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.

[RobertBr]

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.

Your comments seem divorced from the reality of what you are discussing. BGA went through several iterations of friendly/training mode, and reached the current incarnation that has no Elo, no time limit, and no penalties. There were some issues at one point as there was a group of players who wanted the some parts but not others (such as Elo and penalties but no time) but this seems to be version that is most useful to most people and has the fewest issues - that you are hung up on your own idiosyncratic understanding of the word 'friendly' is irrelevant to that.

[Meeplelowda]

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.

that you are hung up on your own idiosyncratic understanding of the word 'friendly' is irrelevant to that.

To be fair, they are hung up on their own idiosyncratic understanding of practically everything.

[tbhp]

but this seems to be version that is most useful to most people and has the fewest issues

I don't agree with that. No one has shown how my suggestion makes things worse rather than better. Ceaseless likes being obtuse and repeating "no one is harmed by it" (not a very respectful way to debate with someone at all by the way), but even if you take the views that the harms aren't too great, I don't see how you can argue that they are not greater than the alternative of simply making people wait when someone is taking too long (which is already what they sign up for when they play "friendly" anyway).

I don't know why every time this topic comes up, everyone starts hiding their head in the sand and feigns not understanding that the inconvenience of waiting for someone (which on this site just means having a table open) is not in the same ballpark of harm as seeing a game terminated without being able to do anything about it.

[Jellby]

No one has shown how my suggestion makes things worse rather than better.

I want to be able to quit at any time without penalties. If your suggestion prevents it, it makes it worse.

waiting for someone (which on this site just means having a table open) is not in the same ballpark of harm as seeing a game terminated without being able to do anything about it.

Of course, it's not. Being force to wait for someone is something that directly harms you. It wastes your time, it prevents you from doing something else, etc. Seeing the game terminated is just a small inconvenience, no worse than someone playing an unexpected winning move: too bad, move on.

[tbhp]

I want to be able to quit at any time without penalties. If your suggestion prevents it, it makes it worse.

No system can be perfect. The point is that it would do more good than harm. You can't leave without penalty, but it also means you are less likely to see someone terminate a game on you.

It wastes your time, it prevents you from doing something else, etc.

It doesn't prevent you from anything. It doesn't take any effort to leave the table open, and if you've lost interest in the game you can just make nonsense moves when it's your turn. That would be better than quitting.

Seeing the game terminated is just a small inconvenience, no worse than someone playing an unexpected winning move: too bad, move on.

How is a game ending unexpectedly a problem? As long as a game ends within the rules, all is good. Quitting means someone threw away the game before the rules determined it was over.