How can I quit a game if a player hasn’t been online for a month, without losing reputation?

[Ceaseless]

I can't think of a reason BGA would go out of their way to make one, but such a mode existing wouldn't have any real impact, as players could just go "I don't want to let my table have insults, so I won't play there." BGA should obviously have such a mode defaulted to off to avoid accidental entrances, but as long as everyone knows what they signed up for, it's fine.

Not everything is okay just because people agree to it. The site has a responsibility to not let hateful speech happen, so I don't think it would be allowed to exist just because people signed up for it.

That's your opinion on hateful speech, and in this case BGA happens to agree with it, or at least something close enough for these purposes. I doubt this specific example went through a lot of thought, but them opposing it more or less matches up with their typical philosophy on these things. It's a completely reasonable call on their part.

This goes for competitive aspects too, for example you can't create a tournament where there is a stage where some players just get randomly eliminated, because that would be an obviously wrong way to design a tournament. So, not everything that is possible to do is offered as an option,

Being an obviously wrong way to design a tournament doesn't mean you can't do it. Terrible designs happen all the time. Whether things are offered or not on BGA did not go through some ultimate filter that ruled out all the bad options or kept all the good ones. The random elimination concept, while being a bad idea, I would imagine falls under "no one even bothered thinking about this in the first place" rather than any conscious decision on BGA's part on whether to have it or not.

The mode has very useful perks commonly desired, those that want them will utilize it, and those don't won't. Your assumptions on what friendly mode should be don't align with the site.

Those perks would still exist with my suggestion taken into account. It would only make the mode better and suitable for more uses.

I can't think of a reason BGA would go out of their way to make one, but such a mode existing wouldn't have any real impact, as players could just go "I don't want to let my table have insults, so I won't play there." BGA should obviously have such a mode defaulted to off to avoid accidental entrances, but as long as everyone knows what they signed up for, it's fine.

Not everything is okay just because people agree to it. The site has a responsibility to not let hateful speech happen, so I don't think it would be allowed to exist just because people signed up for it.

This goes for competitive aspects too, for example you can't create a tournament where there is a stage where some players just get randomly eliminated, because that would be an obviously wrong way to design a tournament. So, not everything that is possible to do is offered as an option, and I find it strange that quitting is something that people have the option to do without consequences.

The mode has very useful perks commonly desired, those that want them will utilize it, and those don't won't. Your assumptions on what friendly mode should be don't align with the site.

Those perks would still exist with my suggestion taken into account. It would only make the mode better and suitable for more uses.

Not really. For one thing it removes protections from malicious AFK, as previously mentioned by others. Friendly mode allows players to play without putting any rating on the line and without having to worry about being chained down to the game. These are rather useful tools commonly desired by players.

[tbhp]

The random elimination concept, while being a bad idea, I would imagine falls under "no one even bothered thinking about this in the first place" rather than any conscious decision on BGA's part on whether to have it or not.

Well they probably haven't thought of it for the same reason they haven't thought about a mode where it's allowed to insult people: because the idea is so evidently unacceptable that it wouldn't even cross their mind that people may request it.

Granted, the topic of quitting may not be as evident as those more extreme examples, but we are talking about a mode that is literally called "friendly", so you'd think it would be immune from actions that can significantly harm a player.

Not really. For one thing it removes protections from malicious AFK, as previously mentioned by others. Friendly mode allows players to play without putting any rating on the line and without having to worry about being chained down to the game. These are rather useful tools commonly desired by players.

You aren't chained down to the game anyway since in turn based, you can just ignore the game. And even if some people find that bothering, that's still a very advantageous tradeoff compared to the possibility of having a game unexpectedly ended on you (which again, if someone is playing something called "friendly", seems like something they would want to be protected against).

[Ceaseless]

The random elimination concept, while being a bad idea, I would imagine falls under "no one even bothered thinking about this in the first place" rather than any conscious decision on BGA's part on whether to have it or not.

Well they probably haven't thought of it for the same reason they haven't thought about a mode where it's allowed to insult people: because the idea is so evidently unacceptable that it wouldn't even cross their mind that people may request it.

Granted, the topic of quitting may not be as evident as those more extreme examples, but we are talking about a mode that is literally called "friendly", so you'd think it would be immune from actions that can significantly harm a player.

Not really. For one thing it removes protections from malicious AFK, as previously mentioned by others. Friendly mode allows players to play without putting any rating on the line and without having to worry about being chained down to the game. These are rather useful tools commonly desired by players.

You aren't chained down to the game anyway since in turn based, you can just ignore the game. And even if some people find that bothering, that's still a very advantageous tradeoff compared to the possibility of having a game unexpectedly ended on you (which again, if someone is playing something called "friendly", seems like something they would want to be protected against).

Fortunately, someone quitting a friendly mode game won't cause significant harm to their opponent, so we're good there.

[tbhp]

Fortunately, someone quitting a friendly mode game won't cause significant harm to their opponent, so we're good there.

Well you know it can, given the things I've said on the topic before.

It's unlikely to be the case here, given the person hasn't shown up for a month, but I don't think that's a risk that should ever be taken.

[Ceaseless]

Fortunately, someone quitting a friendly mode game won't cause significant harm to their opponent, so we're good there.

Well you know it can, given the things I've said on the topic before.

It's unlikely to be the case here, given the person hasn't shown up for a month, but I don't think that's a risk that should ever be taken.

Everything you said on the topic before was covered. No real point in repeating it, I certainly have no intention of doing so, given how thoroughly it was handled before. Fortunately, someone quitting a friendly mode game won't cause significant harm to their opponent, so we're good there.