA choose "innocent" examples to illustrate the feature? It feels like they don't want to acknowledge that realistically, those jokers will mostly be used for less honorable reasons.

It's similar to how they won't publicly share all the metrics that resolve ties and times outs and things like that. When there is an issue that could invite criticism, they tend to leave us in the dark about it, probably because they themselves realize that those things aren't exactly ideal.

Leaving stuff about BGA handles those things aside (not because I disagree, but because it's worth a whole discussion), I'm not sure that it's so obvious how people would use jokers. It depends on the player, but I guess that some hardcore competitive games tend to attract more players that would use the jokers to get an advantage.
My experience is not representative, but I don't think I've ever seen it happen to me.

[tbhp]

If one could guarantee that a person would only use a time joker when they absolutely needed to, you could allow unlimited time jokers. The problem is you can't guarantee that, and some people would abuse it if it's an unlimited supply. So the supply is limited to try to encourage people to save it for when they need it. It's like sick leave from a job - most places have limits on what you can use, to prevent people from taking sick days for reasons they're not really needed. That said, in both cases (time jokers and sick leave), the limit is considered to be fair to an average person. Some people will use less. Some people will use more. People who have genuine emergencies might feel it's unfair that they only get 4. People who never use them might feel it's unfair that people use any (because they can't appreciate that people might have a different experience of life that results in genuine emergencies where they need to be used). 4 is probably a good middle ground to those two perspectives.

Yeah, sick leave is a good comparison. I mean, nothing stops someone from calling in sick when in reality, they might just be feeling lazy that day. As long as they don't use more of those leaves than they are allowed to, other people probably won't care why they used them.

Still, the example is similarly hypocritical on the part of that companies that label it "sick leave". It would be more honest to just call it "leave", and leave open the reasons why it might be used.

On this site, I would have appreciated that they acknowledge all the ways the time jokers can be used, and explain that while it's not ideal, it's the best compromise they found in order to give people some way out when they really need it. Like people have explained in this thread. Instead, they decided to pretend to be clueless about the bad uses and act like it's fantasy land where everyone will use them for totally fair reasons.

Since this is a competitive website, this makes it all the more important for the site to be transparent and communicative about why they make the choices they do. Instead, we end up having those things explained by users on the forums.

[Jellby]

Still, the example is similarly hypocritical on the part of that companies that label it "sick leave". It would be more honest to just call it "leave", and leave open the reasons why it might be used.

Psychology. If they called it "leave", people would use it for the most frivolous reasons (which is fine), and then when they actually get sick or have some kind of emergency they would demand additional days because they "cannot possibly work".

Since this is a competitive website

Given that the only prizes in such "competition" are imaginary internet points and virtual badges, I wouldn't really call it a competitive site. Besides, for many people the only competition is that inherent to playing games, as they don't engage in tournaments, Arena, or leaderboard climbing.

[tbhp]

Since this is a competitive website

Given that the only prizes in such "competition" are imaginary internet points and virtual badges, I wouldn't really call it a competitive site. Besides, for many people the only competition is that inherent to playing games, as they don't engage in tournaments, Arena, or leaderboard climbing.

All competition is "imaginary", since it only exists to the extent that we humans assign it value. A physical trophy could be seen as just a random piece of silverware, and indeed for people who don't care about competition at all they might see it as having zero value.

On the other hand, we should always respect the people for who the competition matters. I don't see what is the point in calling this not a competition site, when its function is no different than any other sort of competition (even though obviously, this only applies to the types of games you listed).

[Cos-]

I personally find it very very annoying that a lot of people on the forums treat BGA as a competition and assume everyone else does. I certainly don't, and I think the things those people recommend or argue for to serve competitive interests can sometimes be detrimental. I don't think we have any real stats on what proportion of BGA users consider it "competitive", but I think they're very likely a minority - just a very vocal minority on forums. Please do not make statements like "this is a competitive web site" or use that assumption in arguments about how the site should work. I find that kind of view short-sighted, and even a bit arrogant.

[FrankJones]

I will share my own experience.

A few months ago, I created an open-invite game for a game that can require immense amounts of thinking time in the early game. This was a mistake on my part, because I was not mentally prepared. I wasn't sleeping well and was having difficulty concentrating.

I did not expect a master-level player to join my game. But that is what happened. And I was faced with a difficult opening, one that made my brain hurt every time I glanced at it. So, I would look at it for a few minutes and put it aside. I had major life events going on.

I was running out of clock, so I used a joker.
By the end of that joker's time extension, I was in the same position - I still had not studied the game state and was no closer to making a move.

This sequence repeated 3 more times. So, February was not even over, and I burned all 4 of my jokers for the year.
And I still made a bad move and lost the game, because despite all those jokers, I ended up not studying the position carefully enough.

Nothing in the BGA rules says we need to have any one specific reason for using a joker, or how often we can use them. So, I used them as I saw fit.

Now, I have no jokers for actual emergencies. So, I stick to games that are unlikely to require serious analysis of the game state.