Why do people do this?

[Archisian]

What are the implicit and explicit agreements that you are talking about? People jump onto this website to either:

1. Play a quick game (real-time)

2. Play a slow, casual game (turn-based)

This idea that everybody is making some kind of agreement that is either universally applied or is somehow understood by the two parties playing in those particular games without saying it directly is just not the way it happens. The majority of people don't think this way when they jump on to play a game online. If it's real-time, as I said, I get it. You usually play real-time games because you have a limited time to play. For turn-based games, people play them because they don't have to worry about such time constraints. It's bizarre that someone who starts a turn-based game with that mindset then gets upset when someone goes over time. Makes no sense, especially when you can play dozens of multiple turn-based games at the same time! If you are someone like that, then you are someone who likes convert contracts, which is a personal problem than a problem with the other person.

Jesus Christ, seems like before we start every single game, everyone must read and sign a lengthy legal contract just to make people who think this way feel even remotely happy. Even then, I'm sure they'll find something to whine and complain about. You just can't win!

The agreement is obviously the time allotted for a turn...which is literally the first thing you see when clicking on a game to join, there's nothing covert about it. "Going over time" as you state is by definition a violation of an agreement, so why is it bizarre that someone would get annoyed by this. The only reason a person would get annoyed is because they're trying to show grace and not kick the player going over time.

The way the very system is designed contradicts your arguments, if there's nothing wrong with going over time, why would there be a penalty for doing so and being kicked from a game. You claim to know the reasons why people play turn-based, maybe sometimes it has to do with play time available, other times it has to do with pacing preference. If the agreement for pacing for a game is violated, makes sense that some people would get annoyed...it's not a lengthy legal contract, it's a single sentence, and it's the first thing you see when you're looking at a game to join.

There is a difference between simply being irked and then taking time out of your day to post to a public forum about it.

Going over time is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about. It's an online website to play games. This is not a big deal.

[Cile]

What are the implicit and explicit agreements that you are talking about? People jump onto this website to either:

1. Play a quick game (real-time)

2. Play a slow, casual game (turn-based)

This idea that everybody is making some kind of agreement that is either universally applied or is somehow understood by the two parties playing in those particular games without saying it directly is just not the way it happens. The majority of people don't think this way when they jump on to play a game online. If it's real-time, as I said, I get it. You usually play real-time games because you have a limited time to play. For turn-based games, people play them because they don't have to worry about such time constraints. It's bizarre that someone who starts a turn-based game with that mindset then gets upset when someone goes over time. Makes no sense, especially when you can play dozens of multiple turn-based games at the same time! If you are someone like that, then you are someone who likes convert contracts, which is a personal problem than a problem with the other person.

Jesus Christ, seems like before we start every single game, everyone must read and sign a lengthy legal contract just to make people who think this way feel even remotely happy. Even then, I'm sure they'll find something to whine and complain about. You just can't win!

The agreement is obviously the time allotted for a turn...which is literally the first thing you see when clicking on a game to join, there's nothing covert about it. "Going over time" as you state is by definition a violation of an agreement, so why is it bizarre that someone would get annoyed by this. The only reason a person would get annoyed is because they're trying to show grace and not kick the player going over time.

The way the very system is designed contradicts your arguments, if there's nothing wrong with going over time, why would there be a penalty for doing so and being kicked from a game. You claim to know the reasons why people play turn-based, maybe sometimes it has to do with play time available, other times it has to do with pacing preference. If the agreement for pacing for a game is violated, makes sense that some people would get annoyed...it's not a lengthy legal contract, it's a single sentence, and it's the first thing you see when you're looking at a game to join.

There is a difference between simply being irked and then taking time out of your day to post to a public forum about it.

Going over time is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about. It's an online website to play games. This is not a big deal.

Being irked is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about, but you're taking time out of your day to post on a public forum about it.

[Silene]

Going over time is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about. It's an online website to play games. This is not a big deal.

True! The same way it's not a big deal to be skipped in a game and lose some reputation and elo when the opponnent doesn't want to continue this game with a pace they haven't signed up for. But I think that is already your point and I'm not saying this to you specifically, but to some others who take the game and elo a bit too important and think it needs to be protected (and finished) at all cost.

[Archisian]

The agreement is obviously the time allotted for a turn...which is literally the first thing you see when clicking on a game to join, there's nothing covert about it. "Going over time" as you state is by definition a violation of an agreement, so why is it bizarre that someone would get annoyed by this. The only reason a person would get annoyed is because they're trying to show grace and not kick the player going over time.

