Abuse of the "leaving for free" system

[RandomUN]

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.

Right, you have made your absolutely inflexible opinion crystal clear on numerous threads in numerous ways. Your opinion is not the only one, it is not the way the site on which you argue your position is structured, and it has moved into condemning people for following the rules of this site in favor of your ideal of 100% completed games.

Your inflexibility leaves absolutely no room to find an actual compromise people can agree on because anything that does not result in a completed game is condemned outright.

[tbhp]

What would a compromise look like? The reasoning « I want to be able to win a game I was losing » is not a reasonable position one can compromise with.

The argument that kicking out helps put things into order make a bit more sense, but it remains that it would be best to just not kick out. The threat already exists that you can be kicked out. We don’t need to go all the way to enact the threat. You have to think of it as a nuclear threat kind of thing. It’s here to push people to play, but if you actually put it into action, then you are destroying everything we’ve been working for.

If you want people to be warned about players who go out of time, you should support my suggestion to make it possible to penalize players without affecting the game result. I’d be totally down with that.

[RandomUN]

If you want people to be warned about players who go out of time, you should support my suggestion to make it possible to penalize players without affecting the game result. I’d be totally down with that.

No, I really don't have to support that suggestion. If a player is going to waste my time and abuse the clock, I have already lost interest in playing the game *with them*. If I were playing a board game with a person in real life and they kept leaving the table, taking phone calls, going to check in on their sports team, watching videos on their phone, and otherwise not giving the game they're playing with me the attention they promised when they agreed to play the game, I would also say "It doesn't seem like you are interested in playing, let's just call it here." And if they then said "sorry, I'll keep playing," I'd give them another chance. If they then returned to the same behavior, I would say again "look, I really am not able to enjoy this game with you. I'm done." This is no different.

I'm playing the game for the enjoyment of the game. If we aren't having fun, there is no reason to play. I care much less about who wins or loses than I do how the game was played.

This player repeatedly, in the same game, and after receiving a second chance, ran over time by HOURS. They have a clear history of doing so in the past. If this isn't exactly the time a player should reasonably expect to be expelled, when is?

[Jellby]

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?

Maybe they are playing the "meta-game" of getting the highest possible ranking in BGA, without breaking any rules? I wouldn't be surprised to know many people are more interested in this than in actually being good in playing a game. And even if they want to be good, they won't be better by waiting for an overtime opponent the last turn, so they can get both.

[tbhp]

Maybe they are playing the "meta-game" of getting the highest possible ranking in BGA, without breaking any rules?

Kicking out someone isn't breaking a rule, but it's a random occurrence (you don't decide how often it happens). It's also a very simple thing to do. If they find this sort of game interesting, they may as well throw a dice and count how many sixes they get and try to improve their record. It would be just as interesting a game as the shenanigans they are pulling here. It also wouldn't affect the people who are trying to be competitive at the games on here.

And even if they want to be good, they won't be better by waiting for an overtime opponent the last turn, so they can get both.

Indeed, but if they want to be good logically they shouldn't want their record to be tainted with wins that don't result from an actual game and therefore aren't a reflection of anything as far as their goal is concerned.

The problem is that some people are inconsistent in their beliefs. I have seen people kick out in literal finals. So on one hand, they appear competitive in that they had to put in the work to get there. But on the other hand, they apparently aren't able to commit to that logic because at the last moment they decide to grad a win that doesn't mean anything. Those sorts of contradictions should be called out.

[tbhp]

No, I really don't have to support that suggestion. If a player is going to waste my time and abuse the clock, I have already lost interest in playing the game *with them*. If I were playing a board game with a person in real life and they kept leaving the table, taking phone calls, going to check in on their sports team, watching videos on their phone, and otherwise not giving the game they're playing with me the attention they promised when they agreed to play the game, I would also say "It doesn't seem like you are interested in playing, let's just call it here." And if they then said "sorry, I'll keep playing," I'd give them another chance. If they then returned to the same behavior, I would say again "look, I really am not able to enjoy this game with you. I'm done." This is no different.

