Players out of time - code of conduct

[Ceaseless]

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.

That's an interesting explanation. Your reasons seem to differ from the flow perspective that's been discussed earlier.

I wonder though, if a player is taking forever in one table, doesn't that also mean you could step back from that game and fully focus on an other? I mean, does the timed out game really matter at this point? If that player is not playing because their interest is wavering, then they may not be a very good player or may not be having a very good game, so the odds would be in your favor even if you aren't at the best of your capabilities when you have to show up to make your moves against them.

All in all, since players being very slow is a fairly rare occurrence, I think making some exceptions here and there wouldn't necessarily impact your Elo goals.

True; if someone is moving very slowly (and indeed this is rare), I don't mind starting a second game of that same game. I essentially put the first one on "pause", write myself some notes on what my upcoming plan is, and focus on the new game.

A significant difference is you can handle if someone else thinks differently from you and won't act like you've been "destroyed" if they won't. there's no "it's impossible for someone to feel as deeply about a different opinion than I do about my own" going on.

[tbhp]

But by BGA making it a player choice, that allows people who want to accept players over time continuing to do so (or as you say, allows players who exceed time but their opponents don't notice a chance to recover and avoid losing on time). So I was trying to say I think it's probably default would expect kicking (or game ending) when over time, but allows players to choose NOT to. I get they're two sides of the same coin, but I saw it as slightly different to what I thought you were saying.

Well, I don't agree with your argument that because BGA allows to kick people out (or concede), then it means we can't criticize those who do. By this logic, then as long as something is legal in a society, we can't criticize those who do it, or consider their action morally wrong. Morality is distinct from legality.

Even from a societal perspective, something being possible doesn't always mean that society expects us to do that thing. I gave the example of nuclear weapons earlier. We want them to exist, but at the same time we don't want them to be used ever. The plan is not to use them, it's to use the possibility of them in order to push societies to behave correctly. I think the option to kick out is a similar sort of concept. BGA doesn't want people to think they are free to take forever to make their moves. But they also don't want games to be terminated with an unfair result. So the correct ideology is to fear being kicked out, but to never actually kick out someone (just like we fear the bomb, but we never actually want to use it).

And to be clear, I don't think people who kick out or concede are terrible people. I think my stance is similar to veganism. People who are vegan, logically, see the people who eat meat as committing an immoral action. But that doesn't mean they see them as horrible people just because of that moral failing. This is the sort of thing where we kinda have to accept that society is stuck at a certain point and that most people, by default, just go along with what is considered normal at the time. Maybe in 100 years people will look back and will wonder how something like that was accepted by the majority of people. But it's human nature to a certain extent to think it's okay to do something just because most people are doing it too, I can't exactly hold it against people and consider them terrible just because of that. I'd only call terrible someone who actively goes out of their way to harm others.

[Cile]

Well, I don't agree with your argument that because BGA allows to kick people out (or concede), then it means we can't criticize those who do. By this logic, then as long as something is legal in a society, we can't criticize those who do it, or consider their action morally wrong. Morality is distinct from legality.

Earlier in this thread weren't you saying it was inappropriate to use an analogy of the legal system in regards to playing a board game online?

While I agree something being legal doesn't necessitate that it is moral, it does mean there is a higher barrier to overcome if you want to try to convince people it is immoral. To use your veganism example: If someone says "Eating meat is legal so I'm going to eat meat" a response of "being legal doesn't make it ethical" is not going to convince them to stop eating meat.

[tbhp]

Earlier in this thread weren't you saying it was inappropriate to use an analogy of the legal system in regards to playing a board game online?

I criticized a specific analogy, I didn't say any analogy that has to do with the legal system is invalid.

While I agree something being legal doesn't necessitate that it is moral, it does mean there is a higher barrier to overcome if you want to try to convince people it is immoral. To use your veganism example: If someone says "Eating meat is legal so I'm going to eat meat" a response of "being legal doesn't make it ethical" is not going to convince them to stop eating meat.

I think there is a higher barrier to the extent that the person is on the conservative spectrum. Meaning, the more a person bases their opinions on what society considers normal, the harder it will be to convince them. Conversely, the more they base their opinions on independent thinking, the easier it will be to convince them.

Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story, because the person also has to find themselves agreeing with you. They may disagree with you, not because of society, but because of their own independent reasons. In this case you won't convince them either.

On the last line, the argument against eating meat wouldn't be that legality is distinct from morality. That argument is simply a counter to the idea that if something is legal, then it must be moral. In order to show eating meat is immoral, you would have to bring the arguments that address that specifically.

[nik592]

And to be clear, I don't think people who kick out or concede are terrible people.

People kick out because they are being selfish, not because they think the game has no possibility of ending in time.

