Abuse of the "leaving for free" system

[tbhp]

Maybe the kicker had something coming up and and didn't want to have their own time go into the red themselves. Assuming someone doesn't have competitive values because it fits your narrative is meh

Still isn't great and still doesn't fit competitive values. In that case it means they are someone who will do bad things when they are afraid others will do bad things to them.

[Silene]

That's when you read the worst intentions into people's actions. I try not to do that.

I can see that, but it's not like any interpretation would be great either. I mean, even if I'm wrong and they just got fed up, they are still someone who doesn't care much about competitive values.

Or they are someone who cares about the timer but is willing to allow 1 off and expels on 2nd strike.

[Magicnerd]

That's when you read the worst intentions into people's actions. I try not to do that.

I can see that, but it's not like any interpretation would be great either. I mean, even if I'm wrong and they just got fed up, they are still someone who doesn't care much about competitive values.

Maybe the kicker had something coming up and and didn't want to have their own time go into the red themselves. Assuming someone doesn't have competitive values because it fits your narrative is meh

Maybe this, maybe that. We can never know.

The point is that in general, regardless of the range of possibilities that can occur, there is a big exploitable weakness to toxic behavior in the rule system for timeouts.

[SiRan90]

I can see that, but it's not like any interpretation would be great either. I mean, even if I'm wrong and they just got fed up, they are still someone who doesn't care much about competitive values.

Maybe the kicker had something coming up and and didn't want to have their own time go into the red themselves. Assuming someone doesn't have competitive values because it fits your narrative is meh

Maybe this, maybe that. We can never know.

The point is that in general, regardless of the range of possibilities that can occur, there is a big exploitable weakness to toxic behavior in the rule system for timeouts.

The toxic behaviour is going over your agreed time, everything after that is a knock on effect

[SiRan90]

Still isn't great and still doesn't fit competitive values. In that case it means they are someone who will do bad things when they are afraid others will do bad things to them.

No it's someone who is abiding by the competitive rules set. If the person kicked in the first instance, people would still say it's unsportsmanlike. Should the person just be held in a hostage situation forever until the op decides fit to play

[tbhp]

Or they are someone who cares about the timer but is willing to allow 1 off and expels on 2nd strike.

Yeah, pretty much, so in other words, they don't actually care about seeing the game to conclusion.

The toxic behaviour is going over your agreed time, everything after that is a knock on effect

No one is saying going over time is a good thing. But if you are gonna focus on that and instead take the defense of someone who doesn't want to end the games they start, well, I don't know what to say to that...

Also, the term "toxic" should be reserved for behaviors that are malicious and intentional. This doesn't apply to the person going out of time.

[Magicnerd]

Still isn't great and still doesn't fit competitive values. In that case it means they are someone who will do bad things when they are afraid others will do bad things to them.

No it's someone who is abiding by the competitive rules set. If the person kicked in the first instance, people would still say it's unsportsmanlike. Should the person just be held in a hostage situation forever until the op decides fit to play

If you still want to hyperfocus on this particular incident instead of the general system flaw:

As already stated by me (OP) before, I passed for the last round already at the point where my opponent quit. This means he did not have to wait for me at all anymore and could finish the game right then and there. He opted to use his "bailout" instead by using his quit option.

If you still choose to defend that, I don't know what to say anymore.

[tbhp]

No it's someone who is abiding by the competitive rules set. If the person kicked in the first instance, people would still say it's unsportsmanlike. Should the person just be held in a hostage situation forever until the op decides fit to play

You literally said they might be doing it because they don't want to be out of time themselves and potentially suffer the consequences. That's your premise, and it's not a good one. No matter what their situation is, they should always leave the game on and hope it can conclude without anyone leaving or kicking anyone. There's no ifs about it.

If you still want to hyperfocus on this particular incident instead of the general system flaw:

As already stated by me (OP) before, I passed for the last round already at the point where my opponent quit. This means he did not have to wait for me at all anymore and could finish the game right then and there. He opted to use his "bailout" instead by using his quit option.

If you still choose to defend that, I don't know what to say anymore.

Exactly. People want to focus on the offense of the person who went out of time, but they are willfully ignoring that the whole reason going out of time is bad is because it can 1) waste people's times and 2) prevent games from ending normally.

If the out of time player finished all their moves and the other player just has to play their final move, but they chose not to do it, then they become the person who is guilty of the bad things that going out of time is bad for. Because they are 1) preventing the game from ending normally and 2) retroactively wasting everyone's time by ruining the game that both players invested time in. At this point, they have zero excuse.

[Silene]

[...]
As already stated by me (OP) before, I passed for the last round already at the point where my opponent quit. This means he did not have to wait for me at all anymore and could finish the game right then and there. He opted to use his "bailout" instead by using his quit option.

I thought the button to expel you is only there when your timer is running. How do you expel someone whose turn it is not?

[tbhp]

[...]
As already stated by me (OP) before, I passed for the last round already at the point where my opponent quit. This means he did not have to wait for me at all anymore and could finish the game right then and there. He opted to use his "bailout" instead by using his quit option.

I thought the button to expel you is only there when your timer is running. How do you expel someone whose turn it is not?

They didn't expel, they conveniently used the fact that you can leave and neutralize the result when your opponent is out of time. Not getting a win, but avoiding a loss. Not technically an expulsion, but same kind of result and intent.