The way the very system is designed contradicts your arguments, if there's nothing wrong with going over time, why would there be a penalty for doing so and being kicked from a game. You claim to know the reasons why people play turn-based, maybe sometimes it has to do with play time available, other times it has to do with pacing preference. If the agreement for pacing for a game is violated, makes sense that some people would get annoyed...it's not a lengthy legal contract, it's a single sentence, and it's the first thing you see when you're looking at a game to join.

There is a difference between simply being irked and then taking time out of your day to post to a public forum about it.

Going over time is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about. It's an online website to play games. This is not a big deal.

Being irked is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about, but you're taking time out of your day to post on a public forum about it.

I didn't make the original post. Hey, you put your opinion out there, sometimes I'd like to talk about it. But I'm not someone who is going to make an original post about the things that irk me. I do, however, combat arguments that I do find to be weak or illogical (not saying that's happening in this case).

[Archisian]

Going over time is not some gross and immoral act that requires discussion about. It's an online website to play games. This is not a big deal.

True! The same way it's not a big deal to be skipped in a game and lose some reputation and elo when the opponnent doesn't want to continue this game with a pace they haven't signed up for. But I think that is already your point and I'm not saying this to you specifically, but to some others who take the game and elo a bit too important and think it needs to be protected (and finished) at all cost.

Oddly enough, from my experience, most of the people I've seen who make these complaints are also the ones who will say that it's "not all about winning and losing" (i.e. "Winning or losing doesn't matter.") It's an interesting compartmentalization.

[tbhp]

The same way it's not a big deal to be skipped in a game and lose some reputation and elo when the opponnent doesn't want to continue this game with a pace they haven't signed up for.

It is a big deal when said skipping affects the results of a competition. If people want to complain about those who go out of time, that's their prerogative, but then why aren't they putting in the same energy complaining about the people who kick out with nefarious intentions? This weird ordering of priorities really comes off like they are playing devil's advocate, or choosing to side with the wrong side of the equation.

Oddly enough, from my experience, most of the people I've seen who make these complaints are also the ones who will say that it's "not all about winning and losing" (i.e. "Winning or losing doesn't matter.") It's an interesting compartmentalization.

You probably realized it while writing your post (especially as you've been challenged on it before), but those two statements are not at all equivalent.

[Archisian]

Oddly enough, from my experience, most of the people I've seen who make these complaints are also the ones who will say that it's "not all about winning and losing" (i.e. "Winning or losing doesn't matter.") It's an interesting compartmentalization.

You probably realized it while writing your post (especially as you've been challenged on it before), but those two statements are not at all equivalent.

I'm not saying they are equivalent. I just find them to be contradictory positions that a lot of those people often hold.

[tbhp]

I'm not saying they are equivalent. I just find them to be contradictory positions that a lot of those people often hold.

Well I also meant they are not contradictory. Lots of people care about winning as much as anyone could, and also think other things matter.

With the way you stated it, it's like you're putting words into their mouth. They aren't saying "i.e. winning or losing doesn't matter", you are the one making that conclusion for them, one which they evidently don't agree with.

[BarnardsStar]

Oddly enough, from my experience, most of the people I've seen who make these complaints are also the ones who will say that it's "not all about winning and losing" (i.e. "Winning or losing doesn't matter.") It's an interesting compartmentalization.

You probably realized it while writing your post (especially as you've been challenged on it before), but those two statements are not at all equivalent.

I'm not saying they are equivalent. I just find them to be contradictory positions that a lot of those people often hold.

“i.e.” is an abbreviation for “id est”, which means literally “it is”. Your parenthetical, in using this abbreviation, is in fact equating these two sentiments and saying they are the same thing. So you can see why tbhp thought that.

[Silene]

The same way it's not a big deal to be skipped in a game and lose some reputation and elo when the opponnent doesn't want to continue this game with a pace they haven't signed up for.

It is a big deal when said skipping affects the results of a competition.

For the league I'm organizing, we're asking the players to not skip ASAP but get in contact with opponents and organizers first. So it's part of the meta for the League. For BGA-Tournaments, it is already possible to disallow skipping when setting up the tournament. So Organizer can decide whether it should be part of the meta or not. For random games I would say anything goes. In some edge-cases (like multiplayer / last turn, when player is actively moving) I would say it is not nice - but IMO nothing that warrants any complaint or general discussion about it. Red-thumbing solves the issue well enough (you can't force people to be nice!).

Your suggestion (not sure where you made that - maybe in another thread) to give a small penalty to the players who skip IMO would do a lot more harm than good because it wouldn't only appy to the not-nice cases but also to the much more common very legitimate skip-cases. And I say that although I have been skipped far more than I have skipped others. I consider most cases where I was skipped as my own fault and accept the penalty (sorry to those who I have annoyed with slow play in the past!).