Impatient players joining my slow speed table.

[ChiefPointThief]

If they are repeatedly complaining in the chat that others are playing too slowly when they are within the time limits set for the table, you can report them. Pressuring people to play faster is not allowed,

If they are repeatedly complaining in the chat that others are playing too slowly when they are within the time limits set for the table, you can report them. Pressuring people to play faster is not allowed, and even if they run over time, the opportunity is there to kick the out of time player, rather than complaining at them (though a polite, "Are you still there?" is reasonable).

I never thought about how silly this is. Why is "Are you still there" reasonable but "faster" or other similar comments about speed not and reportable? When someone hits the "are you still there" button they are saying "why haven't you taken your turn yet". It is the same thing.

Because the sentence can show a real concern about the player being present, while the second is just an order. Basically, the possible intent is wider. If this further interests you, you may find some info in Austin, L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press

The sentence can show a real concern. For instance, I understand that players may not be aware of game start in arena. If my opponent is taking longer than usual on their 1st turn I may hit the button to confirm that they are actually aware the game started. The second sentence I quoted because that is the example given in the moderation policy. But because pressuring people to play faster isn't allowed like the poster above mentioned saying something like "Can you play faster please" is still reportable. Even though it is polite and not an "order". Where as other times the "Are you still there" button is simply used as a passive aggressive way to tell players "Can you speed it up? Your turn is taking too long". By having this button bga is enabling behavior that the claim they want to prohibit.

[SonicJuz]

The sentence can show a real concern. For instance, I understand that players may not be aware of game start in arena. If my opponent is taking longer than usual on their 1st turn I may hit the button to confirm that they are actually aware the game started. The second sentence I quoted because that is the example given in the moderation policy. But because pressuring people to play faster isn't allowed like the poster above mentioned saying something like "Can you play faster please" is still reportable. Even though it is polite and not an "order". Where as other times the "Are you still there" button is simply used as a passive aggressive way to tell players "Can you speed it up? Your turn is taking too long". By having this button bga is enabling behavior that the claim they want to prohibit.

Yes, can.
In any human interaction the sense is constructed by both operators. "Can you play faster please" is still an order, the goal of the interaction is to make the other play faster, not to be assured the other has the possibility to do that ("please" wouldn't be there, this is precisely the word that, while appearing polite, is clear on the sentence's goal to be putting pressure). "Are you still there" may well be used to put pressure "passive aggresively" as you said, but only in a given context, otherwise it is a simple inquiry of the presence. That the context leads the receiver to understand it as an aggression is a mix of social conventions (1), class/race/gender/education power unbalance (2), past behavior during the first part of the game (3), and past relationships between the players (4). A significant part of this cannot be resolved a priori by BGA moderation (3;4), another part is a social issue larger than BGA(2), but where BGA can, if they are willing, try to provide care and solutions (won't be overnight), and the last part (1), which where your claim resides, is the responsibility all the players as a community not to engage in pressuring people and be decent as a whole. I'd argue that this is not the most significant part of the use of "Are you still here?", but we'd need stats and a corpus study, [A] to check if a neutral use is sufficiently low to make the change necessary [/B] that a different phrasing of the legit inquiry is both possible and not leading to the same problem. I'd argue that the B will never be completed as long as the global behavior of pressuring people remains, removing the legitimacy of call for hypocrisy.

That said, I'm strongly against anything that would go along the lines of making people playing faster if they can't. If you need people to be fast, I'd advocate explaining since the start why you want it that way, for example "I shall resume work before 2 pm", or "I get impatient easily, sorry for having to rush you". It's less likely people feel like you want power over them or pressure, even if you then use "faster".

[ChiefPointThief]

The sentence can show a real concern. For instance, I understand that players may not be aware of game start in arena. If my opponent is taking longer than usual on their 1st turn I may hit the button to confirm that they are actually aware the game started. The second sentence I quoted because that is the example given in the moderation policy. But because pressuring people to play faster isn't allowed like the poster above mentioned saying something like "Can you play faster please" is still reportable. Even though it is polite and not an "order". Where as other times the "Are you still there" button is simply used as a passive aggressive way to tell players "Can you speed it up? Your turn is taking too long". By having this button bga is enabling behavior that the claim they want to prohibit.

