Annoying player

[Jellby]

But it is "fair" because the person who was supposed to win, won.

But did they win all they could win?

Suppose you play against someone with your same elo. If you win, I believe you win 10 elo points (or whatever). If your opponent proposes to abandon and you accept, you win nothing. If your opponent concedes the game at 50% progress, you still win 10 elo points. If your opponent quits or is expelled at 50% progress, do you win 10 elo points or just 5? In multiplayer games you'd only win a proportional amount. In 2-player games I'm not sure, but I believe that's also the case, e.g. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=594662952:

"The player who left (or was skipped) lost the game and got a ☯ penalty.
The other players won this game and get 75% of normal ELO points (because 75% of this game was played before the incident)."

The quitter, however, will get the full loss, plus a karma penalty, so perhaps they're just not aware that they can concede (or it happens before 50%, or the game has a buggy progression measure). But maybe they're willing to pay the penalty just for denying the other player of some deserved elo. It's a petty attitude, anyway.

[detlefchef11]

But it is "fair" because the person who was supposed to win, won.

But did they win all they could win?

Suppose you play against someone with your same elo. If you win, I believe you win 10 elo points (or whatever). If your opponent proposes to abandon and you accept, you win nothing. If your opponent concedes the game at 50% progress, you still win 10 elo points. If your opponent quits or is expelled at 50% progress, do you win 10 elo points or just 5? In multiplayer games you'd only win a proportional amount. In 2-player games I'm not sure, but I believe that's also the case, e.g. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=594662952:

"The player who left (or was skipped) lost the game and got a ☯ penalty.
The other players won this game and get 75% of normal ELO points (because 75% of this game was played before the incident)."

The quitter, however, will get the full loss, plus a karma penalty, so perhaps they're just not aware that they can concede (or it happens before 50%, or the game has a buggy progression measure). But maybe they're willing to pay the penalty just for denying the other player of some deserved elo. It's a petty attitude, anyway.

Well, I am very much on record for believing the elo is both needlessly complicated and flawed already. And, if it somehow doesn't deliver the winning player as much as they would have gotten had a match completed vs end early regardless of why, then that's just another needless complication and flaw.

I believe it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of games that are abandoned, be it by resigning or deadbeating, are done by those who feel they've lost. So why give the opponent who did nothing other than establish what the abandoning player felt was an unwinnable situation anything less than full credit for the win?

Sure, some will get free points for "winning" a game that they were not certain to win in the rarer cases when someone just abandoned for other reasons (decided to leave the site, died in an automobile accident, etc) but that doesn't seem as bad to me.

[Ceaseless]

But it is "fair" because the person who was supposed to win, won.

But did they win all they could win?

Suppose you play against someone with your same elo. If you win, I believe you win 10 elo points (or whatever). If your opponent proposes to abandon and you accept, you win nothing. If your opponent concedes the game at 50% progress, you still win 10 elo points. If your opponent quits or is expelled at 50% progress, do you win 10 elo points or just 5? In multiplayer games you'd only win a proportional amount. In 2-player games I'm not sure, but I believe that's also the case, e.g. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=594662952:

"The player who left (or was skipped) lost the game and got a ☯ penalty.
The other players won this game and get 75% of normal ELO points (because 75% of this game was played before the incident)."

The quitter, however, will get the full loss, plus a karma penalty, so perhaps they're just not aware that they can concede (or it happens before 50%, or the game has a buggy progression measure). But maybe they're willing to pay the penalty just for denying the other player of some deserved elo. It's a petty attitude, anyway.

This is a good point about how messed up BGA's system is, not awarding full points to a player(s) for defeating their opponent that lost. The percentage is nonsense, it doesn't tell us how much of the game has been played, it just tracks a statistic of the game, and not one that always indicates game completion.