Kicking people out who are over time

[Detonator]

Ok so it’s incredibly annoying when someone
Is constantly taking too long or plain abandons a game.
But for me it’s just as annoying when someone boots out a player as soon as they’re one second over time, especially
If it’s been a really good competitive game that’s gone on for a bit of time already. It’s obvious to me that people do this so that they can ‘win’ the game and get more points. This is not in the spirit and I think these people should lose karma points too. Sometimes people are ill or something happens, we do have real life’s as well! Spoiling what has been a good game is not cool and needs cracking down on.

[Caffe Latte]

Some days ago I did not kick out of time player despite she was winning and I was losing any ELO (strong vs average). She apologised for timeout and explicitly thanked for fair play because it is very common observation here to expel winners. I said - we are competing here for years, I better play with you again for years in mutual comfort and respect.

I think there is something wrong with ELO calculation because currently expelling winning player "is worth it". If it would not be, there would not be effect observed when gamers watch timeouter closely and only if timeouting one comes to winning, expelling him/her otherwise playing on.

Well, am ready to read texts like "ability to be on time is part of blablabla"

Maybe a feature like collective abandon, also a feature agree to "reset timer"?

[Shaq Jenkins]

Technically, the rules say that you are allowed to expel players when they're over their time limit, even if it's only 1 second over the limit. Would it be nice if people waited? Yes. However, they're not obligated to wait.

It's not fair to deduct karma points because someone exercised their right to expel a player over their time limit. You can give them a red thumb if you don't want to play with them again, but they are following the rules.

[Jest Phulin]

This has been discussed many times before, and will probably be discussed many times again.

The discussion normally boils down to "It's often not sporting, but it is a well-documented rule, just like any other rule for any game." Interestingly enough, I don't recall any posts where people were happy about winning a game because their opponent went over time; I just recall people being upset because someone caught them for violating the rule.

Maybe a feature like collective abandon, also a feature agree to "reset timer"?

This feature already exists. A collective abandon requires that all players agree to abandon. A collective reset timer would therefore require all players to agree that a player who is out of time could continue playing. If only one player disagreed, the timer wouldn't be reset. Currently, kicking a player who is out of time is an option for any player (with a positive clock) at the table. If all players agree to let them play, the option is not exercised and the player continues playing. If one player doesn't agree to let them play, the person is kicked.

[Caffe Latte]

Jest
my idea was that the decision will be made instead of current cat and fish when someone of losing parties expel when timeouted starts winning.

[Jest Phulin]

It is still the current situation.

If a player is winning, and allows a timed out player to continue, it is a voluntary choice with the risk of losing the game.
If a player is losing, and allows a timed out player to continue, it is a voluntary choice to try to achieve victory later rather than instantly.
In both cases, the player who has not run out of time values the continuation of the game more than a victory, and will most likely allow the game to continue.
While the person who let their clock go negative is in fear of being kicked (and losing) at any time, there are plenty of other ways that a player can get themselves into a bad situation in the game and be at risk of losing if an opponent makes a particular move. In the case of the clock, it is simply a method that applies to all games on the site.

When a player's clock goes negative, it is not an automatic loss. With speedy play, they can recover time and even make it back to full thinking time. The only exception to this is tournament games where no time is added per move, and those will end at a specified time anyway. I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain that a person cannot be kicked from a game with a positive clock, even if it had been negative before.

My original statement stands: There is no need to code this functionality, as it already exists. Those that value the game over the win do not use the current "kick player" option, those that value the win over the game will not agree to the extension.

[CB Droege]

I do agree that the mechanics could be made more sporting. It's fine to let people kick at even one second past, but I think they should have to make the decision immediately. Either kick them out or let them play, but don't make it possible to let an out of time player keep playing only if they are losing, and the other players decide to kick them, once they are winning. That really is bad news. Either kick them out when they've gone over, or ignore the timer for the rest of that game. I think the site could be changed to make it it work in a more sporting way.

[N_Faker]

What if you didn't kick them initially, after which they slow down to a crawl, refuse to play, or go offline?

There is an expectation to give such acts red thumbs, so there are elements in place to discourage unsportsmanlike behaviour of that kind.

I do not see any mechanical ways to solve this in any other way, unless the site automatically kicks anyone that exceed their time. Which as far as I see, is not something the admins wish to do.

[CB Droege]

Yeah, it's a tough nut to crack, and I don't have a solution. I'm really just saying that I get that it can be frustrating. I would be really mad if I went over time in a game, and my opponent(s) let me keep playing, perhaps for a large percentage of the game with time in the red, and only kicked me when I was winning.

It would be nice if it was enough to just ask people not to do that, but some people put a LOT of value in their Elo score... If there was a way to design the kick mechanic such that that was less likely to happen, I would support it.

[Lotus Blossom]

How about when someone decides not to kick their opponent, time is added to put them back in the positive, so if they do subsequently slow down then they can be kicked again?