Abuse of the "leaving for free" system

[Jellby]

So when you inadvertently leave your king exposed, I should resign and get the loss I deserve, instead of give you checkmate and get a lame win, I see

[tbhp]

I'm not sure how it's not obvious to you that moving your pieces on your board is part of the game (it is indeed what Chess is all about), whereas going out of time has nothing to do with the game itself.

[Jellby]

It's part of the BGA rules that if your run out of time you can be expelled and the opponent gets a deserved win.

[tbhp]

Meta rule of the site, maybe, but not part of the rules of the game intended by the creators.

You can't argue in good faith that we are here to see who does best at keeping up with their clock. We are here to see who is gonna win the actual game.

[Jellby]

I'm not here to see who's best at anything. I'm here to enjoy playing. I enjoy playing if I can do it at my preferred pace.

[tbhp]

So you care more about the act of playing and less about the specifics of who is gonna win and what a finished board is gonna look like.

Note that this motivation doesn't apply to many of the cases where people kick out, when it's clear the opponent was still playing and they just wanted to avoid a loss in the last turns.

[Jellby]

Maybe. In that case they care more about winning/losing than about proving who's best. Or they care about proving who's best within the time constraints. Fine with me anyway.

It's like the blocking argument in Ticket to Ride (or a number of other games). Some people seem to care more about building long routes, some people seem to care more about making the game last as long as possible, some people seem to care more about getting more points than the opponents no matter what... All is good, as long as they don't try to force their views on everyone else and start calling names, and all play by the rules. Then the winner will be decided by the rules (of the BGA implementation) and end of discussion.

[tbhp]

In that case they care more about winning/losing than about proving who's best.

But that's the incoherence I pointed out in the other thread. If to them winning is just an announcement that says they won, not a result of what they actually achieved in the game, then what does it even mean to win something?

It seems to me that those people are not competition oriented, they are more going for the social points that come with winning something. But they seem oblivious to the fact that when we respect winners, that's because we admire their skills and the way they earned those wins. It's not just the fact they "won" in of itself.

Or they care about proving who's best within the time constraints.

That makes some sense for a quick game of Chess where you don't have much time to play. But that's pretty specific to the type of game Chess is, for most games I don't think people particularly care about how fast a person can make their moves, as a metric to judge them by.

Also, when you play turn based on this site, most of the time running down is not due to the person thinking about their moves, but rather them being lazy or busy with other things going on in their life. So the idea that time can be used as a judging metric doesn't work here.

[RandomUN]

In that case they care more about winning/losing than about proving who's best.

But that's the incoherence I pointed out in the other thread. If to them winning is just an announcement that says they won, not a result of what they actually achieved in the game, then what does it even mean to win something?

It seems to me that those people are not competition oriented, they are more going for the social points that come with winning something. But they seem oblivious to the fact that when we respect winners, that's because we admire their skills and the way they earned those wins. It's not just the fact they "won" in of itself.

Or they care about proving who's best within the time constraints.

That makes some sense for a quick game of Chess where you don't have much time to play. But that's pretty specific to the type of game Chess is, for most games I don't think people particularly care about how fast a person can make their moves, as a metric to judge them by.

Also, when you play turn based on this site, most of the time running down is not due to the person thinking about their moves, but rather them being lazy or busy with other things going on in their life. So the idea that time can be used as a judging metric doesn't work here.

The game result is known. Who won or lost is already decided. What matters to some is that a player does not play at the pace that was agreed on and the only way for other people to be warned of this behavior is the reputation hit they receive from being expelled. It is a warning to other players and giving these players grace does a disservice to other players who may not accept or automatically reject by preferences the player that can't maintain a reputation because they are rightly expelled for going over time.

Your inflexibility on finishing games no matter what is your own. Not everyone has the same priorities. Ascribing intent to people who expel players who violate the rules is making an assumption you can't know.

I would absolutely, 100%, kick this player, last turn or not, and it would have nothing to do with getting a win. If you look at their history (from before their break), getting expelled or conceding is a common occurrence. Other players absolutely should have a heads up about it.

[tbhp]

What matters to some is that a player does not play at the pace that was agreed on and the only way for other people to be warned of this behavior is the reputation hit they receive from being expelled.

Right, but that's a problem independent from the matter of who should win the game.

That's why I think it should be possible to give a player a penalty, but still continue playing with them and give them the possibility to win.

It seems that in this case, you'd get the best of both worlds, as people would still have the incentive to play within a certain time frame, while also more games would be continued to completion.

I would have zero qualms giving penalties to players who go in the red, as long as we are still allowed to finish the game.

Ascribing intent to people who expel players who violate the rules is making an assumption you can't know.

I don't think I'm making any assumption. People who expel are proving that they care less about finishing a game and reaching the fair result than they care about other things, whether that's grabbing a win or a desire to punish people who are out of time. I think all the reasons people come up with in order to justify expelling are condemnable.