Someone booting the offending player at a time when it's convenient for them is a risk, yes. I worry about it myself all the time. But that doesn't justify becoming yourself the bad guy by enacting the same unfair and unfun outcome earlier than it needs to happen. Why would you not wait and hope that it will work out? It seems like a very defeatist perspective on life to decide to throw something away just because there's a risk it won't succeed.

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.

Like I said in the quoted post, that's a perspective I don't understand, people whose interests are so fleeting. I don't think things not going according to schedule is a good justification to abandon something. If that's what it takes for you to lose interest, then it appears like you never were that invested in the first place.

I wonder if the problem is not getting worse, with the age of the internet and of decreasing attention spans.

So they're not "terrible", but they are "selfish", "the bad guy", and "never know what they want and whose interests are fleeting". While you might want to say those characteristics don't add up to "terrible" in your definition, when I say, "you think they're a terrible person", I'm using that for the shorthand of it. It's pretty clear that you think poorly of someone who expels someone or concedes a game (ever). Your general attitude in this thread is clearly designed to make people who choose to expel or concede feel bad (and likely, agree with your perspective and stop doing it).

Also...

I'd only call terrible someone who actively goes out of their way to harm others.

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.

I don't understand people who are able to act so casually about their actions when it's clear the harm it is doing.

Are you saying you would blame the player who went out of time by accident, instead of blaming the player who deliberately kicked them out in order to ruin and invalidate your victory?

Yes.

Then clearly I have no idea how your mind works. You are literally defending someone who chose to hurt you over someone who wished you no harm.

Which sounds like you think people who end a game early are actively going out of their way to harm others. Apparently, by your own definition, these are terrible people.

I gave the example of nuclear weapons earlier. We want them to exist, but at the same time we don't want them to be used ever. The plan is not to use them, it's to use the possibility of them in order to push societies to behave correctly. I think the option to kick out is a similar sort of concept.

The use of nuclear weapons results in immense property damage and/or loss of life. This is not a reasonable comparison to whatever level of harm you think early termination of a game inflicts. People choosing to end a game do not need to consider the consequences of their action to the same level as someone choosing to deploy a nuclear weapon.

There is a scenario where the person in charge of the nuclear weapon would choose to deploy it. The problem is that generally people have trouble agreeing what that scenario is because the stakes are so high. So mostly, people choose to try ANY other alternative to resolve a dispute before that happens. Conversely, if a person is worried a nuclear weapon might be used against them (or their country, or whatever), they generally change what they are doing to avoid that. People who have run out of time despite the threat of being kicked typically don't change their behaviour (they do in some cases, and sometimes people will choose not to kick on that basis). But as I've said, the stakes are not anywhere near so high (whatever you might think about the impact of a game being ended early on the players), so people can choose it more lightly.

[tbhp]

Which sounds like you think people who end a game early are actively going out of their way to harm others. Apparently, by your own definition, these are terrible people.

I think there are three distinct categories. Harming someone just for the sake of it (sadism), knowingly harming someone because of some advantage it gives you (selfishness), and unknowingly harming someone because you didn't know better (neglect).

I'd rank the morality of those in the order I listed them. When I talked of going out of your way to harm others, I was mainly referring to the first category.

When someone expels someone out of a game that they have no possibility of winning anyway, this is harming just for the sake of harming, so it falls under the first category and I'd say makes them a terrible person.

The third category hardly ever makes someone a terrible person (unless maybe they are so socially oblivious that they frequently cause great harm without realizing it).

The second category is a grey area. Sometimes being selfish doesn't have too bad consequences. Sometimes the selfish action is too disproportionate to give the person a pass. When a person is so set on their desire to keep being selfish despite knowing that the harm they are causing is much greater than their inconvenience, I'll start viewing them as a terrible person. Luckily most people who have disagreed with me in those threads don't seem to fall under that. Only a select few have shown a total disregard for what their actions are causing.

The use of nuclear weapons results in immense property damage and/or loss of life. This is not a reasonable comparison to whatever level of harm you think early termination of a game inflicts. People choosing to end a game do not need to consider the consequences of their action to the same level as someone choosing to deploy a nuclear weapon.

I didn't say the intensities are the same, I said they are the same sort of concept, use the same sort of logic. It's an interesting comparison because few things in life work based on this sort of "paradoxical" logic, and it's fascinating to reflect on how sometimes paradoxical systems are exactly what we need to keep things under control.

Personally, I feel the same way about being able to kick out as I would feel if I were in charge of nuclear weapons. I feel that I have in my hands something that can cause irreversible and immense damage, and I feel it is my responsibility to never use it. Conversely, when I or another player is out of time in a game I'm in, I feel the constant hanging threat of termination. Obviously, the intensities are not the same, but there are so many parallels.

