Players out of time - code of conduct

[tbhp]

I don't know why people are acting so sensitive about being called bad character traits.

This sentence illustrates a rather notable problem you've shown in a lot of posts. Which is that you don't bother to think about how other people would feel. Whether it's it outright ignoring it, or in comparing how the way anyone that might disagree with you feels must inherently be less than the way you feel, etc. If they disagree with you, they must be crazy, not understand themselves, etc.

Like I said already, people complaining about being hurt by my pointing out that they are hurting someone is totally backwards. It's like asking me to care about the feelings of a bigot. I'm more concerned about the feelings of the people they are hurting in the first place. And they could easily avoid the "oh so bad" feeling of being considered a bigot by just not being a bigot.

Besides, people are not being crazy or not understanding themselves. They themselves confirmed to me that the way they feel about their inconvenience is something of a lesser intensity than how someone might feel when having a game terminated on them. This imbalance in relative harms is the whole reason I consider it wrong to kick out or concede.

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

Well... that, or they personally think it's wrong for people to kill each other.

Oh, so you are confirming that they are fine with people being vocal about their beliefs as long as those beliefs agree with theirs.

[tbhp]

Yet instead of arguing against this belief (which granted, you did earlier in the thread), you've now resorted to arguing that people shouldn't even have beliefs that disturb the status quo.

Your position is that you are emotionally devastated by a particular action, and therefore nobody should ever engage in that action. But there are many thing—and I gave a list—of things that some people are emotionally devastated by that, nonetheless, we do not make a part of the “status quo”—the universally held morality. This is not an argument that people should not have such beliefs. It may well be an argument that changing the “status quo” may require a high bar. (A statement of fact, which is neutral on whether or not things should be this way.)

You already made that sort of argument a few months back, but it doesn't work in this context.

When you're playing a game with someone and considering kicking out or conceding, all it takes to know if you might be hurting them to a disproportionate degree is to ask them in the chat about it.

There is no moral dilemma or headache on how to find a compromise or general rule that best accounts for everyone's well being at the same time. You can literally just ask the person.

If you find out that the person you are playing with would be hurt significantly more than what the alternative means for you, then you shouldn't do it. This doesn't even go against the status quo. It's just basic decency. It's already what we all do when we interact with people in real life and sometimes we have to make sacrifices because we realize that some people's issues are bigger than our own issues.

If people can do it in real life, then they can do it on a board game site.

[Ceaseless]

Like I said already, people complaining about being hurt by my pointing out that they are hurting someone is totally backwards. It's like asking me to care about the feelings of a bigot. I'm more concerned about the feelings of the people they are hurting in the first place. And they could easily avoid the "oh so bad" feeling of being considered a bigot by just not being a bigot.

Besides, people are not being crazy or not understanding themselves. They themselves confirmed to me that the way they feel about their inconvenience is something of a lesser intensity than how someone might feel when having a game terminated on them. This imbalance in relative harms is the whole reason I consider it wrong to kick out or concede.

People can read your post history, lol.

Also note that all your examples constitute beliefs that are controversial. You wouldn't have any issue with someone who says "I truly believe it is wrong for people to kill each other". So just like nik, you cherry pick and only have a problem with people whose beliefs disturb the status quo.

Well... that, or they personally think it's wrong for people to kill each other.

Oh, so you are confirming that they are fine with people being vocal about their beliefs as long as those beliefs agree with theirs.

If you want confirmation of someone else's views, that's a discussion for that user, not me. That you think it's obligatory they have to give the same impact to their stances on board games that they do their stances on people killing each other is something I find strange. Some people tend to view those actions on different levels.

[tbhp]

That you think it's obligatory they have to give the same impact to their stances on board games that they do their stances on people killing each other is something I find strange. Some people tend to view those actions on different levels.

The discussion is not about the levels of those topics, it's that people conveniently will fight against people's right to express themselves when it's a belief that disagrees with theirs, but will welcome self expression when it's something they agree with. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this.