Yes, can.
In any human interaction the sense is constructed by both operators. "Can you play faster please" is still an order, the goal of the interaction is to make the other play faster, not to be assured the other has the possibility to do that ("please" wouldn't be there, this is precisely the word that, while appearing polite, is clear on the sentence's goal to be putting pressure). "Are you still there" may well be used to put pressure "passive aggresively" as you said, but only in a given context, otherwise it is a simple inquiry of the presence. That the context leads the receiver to understand it as an aggression is a mix of social conventions (1), class/race/gender/education power unbalance (2), past behavior during the first part of the game (3), and past relationships between the players (4). A significant part of this cannot be resolved a priori by BGA moderation (3;4), another part is a social issue larger than BGA(2), but where BGA can, if they are willing, try to provide care and solutions (won't be overnight), and the last part (1), which where your claim resides, is the responsibility all the players as a community not to engage in pressuring people and be decent as a whole. I'd argue that this is not the most significant part of the use of "Are you still here?", but we'd need stats and a corpus study, [A] to check if a neutral use is sufficiently low to make the change necessary [/B] that a different phrasing of the legit inquiry is both possible and not leading to the same problem. I'd argue that the B will never be completed as long as the global behavior of pressuring people remains, removing the legitimacy of call for hypocrisy.

That said, I'm strongly against anything that would go along the lines of making people playing faster if they can't. If you need people to be fast, I'd advocate explaining since the start why you want it that way, for example "I shall resume work before 2 pm", or "I get impatient easily, sorry for having to rush you". It's less likely people feel like you want power over them or pressure, even if you then use "faster".

Politely asking someone to do something isn't an order but that is neither here nor there. Shortly after reading your post I encountered a player who used the "are you still there" button to passive aggressively tell someone to hurry up. The player they were attempting to speed up had spent 20 sec on their turn already. The action to them though was rather simple and shouldn't of required more than 1 sec to do. Considering that this player had just taken their previous turn 25s ago I doubt there was a legit concern whether or not they were present (it also shows in the game log if someone disconnects). The same player later in the game made a comment about game speed so I'm certain they are using a bga tool ("are you still there") to break bga policy by rushing players who are within their game clock.

I don't agree w/ the notion that just because someone has time on their clock they are entitled to all of it. That is bga's fault though because some games simply don't need 2 min clocks & there are no faster settings even though it has been repeatedly asked for years. I think it depends on the situation. In this situation I don't believe they are necessarily wrong for rushing them. In fact, I think you can argue it is more unacceptable for the slow player to be wasting four other players time by taking an extended amount of time to make a move that requires no brainpower and takes 1s.

I just want to say something. if you are an impatient person do not join my table. I am the administrator and set the time to unlimited for a reason. I do it for games I'm learning for the first time.

Just to clarify, I'm not taking an unreasonable amount of time between turns. Turn time ranges from one to three minutes depending on the number of things I'm doing.

Why do these players agree to join an unlimited time game, and then have the audacity to complain?

Should I kick these players immediately?

I feel that people need to pay more attention to the settings. I would never join a fast speed game being new, and then complain about them going too quickly.

The issue here is that you are treating your game as an "unlimited" game while others are simply taken this to mean unranked (I can't speak for everyone but this is how I look at friendly games and I'm sure others do as well). I doubt there are many people who want to play a real time game that there is 3m in between turns because their opponent (you) is doing other things. I would suggest writing something in the description but like someone mentioned I don't think people using the new lobby can see that. You would probably have a better experience if you played turn based.

[SonicJuz]

Ok, Chief, You said "this is not an order"
I said "this book on how language function says it's an order"
you answered it's not an order
I developped a bit what is in the book, without going to much into specific notions that are harder.
You answered it's not an order.
I guess you get the win there since I'm not going to research the exact quote nor try to expose several pages of linguistics in a boardgame forum.
Are you still here? (I'm not).

[RobertBr]

I don't agree w/ the notion that just because someone has time on their clock they are entitled to all of it.

Well, you are wrong. You may not like the rule but that is the rule. A player is allowed to used as much of their time as they wish. They can choose to waiting until the final few seconds to play every single move, and if they do they are in fact fully entitled to do so. If you try to pressure them not to do that they can have you censured precisely because they are entitled to do it.

Now, you probably meant that you dislike that being the rule, but its worth making this point every single time the discussion comes up because the pressuring behaviour stems from a belief by the players doing it that their opponent is not entitled to take their time and therefore they are entitled to pressure them.

[Jellby]

Also, when a player uses all their time, it's not necessarily because they're thinking, or because they're idly waiting for the timer to get close to zero. It may very well be that they're doing other things while playing, or have network issues, phone calls, children demanding attention, etc. And maybe they chose this particular time setting because they know they'd have such issues and they would need all that time for each turn.

Sure, there may be other players that purposefully use all their allotted time just to annoy impatient players. But even in that case, they're allowed to. And you're allowed to red-thumb them for no reason. Or to expel them if they miscalculate and go into red. And they're allowed to red-thumb you, or report you if you insult them or threaten them in chat.

[ChiefPointThief]

I don't agree w/ the notion that just because someone has time on their clock they are entitled to all of it.