I can understand the annoyance, but I have a problem with how you are trying to pass it off as they are the one not interested in the game, when in your own words you're the one who lost interest.

In your example, it seems that your opponent is unconditionally committed to the game. Like, if they don't get to finish it today because they enjoy doing many other things, then they'll finish it tomorrow, or at some other date. But they want to finish it eventually. You are the one who ended up losing interest to the point of literally leaving the game.

That's one of my many problems with people who kick out. When people take a long time to play, I can excuse it because I don't know what they are doing, and them not playing gives me zero indication that they don't want to play the game anymore. In all likelihood, they want to finish it and are just slow at it. When someone kicks out, on the other hand, they are definitely proving to me that they didn't care enough about the game to wait for someone. Their interest was conditional.

If this isn't exactly the time a player should reasonably expect to be expelled, when is?

Why does there need to be a time for that? The rather obvious answer is "never".

If you are worried about the theoretical possibility of a game never ending, well tournament games have a maximum duration, and non-tournament games automatically end if no one has made a move for 30+ days, so there is that.

[RandomUN]

Their interest was conditional.

On the conditions that the other player agreed to and violated.

I am 100%, absolutely saying that I am not interested in playing with a player that does not respect me, my time, or the rules we agreed to play by.

My example is a perfect example. You care about the RESULT of the game, I care about the EXPERIENCE of the game.

I'm not kicking them for an advantage, for some win, for some statistics or ranking in some online game.

The player has been given multiple opportunities to play, been given grace periods, been given the opportunity to come back to the table and finish the game. They haven't.

Not only does kicking this player release me from a game that is no longer able to be enjoyed in any manner, but it notifies other players that this person does not play in a timely fashion.

You refuse to acknowledge this is a reasonable situation where people would no longer want to play with a player and that the player in question should receive the consequences.

If we genuinely cannot meet *on this specific scenario* then your position is so inflexible as to be unable to reach a compromise and find a better solution that works for more players.

[RandomUN]

[In your example, it seems that your opponent is unconditionally committed to the game.

It is genuinely beyond all logic to make this statement. I gave an example in which a player was doing anything except playing the game, coming back only when called out on their behavior, and then continuing the same behavior.

If this game were taking place in a gaming establishment or convention, they would be kicked out, exactly as they are here.

[tbhp]

On the conditions that the other player agreed to and violated.

That's your interpretation of the time settings, though.

Sure, me choosing a time setting generally means I expect a game to be played at a certain speed. But I don't think that makes me immune from criticism if I choose to leave the game, either.

I see it as a feature that helps people find suitable games. Not as a contract that can be broken if one side doesn't respect it. Or, if it is a contract, leaving the game is not something I would consider an acceptable answer to the contract being broken.

It's like in real life, when people break the contracts they have with you, that can mean certain things, but it doesn't mean you are allowed to do anything you want to them either.

I am 100%, absolutely saying that I am not interested in playing with a player that does not respect me, my time, or the rules we agreed to play by.

Pretty much, and for me the people who have certain conditions in mind when playing games (like for you, the game has to keep being enjoyable) are not people I feel "safe" playing with, as I have no guarantee the game can't end any moment.

In real life, we usually get to choose who we want to play with, but on this site, it can create problems when we get matched with people whose values are different from ours, especially in tournament games where the stakes by definition are more important than in other games, making it all the more hurtful if an opponent decides to terminate a game in that context.

[tbhp]

[In your example, it seems that your opponent is unconditionally committed to the game.

It is genuinely beyond all logic to make this statement. I gave an example in which a player was doing anything except playing the game, coming back only when called out on their behavior, and then continuing the same behavior.

Yet they keep playing when you ask them, they never at any moment express a desire to stop playing the game. You're the one who did, and unequivocally at that.

Okay, I can't 100% know that they were truly unconditionally committed to the game. It's possible that at some point, they would have wanted to stop playing too. But I can't know that. I can't accuse them of something they didn't do. You on the other hand definitely proved it, as you chose to end the game, so you can't complain that I'm rightfully holding you responsible for it.