Temporary banishment from tournaments for serial offenders

[cogitoergosum87]

I'm currently playing in a tournament with a player who has 0% reputation, has signed up for numerous tournaments and left countless games unstarted/unfinished. Their personal reputation history says they have left mid-game (or not showed up at all) 50 times and have exceeded time limits 150 times in the last 60 days, spanning over all that time. This should not be possible. This player should not have been allowed to enter all these tournaments.

Not finishing a tournament game (or two) could be sanctioned by a temporary ban from tournaments and the ban could be longer if you get multiple such offences on your record over the 60 days time period the record is valid. Not being able to sign up would in most cases be a good incentive to complete tournament games. Furthermore, to prevent extreme cases such as the one described above from happening also the overall reputation percentage and the currently valid games sanction history should be factors (in some way specified by the admins who have a better idea of what the average or norm is) in whether you're allowed into tournaments (also, in turn-based tournaments, the time limit exceeded in real-time games could be a much lesser factor). I also suggest that going onto the opponent's allotted time more than a few times within a few months should also result in a short temporary ban; this would encourage people to not to be indifferent about or knowingly exploit their opponent's allotted time. I know people have defended the practice by saying that they have had graceful opponents who have let them play on their time when they have not been able to attend earlier, so I'm suggesting that there be some leeway.

I'm making this point because players entering tournaments (well, most) want to get proper opponents and results and they have entered the tournament for the certainty of getting to play competitively against other players - not wait around whether or not their opponent decides to show up at all. Even if not allowed in tournaments for a determined time period you could still play non-tournament games with voluntary opponents willing to take a risk with a player with a dubious reputation, but in tournaments players cannot decide who to play against/take a risk with.

[veme]

Okay, well, I think it is fair to temporarily ban people who systematically do not finish their tournament games from tournaments; but I do wish you would stop with this attempt to insta-punish anyone who exceeds their time:

I also suggest that going onto the opponent's allotted time more than a few times within a few months should also result in a short temporary ban; this would encourage people to not to be indifferent about or knowingly exploit their opponent's allotted time. I know people have defended the practice by saying that they have had graceful opponents who have let them play on their time when they have not been able to attend earlier, so I'm suggesting that there be some leeway.

I think you are underestimating how common it is for players to go over time. When I play Hive against other good players, for instance, we can get into almost drawn situations that take many moves to resolve. If my opponent is in Australia, like Eucalyx for example, one of us is likely to go over time or we may not be able to finish even with very long timers (indeed, sometimes we cannot finish anyway). And, as I stated before in the other thread you started about this, sometimes life gets in the way and you can arrange with your opponent to make allowances for your schedule.

Additionally - whether or not my opponent is graceful is none of your business. If it bothers you to have to potentially wait more than X days to finish a round of a tournament: don't sign up for a tournament that has rounds that could last more than X days. This way it will never bother you what happens in other peoples' games, even if there is a serial tournament game ditcher, because you established when signing up that you don't mind waiting that long.

Imagine if players were automatically kicked for exceeding their own time, as you were requesting in your other thread. If you didn't want to wait more than 6 days for a round, you wouldn't join tournaments that gave one player more than 6 days. In much the same way under the current rules, if you don't want to wait more than 6 days for a round to end, don't join tournaments that give a player more than 3 days. Then you can stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. [Edit: Actually, even in a tournament where players were autokicked after going over time, you would need to join a game with 3 days or less per player to guarantee it would finish in under 6 days.]

If you are really about getting 'proper opponents and results' it seems to me you would be less interested in things like banning potentially quality players because they don't use the timer in your preferred manner, or ending games early instead of giving players as much time as possible to finish under normal rules.

[cogitoergosum87]

Hi veme,

I appreciate your insights on the matter. I know Hive, though do not currently play it very much. I mostly play rather straight-forward games that have just one direction, where going over time is unlikely if you just keep doing your moves. It is probably true that such situations, where the game is not finishable within the time frame, can arise in other games, such as Hive, more often than I have thought. However, I'm trying to understand different sides of this - and apparently this should be discussed in detail with players of different games. Like I said, I only have experience of a limited number of games.

I also thought I amended myself in the other thread by saying that it is disappointing to see people not adhere to their commitments, with which I meant players who do not finish (or systematically go over time). And I did not mean situations where you run out of time due to sheer impossibility to get there. It's worth trying to get to the focal point of this and find the real problem.

I do not have any attempt to "insta-punish" anyone. I want to avoid that since we're all human and sometimes tech fails too. I once managed to forget I was in a live game for long enough to be kicked out when I got a surprising phone call, another time my internet company cut my connection mid-game without notification and I can only try and make sure I respond in time when it comes to turn-based games (I try to manage this by only taking so many games at once and choosing long enough time frames per move). Like I said, I do not know what the norms or averages for going over time are and "a few" is not a number. Also, I said there should be some leeway, but if that leeway could be adjusted with some particular parameters to be made more accurate to mainly weed out systematic problem behaviour, then that would be optimal. One partial solution would be to determine whether the game is not finished due to an impasse or if the reason the game did not finish is due to a player's inactivity. At least if a player has not made a single move, it's usually the latter.

I have never claimed that "it is my business" whether anyone else's opponent is graceful or not. I simply stated that I have previously gotten an explanation like that and that I find it reasonable and that there should be some leeway in occasional cases where both players can agree on playing very late on the round (after one player has gone on overtime) for someone's unfavourable schedule reasons. I don't want to kick anyone out for going overtime but I just don't want people to go over time too lightly so it would be good to have some number of tournament games (at least in the games that indeed can always be finished) that would cause some sanction. I know you cannot always plan your life to the finest detail - and if someone messages me to tell me that they cannot play until a certain date (never happened to me though, people just not finishing or not messaging anything even if finishing on overtime) then I'd be willing to be flexible, and try to arrange to play when they can. But if that is more of a habit than an occasional incident, then I at least would prefer that there was some incentive to finish most (finishable) games without exceeding to my side of the time and make me rearrange my schedule too.

I do not understand where this advice comes for me to not play tournaments where I'm not willing to wait. And it is not a problem for me to wait if people finish their games, though I confess I haven't even kicked out the person who hasn't made a single move and who I do not think will ever do so in that game (but I don't think they should have been allowed to register to that tournament). I have stressed it before that I do not want to resort to kicking players out either. My problem is not even if occasionally my opponent goes over time (though I do not especially like it, if I encounter the same player in different tournaments and they're always doing that and thus should receive some kind of sanction). However, my main complaint is about the players who habitually or more than occasionally don't finish games that are finishable if you just play. Why is it so bothersome to some of you that I would prefer that the serial ditchers would not play in the tournaments?

Atm, I'm playing against at least two players in tournaments that I doubt will ever show up to play because I've seen their reputation and games sanction history. That is what is my main issue - and I don't think most tournament players appreciate that it is possible to forfeit an unlimited number of games and still be eligible to register.