Well, you are wrong. You may not like the rule but that is the rule. A player is allowed to used as much of their time as they wish. They can choose to waiting until the final few seconds to play every single move, and if they do they are in fact fully entitled to do so. If you try to pressure them not to do that they can have you censured precisely because they are entitled to do it.

Now, you probably meant that you dislike that being the rule, but its worth making this point every single time the discussion comes up because the pressuring behaviour stems from a belief by the players doing it that their opponent is not entitled to take their time and therefore they are entitled to pressure them.

I misspoke. I am aware that they are entitled to their whole clock. When I make this statement I also have certain scenarios in mind. What I am saying is just because bga gives you a 75s clock at a game like 99 (a game in which actions take less than a sec) doesn't mean you should take 75s every turn. As you mention they can wait until the final seconds every turn and that would be poor behavior. The issue is bga not providing an adequate clock for certain games. There are also games in which the clock may be adequate but within the game there are auto actions in which you shouldn't take minutes to do.

Also, when a player uses all their time, it's not necessarily because they're thinking, or because they're idly waiting for the timer to get close to zero. It may very well be that they're doing other things while playing, or have network issues, phone calls, children demanding attention, etc. And maybe they chose this particular time setting because they know they'd have such issues and they would need all that time for each turn.

Sure, there may be other players that purposefully use all their allotted time just to annoy impatient players. But even in that case, they're allowed to. And you're allowed to red-thumb them for no reason. Or to expel them if they miscalculate and go into red. And they're allowed to red-thumb you, or report you if you insult them or threaten them in chat.

So I just want to make sure I am understanding people correctly here. If someone makes a game last way longer than it should because instead of playing said game they are making calls, taking care of kids, doing chores around the house, etc they are behaving in an acceptable manner and that is proper table etiquette because they are staying within a game clock that is too long to begin with? Meanwhile someone who ask them if they cannot do all these things so that they can do what they are supposed to be doing (playing the game) has bad table etiquette and should be reported?

Why does one ask if someone is still there? Because they haven't taken their turn. At the time when someone hits the button why do they want their opponent to take their turn? Because by this point they believe the other player is taking too long to take their turn. What do they want to accomplish by hitting the "are you still there" button? They want you to play faster!

[Jellby]

So I just want to make sure I am understanding people correctly here. If someone makes a game last way longer than it should because instead of playing said game they are making calls, taking care of kids, doing chores around the house, etc they are behaving in an acceptable manner and that is proper table etiquette because they are staying within a game clock that is too long to begin with? Meanwhile someone who ask them if they cannot do all these things so that they can do what they are supposed to be doing (playing the game) has bad table etiquette and should be reported?

The problem with your description is "makes a game last way longer than it should". Who decides how long a game "should" take? Most people's priority is not playing games, but if they find a game that allows them to play it while they go on with their life, they may choose to play it. Don't blame people for doing what the site says they can do.

If you think the allowed time is too long, that's an entirely different issue.

[Mathew5000]

It is inconsiderate to be surfing the web in another window, or doing household chores, while it's your turn to act in a real-time game.

That said, you don't really know what your opponent is doing so I'm in favour of assuming they have a legitimate reason for taking so long. ChiefPointThief refers to games where "actions take less than a sec" but please keep in mind that just because you can do something quickly does not mean everybody can. Some people have disabilities (arthritis in the hands, vision problems, even brain injuries) necessitating more time to make a move than you would need.

How could BGA improve this issue? Simply having a setting for less time on the clock (a "turbo" speed) might help but there would still be problems in certain games where moves are usually quick but occasionally require a lot of thought. If the game conditions are, for example, +0:30 per move to a maximum of 3:00, I don't want to play at that speed if I expect that I might have two conseccutive moves requiring two minutes each, even though the rest of the time I can move in 20 seconds or less. As a result I'd pick the slow time limit for that game, which might be +1:00 per move to a maximum of 5:00, but that risks the game being too slow if one of my opponents chooses to take a full minute for every move.

A solution that BGA could implement is, have a game speed with a high maximum but little time added per move, for example +0:12 per move to a maximum of 6:00 (with the six minutes on your clock to start). That kind of configuration setting would also enable players to take a few minutes during the game to answer the doorbell or whatever, but in general, most of their moves would need to be made quickly or else they risk expulsion.

[nik592]

If someone makes a game last way longer than it should because instead of playing said game...

Isn't this exactly what turn-based play is? I know I can't sit and play all my moves right now, so I'm setting up a game that gives me a bunch of time to make my move? I don't see that a slow or even normal speed RT game should be treated any differently, it's just the same thing with lesser time in between moves - as others have said, if a player is sticking within the time allotted, then they're just fine. If you don't like how long they are taking (whether or not you think it should take them all of their time to make their particular move), choose a different speed of game.