[Ceaseless]

That you think it's obligatory they have to give the same impact to their stances on board games that they do their stances on people killing each other is something I find strange. Some people tend to view those actions on different levels.

The discussion is not about the levels of those topics, it's that people conveniently will fight against people's right to express themselves when it's a belief that disagrees with theirs, but will welcome self expression when it's something they agree with. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this.

The details matter. People scaling their beliefs on board games differently than their beliefs on killing people isn't the gotcha you think it is.

[nik592]

I don't think I've ever been called those things either, but maybe people are just trying to be polite or something. I mean, the reasoning for veganism logically leads to eating meat is an immoral action. It's not a matter of doing what feels "right for you", it's a moral belief that it is wrong and therefore applies to everyone.

No. I've spoken to both my vegan friends and my religious friends about the fact that I appreciate that they are respectful of the choices of others. They've explained that THEY feel a particular way so that drives their behaviour and they can also respect other people are free to make choices about what they want. And before you tell me they're just trying not to provoke my negative reaction to their criticism - well, I mean, that is true in a way. They're trying not to be intolerant. But believe me when I say I know my friends well enough to know that this is how they are, not how they're just being around me.

Fighting against the -isms of the world has typically been about giving people the right to choose. Feminism is about women having a right to choose what they do - some people love to argue that they're "not a feminist" because they follow a trad-wife lifestyle. And as many have pointed out, their right to choose to be that (or not) is what a feminist fights for. Of course, that doesn't mean some people don't use the label of feminism to criticise those who choose a trad-wife way, or to decide they hate all men, or whatever. But neither of those are feminism. Racism/sexism/ageism/homophobia are typically about denying opportunities (choices) to people. Fighting against them is about people being able to choose to be or do anything (within reason) regardless of race/sex/age/sexuality/etc.

I think I've made clear at this point that I use the words that best fit what I think in order that hopefully this has an impact in the future. Your attempt to say I'm just trying to harm people for no reason, when my agenda has been nothing but clear this whole discussion, is just attempting to sweep the issue under the rug so that you don't have to think about it. Although, you said you share some of my perspective so I'm not sure why it matters so much to you to defend the other side. You have no reason to stoop to the level of the other poster who tried to turn things around on me.

I'm not saying you're doing it for no reason, I've said very clearly, multiple times now, you're doing it to try and sway people to thinking like you. There is no agree to disagree with you - they either disagree (and continue to behave accordingly), so they've selfish, bad people, or they agree with you, so then they're fine.

Like I said already, people complaining about being hurt by my pointing out that they are hurting someone is totally backwards. It's like asking me to care about the feelings of a bigot. I'm more concerned about the feelings of the people they are hurting in the first place. And they could easily avoid the "oh so bad" feeling of being considered a bigot by just not being a bigot.

No one has said that you can't say that ending a game early harms YOU and MAY harm others (though most people in this thread seem to be ok with it), to such an extent that it's never acceptable ever. I'm not saying you're causing harm by saying others are causing harm (to you), I'm saying you're causing harm by calling the people you believe are causing you (and the imaginary masses who share your perspective) harm "selfish", "a bad guy" and a holder of "fleeting interests". Those are the negative characteristics you are ascribing to those who choose to end a game early. That's where you're causing harm (along with a clear underlying attitude that people who do so are terrible people).

Also, bigot is not an insult - that's just a name for someone who discriminates unfairly against others. It typically has a negative slant, as it should, because we shouldn't want people to discriminate unfairly against others. If someone called me a bigot, I'd probably consider if I've said or done something to give them the wrong impression and clarify or apologise if it wasn't something I intended. But even doing such a thing unintentionally would not make me a bigot either. If someone continued to call me such after attempting to resolve the issue, I'd mostly wonder what their problem was. Bigot is not a subjective measure. Selfish often is.

[Meereseule]

In a >2 player game, do NOT boot them and ruin everyone's game, coz that makes you the impolite one, to put it very mildly.

