Getting kicked on time while actively playing

[Jellby]

Only after I made more moves and increased my lead did they then kick me.

Or maybe they had something urgent to do, and instead of leaving the game and taking a penalty themselves, or abandoning and neutralizing the game, they understandably chose to expel the player that caused the game to take longer than expected/planned.

You were in the lead? Perhaps the fact that you took longer turns in average, and therefore had more time to think about the best move, had something to do with it. Maybe the other players made sub-optimal moves because they tried to stay on time.

[Cile]

I know there's probably nothing to be done about this long term

There absolutely is something to be done abut this long term: Join tables you can meet the time commitment for.

Sure, some players might abuse the clock to kick you if they're losing and not kick you if they're winning, but if you're never in the red they can never kick you. Problem solved.

It could be worse. They could automatically flag someone on time on BGA. Some people have even asked for that (I suspect because they don't want to get their hands dirty by calling time themselves).

I'd personally be in favour of this. Not because I have problems ejecting players (I play turn based games with over 24 hour time banks. If someone goes into the red I will eject them), but because it would put an end to these threads of people blaming others when they go over the time limit and get ejected for it. If the system did it automatically (or it was an option when creating the table) it would put an end to this attitude of "It's okay if I go into the red, and if they ejected me for it it's their fault!"

[nik592]

While I agree that users are perfectly within their rights to kick a user at their table if they're over time, I am also glad that kicking doesn't happen automatically, because I would rather actually play games, and so if a user is still playing, I will normally give them leeway to keep doing so because I'd like to finish the game. Making it the choice of the user means both situations are supported - those who want to boot and move on can do so, those who want to play on can also do so. Yes, it also means that people CAN (and do) abuse it to boot people when they're winning, but I personally try to mitigate this by (as others have said) playing games where I can commit to the time limit.

I get it, these threads are somewhat annoying (personally, I think they're a worthwhile exercise in trying to educate, even if they miss the mark 90% of the time), but you don't have to visit the forums, or click on ones that are obviously on this topic.

[Jellby]

Sure, some players might abuse the clock to kick you if they're losing and not kick you if they're winning

Yes, it also means that people CAN (and do) abuse it to boot people when they're winning

Well, I disagree with calling that "abuse". Expelling someone who's run out of time is not abusing, whether or not they're winning. Doing so only when they're winning is not abusing. When several players are out of time, expelling the one who's winning and not the one who's losing is not abusing (although I wish it would be possible to expel several players simultaneously).

[buu441]

Yes, it also means that people CAN (and do) abuse it to boot people when they're winning...

People seem to have the misconception that they are still winning when they go in the red. That is what leads to most of the bitterness in all these threads. You might be ahead in points, but that means nothing if you are in the red and the opponent has the ability to boot you. Once you are in the red, you have already met one of the loss conditions and it is up to the opponent to claim victory that way.

[Queen_of_England]

Well some of these replies were nice and gave me a different perspective and others were condescending and missed the point.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that I'll never really understand the idea of using the clock to win one of these strategy games. Yes, I know it's there for a reason and to keep people from abandoning games. But I've been in many other games where an opponent went over time by even two days and I let them stay because they were clearly still taking turns. I come here to play and finish games, not try to win every single game by any means necessary, especially by time technicality.

To each their own I guess. I'm going to try and be better about picking particular games. It's too bad players can't put an hourglass badge on their account signifying, "I will flag you the second I can" so I know who to avoid.

[nik592]

Yes, it also means that people CAN (and do) abuse it to boot people when they're winning

Well, I disagree with calling that "abuse". Expelling someone who's run out of time is not abusing, whether or not they're winning. Doing so only when they're winning is not abusing. When several players are out of time, expelling the one who's winning and not the one who's losing is not abusing (although I wish it would be possible to expel several players simultaneously).

I should clarify, when I see this, it's mostly in tournament play, which is an entirely different thing, due to fixed time, timezone issues and lack of game lengths available to tournament creators. If players have been playing regularly, a game is in the last couple of moves, and one player goes over by minutes and is booted by the losing player, that's abuse of the clock - in my opinion. If you're playing regular games and running out of time, that is a bit more of a grey area, but for a turn-based game, if you let players play on, and only boot when they start to beat you, that doesn't look great, but you're correct that they may have a valid reason and yes, they're within their rights to boot. Again, just my opinion. Of course, I also personally don't count a game where I had to boot someone as one that I "won on time", but a game I didn't get to finish (or even play), and frankly that's no fun.