There is a scenario where the person in charge of the nuclear weapon would choose to deploy it. The problem is that generally people have trouble agreeing what that scenario is because the stakes are so high. So mostly, people choose to try ANY other alternative to resolve a dispute before that happens. Conversely, if a person is worried a nuclear weapon might be used against them (or their country, or whatever), they generally change what they are doing to avoid that. People who have run out of time despite the threat of being kicked typically don't change their behaviour (they do in some cases, and sometimes people will choose not to kick on that basis). But as I've said, the stakes are not anywhere near so high (whatever you might think about the impact of a game being ended early on the players), so people can choose it more lightly.

I don't really agree with either of that. I don't think any leader would ever consider actually using the bomb, because there are automatic retaliation systems in place that activate the moment you are attacked. So choosing to use it would always be a self destructing choice.

I also disagree on people on this site not changing their behavior when they run out of time. I mean, we'd probably need data to have a more detailed discussion, but I suppose in a lot of cases they start playing faster. This largely depends on the reasons why they are out of time in the first place.

But this is not really an argument for anything, because even if countries in the real world didn't change their behavior when under nuclear threat, that still wouldn't be a reason to use nuclear weapons. The implicit contract is to never use them.

Although, the system admittedly presents a risk: it is possible that, upon realizing that no one will ever use the bomb, countries will just keep doing what they want and things will keep escalating, the threat of the bomb being taken less and less seriously over time.

The same issue could happen on this site: if people realize that people literally never kick out, then we would see the opposite effect of what we want, which is that people would now feel free to take as much time to play as they want. With that said, I think it's unlikely to happen, because human nature being the way it is, we know that the risk of being kicked out will never be zero, so the fear will always exist.

[Cile]

I think there are three distinct categories. Harming someone just for the sake of it (sadism), knowingly harming someone because of some advantage it gives you (selfishness), and unknowingly harming someone because you didn't know better (neglect).

So which level of is it when you harm someone by calling them "selfish", "the bad guy", and "never know what they want and whose interests are fleeting"? Are you doing it for the sake of it? Or because it gives you an advantage in the argument?

[tbhp]

I think there are three distinct categories. Harming someone just for the sake of it (sadism), knowingly harming someone because of some advantage it gives you (selfishness), and unknowingly harming someone because you didn't know better (neglect).

So which level of is it when you harm someone by calling them "selfish", "the bad guy", and "never know what they want and whose interests are fleeting"? Are you doing it for the sake of it? Or because it gives you an advantage in the argument?

This doesn't fall under any of the categories I listed. I'm just calling out people on the harm I think they are doing.

If according to you we shouldn't point out bad things because in doing that we are "harming" people, we might as well throw all morals out of the window and not have any civilization.

You always make bad faith arguments in order to defend wrongdoers and play devil's advocate. I'm not sure what you are getting out of it.

[Cile]

This doesn't fall under any of the categories I listed. I'm just calling out people on the harm I think they are doing.

There's a difference between "You are causing harm" and "You are selfish and a bad person. You're interests are fleeting and you don't know what you want."
The former adequately "calls someone out", the later is you actively trying to cause harm as well. Are you doing it for the sake of it? Or because you believe it gives you some advantage?

After all, if a game ending prematurely can "utterly destroy" someone, how much more damage can insulting their character cause?

If according to you we shouldn't point out bad things because in doing that we are "harming" people

You are the one coming at things from the "harming" angle. I asked a clarifying question.

You always make bad faith arguments in order to defend wrongdoers and play devil's advocate. I'm not sure what you are getting out of it.

If asking reasonable follow-up questions to your arguments is bad faith, what does that say about your arguments?

[tbhp]

There's a difference between "You are causing harm" and "You are selfish and a bad person. You're interests are fleeting and you don't know what you want."
The former adequately "calls someone out", the later is you actively trying to cause harm as well. Are you doing it for the sake of it? Or because you believe it gives you some advantage?

Because I believe they are bad things and pointing them out can benefit society at large, and even yourself.

After all, if a game ending prematurely can "utterly destroy" someone, how much more damage can insulting their character cause?

There's no reason to be that affected by character accusations.

There's two options: either you disagree with the accusation, in which case you have no reason to feel bad about it. Or, you find yourself agreeing with it, in which case you realize you should be better.

When a vegan calls me out for eating meat, I don't whine about how they are "harming" me by telling me I'm doing something immoral. I acknowledge the validity of their reasoning. It's intellectual dishonesty to just sweep aside the accusation that is inconvenient for you, and try to turn things around and say they are the ones harming you.

You are the one coming at things from the "harming" angle. I asked a clarifying question.

You didn't need any clarification. You knew the answer to your question would be "neither", you just tried to play victim.