Skipping out of turn to circumvent defeat?

[dafdad]

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=205694950

In this game it was the last round and I knew I would finish first so I said in chat: "gg, I'll get 16 pts.", which noone could beat so that they may play quickly. Player 1, Gary777, played quickly and then skipped player 2 who was out of time each time for several moves but played all moves before (I suppose due to a shitty internet connection). Gary777 and I shared the win for 80% of points. I tried to report Gary777 for clear abuse of the skip out of turn option, but it appears it is according to the rules and I can only give a red thumbs down. I propose that, especially in competitive play, skipping out of turn is not possible when a winner is guaranteed. For example, by letting all players play in the round where a player is skipped and if a player wins in that round they are the full winner.

[GeraldineMerida]

Ugh, that's awful.

There really should be a 'terrible' sportsmanship' category for public red thumbs.

Skipping can significantly unbalance the game for other players, so I can foresee problems with your 'fix', but maybe it's still better than the alternative.

[Meeplelowda]

I propose that, especially in competitive play, skipping out of turn is not possible when a winner is guaranteed.

For some games, determining when a player cannot possibly lose is easy and for others it is not. I can't see devs devoting time to implementing logic to enumerate all possible permutations near the endgame (which would need to be defined for each game) just to handle an edge case.

[RobertBr]

This is not a new phenomena, everyone who has been on the site for any time knows about it, the site knows about it. Your solution is a terrible one.

There are no really good solutions, what the player did was entirely legal within the rules. The best suggestion that has been proposed, multiple times, I believe there is even a suggestion in the bug reports, is to prevent skipping of players in multi player games - require games to time out in tournaments and other competitive formats. But I suspect this is not straightforward to implement.

[OutOfHabit]

The best suggestion that has been proposed, multiple times, I believe there is even a suggestion in the bug reports, is to prevent skipping of players in multi player games - require games to time out in tournaments and other competitive formats. But I suspect this is not straightforward to implement.

Or even - require all not out-of-time players to agree, just as they have to agree to switch to turn-based or abandon collectively.

[KongKing123]

I don't see the problem here. Someone was out of time and hence lost the game; the timer is there for a reason. The other player was justified in skipping the turn. Everything else is irrelevant and speculation.

It's annoying if you (think you) would have been the only winner, but it's really the only way to deal with the situation.

[compte obelète]

Or even - require all not out-of-time players to agree, just as they have to agree to switch to turn-based or abandon collectively.

that is also a bad idea, because in some possiblities, the majority is ok, but one person beat the yes amount, (totally ain't democratic) because over 50% of the vote for it must equal to do it, even though the rest is unhappy whit that.

that happened whit me one time, i tell the story (been whit changing to turn-based). I was playing a game, then, thunder strat going in, of course me and 2 other people i know immediatly accepted, but another guy actually refused (leaving it that i can lost Karma for electricity lost by natural elements), i said in both english (1st response) and spanish (the one he's spoke and 2nd response) and still, didn't care of this and being quite impolite for not turning that in turn-based when the situation was quite serious (thunders (that have a potensial to break electricity around)). For this act, i immediatly post something (it didn't get noticed) and give him a red thumb, since this event could get a chance to strike down my internet/wi-fi/data to then result to an unfair lost of karma.

[OutOfHabit]

Or even - require all not out-of-time players to agree, just as they have to agree to switch to turn-based or abandon collectively.

that is also a bad idea, because in some possiblities, the majority is ok, but one person beat the yes amount, (totally ain't democratic) because over 50% of the vote for it must equal to do it, even though the rest is unhappy whit that.

that happened whit me one time, i tell the story (been whit changing to turn-based). I was playing a game, then, thunder strat going in, of course me and 2 other people i know immediatly accepted, but another guy actually refused (leaving it that i can lost Karma for electricity lost by natural elements), i said in both english (1st response) and spanish (the one he's spoke and 2nd response) and still, didn't care of this and being quite impolite for not turning that in turn-based when the situation was quite serious (thunders (that have a potensial to break electricity around)). For this act, i immediatly post something (it didn't get noticed) and give him a red thumb, since this event could get a chance to strike down my internet/wi-fi/data to then result to an unfair lost of karma.

Yeah it stinks when someone denies the switch to turn based prompt , especially when they do so because they didn’t see the chat until after pressing no.
Same with the “propose to abandon collectively” .
But we already have code to handle “all with remaining time must say yes” for these 2 so it should apply here too.

[omegaGogeta]

I don't see the problem here. Someone was out of time and hence lost the game; the timer is there for a reason. The other player was justified in skipping the turn. Everything else is irrelevant and speculation.

It's annoying if you (think you) would have been the only winner, but it's really the only way to deal with the situation.

The problem I see with it, is that it was a way for the one person to gain ELO that they may not have gained otherwise. The whole mentality of, "Push others down to propel yourself". Also, out of time penalties and quitting penalties are separate. If the game had finished without a skip, there would have only been the out of time penalty, as opposed to the skipped person receiving both.

[shrouded figure]

The only thing wrong here is that when someone quits or gets kicked out, it is possible to LOSE elo by being tied with players lower ranked than you. In my opinion this is very wrong, elo adjustments between tied players should not be counted in such cases.

Nobody should be forced to lose elo just because some other player leaves the game.