The time bank is 3 times longer than the turn time. If the table says "2 moves per day" and they haven't taken a turn for 2 days (or more often: taken 20+ hours to make their move for the past several days) I am not the rude one by enforcing the rules of the table.

Yes you very much are, because you are ruining the game of the other players who WERE taking their turns on time. By all means, ask them if they agree to abort the game, but don't just do it without consulting them. That's equivalent to suddenly wiping away all the pieces on a table game because 1 other player annoys you.

I agree. It annoys me so much when people just kick others out. When they don’t play for 5 days, ok. But what is the problem, when they don’t play a day. Life can happen. Don’t they have nothing else to do then to check if people are on time in a turn based game. I often times give red thumbs to the people who kick others out just because of some hours. I rather wait then abandoned a whole game.

[Cile]

The time bank is 3 times longer than the turn time. If the table says "2 moves per day" and they haven't taken a turn for 2 days (or more often: taken 20+ hours to make their move for the past several days) I am not the rude one by enforcing the rules of the table.

Yes you very much are, because you are ruining the game of the other players who WERE taking their turns on time. By all means, ask them if they agree to abort the game, but don't just do it without consulting them. That's equivalent to suddenly wiping away all the pieces on a table game because 1 other player annoys you.

I agree. It annoys me so much when people just kick others out. When they don’t play for 5 days, ok. But what is the problem, when they don’t play a day. Life can happen. Don’t they have nothing else to do then to check if people are on time in a turn based game. I often times give red thumbs to the people who kick others out just because of some hours. I rather wait then abandoned a whole game.

If they don't play for a day then they shouldn't join a table that expects them to be available to make multiple moves in a day. If they are joining a 1 moved per day or 1 moved every 2 days table then they can't be kicked unless they are absent for several days.

I agree, life happens. If they have been taking the turns regularly I'm not going to kick them. But it is exceedingly rare for me to encounter a player in the red who has taken their turns regularly. 99% of the time they have been dipping into their tame bank consistently for days/weeks. That is what the time bank and time jokers are for, for when "life happens".

[Jellby]

I have another suggestion for those who would enforce everyone to wait rather than expel: If a player is expelled, just ignore it, pretend it didn't happen and keep waiting until the player comes back and plays. What's the problem with waiting 1 day, 2 days, 1 week, 1 year...? just keep waiting.

[teallite]

Well, I felt like your post was saying, BGA don't enforce ending the game when the timer runs out, but some players can choose to if they want.

Yes, BGA doesn't enforce and doesn't care. That's why we'll have endless discussions about this here on forums. It's all about what players think.

In some ways, I feel like that would be the default state - most (video) games with timers, when the time runs out, that's game over.

Yes, in sports, in chess, in video games and in many other applications there is a default state, because, well, it exists. It occurs by default when time runs out, unless it's decided to do otherwise. This not the case here on BGA. This is also not the case in board games culture in general. For example, I'm not even sure that there are timers at WBC. I haven't seen them mentioned in any reports at least.

Many people around here believe that exceeding the timer means you've lost that game because you didn't play within the conditions (I am not among them).

Again, it a personal opinion. If people believe that exceeding the timer means you've lost _and_ they kick you, than you've lost. But no matter how long you're in red, you can continue to play and you can win. It could've been auto-loss on time without auto-kicking. So a game can get to completion, but you've lost anyway. But it's not like that, so it's just an opinion. Also, how many people around here? Like, many people among those who visit and post on forums? This is already a small subset of total player base.

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.

But BGA itself doesn't have a default. Maybe BGA expects that players have a default and will kick, so there is a recovery option and a cool down period in real-time games. So, BGA kinda counteracts that alleged default behavior. But this reinforces the fact, that BGA itself doesn't have a default. BGA is a family-friendly platform that was made by board game enthusiasts, not by board game competitive players. It's normal that they don't have a stance in these timer wars. BGA also operates on "one-size-fits-all" solutions. So, timer here is a friendly reminder, a guideline and a competitive feature at the same time. Whatever players choose.