A waste of time: Unfair Karma penalties...

[LorenZo-M]

You regularly play slowly and get kicked for going over time. You should already be aware of this option when facing opponents playing too slowly themselves.

Here comes the sheriff... But what do you actually know about why I was slow? Do you know if I asked the other players for a mutual abandon first?
Anyeay my main point here isn't just to complain about slow players, I am saying that the quitting system is flawed and doesn't work properly.

[Ceaseless]

You regularly play slowly and get kicked for going over time. You should already be aware of this option when facing opponents playing too slowly themselves.

Here comes the sheriff... But what do you actually know about why I was slow? Do you know if I asked the other players for a mutual abandon first?
Anyeay my main point here isn't just to complain about slow players, I am saying that the quitting system is flawed and doesn't work properly.

What I know is that you regularly do it and get kicked as a result, and still complain about so-called "slow players", even though they aren't running over time.

The BGA reputation system's main flaw is that it is too generous and gives everyone an easy 100% without effort. That there are players with such extreme records BGA is still flagging them as poor sports is wild. The issue with the reputation system is pretty much the opposite of what you say it is.

[LorenZo-M]

What I know is that you regularly do it and get kicked as a result, and still complain about so-called "slow players", even though they aren't running over time.

Since you are clearly determined to keep making this about my personal profile instead of addressing the actual logic of the quitting system, I’m going to cut this short.
I am not going to waste any more time arguing with someone who is only interested in personal attacks. Believe whatever you want. Have a nice day.

[Ceaseless]

Some players are really slow, and it’s pretty obvious they’re multitasking while playing. I get it, life happens (the delivery guy rings the doorbell, or your boss walks in right at the worst possible time). But honestly, whether you're winning or losing, having to wait around for someone who might be chatting or doing their own thing is equally exasperating. It's just a huge waste of time, especially in quick games. Sometimes I get so completely fed up with waiting that I just quit. I find it a bit unfair that resigning out of pure frustration actually hits you with a reputation/karma penalty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

For those wondering what sort of changes should occur to the karma system, perhaps increasing the penalty by 10-20% per game would be ideal. While the first hit in say, 200 games, can stay at 10%, following deduction should be something like 30-40%.

In addition to this, the 0% minimum should be removed to allow accounts to have negative karma, though a player cannot lose more than 100% karma for any of their ongoing games (in other words, if you lose karma, any other currently ongoing games cannot make you lose more than 100% karma). This avoids someone getting too big of a hit for the same individual issue taking out all of their ongoing turn-based games.

[Ceaseless]

Some players are really slow, and it’s pretty obvious they’re multitasking while playing. I get it, life happens (the delivery guy rings the doorbell, or your boss walks in right at the worst possible time). But honestly, whether you're winning or losing, having to wait around for someone who might be chatting or doing their own thing is equally exasperating. It's just a huge waste of time, especially in quick games. Sometimes I get so completely fed up with waiting that I just quit. I find it a bit unfair that resigning out of pure frustration actually hits you with a reputation/karma penalty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I suppose I haven't said it explicitly yet, though it's obvious enough from my other posts, so I'll say it now. What the OP is saying they're doing is one of the things the karma system was designed to hit with a penalty. What they're describing is a feature of the karma system to help the rest of us know who is regularly causing problems in their games. The change to the karma system should be to improve its ability to detect this behavior.

[LorenZo-M]

[ say it now. What the OP is ...

It is clear you completely missed the point of the discussion. But of course, you must be right, you are clearly God's gift to board gaming.
My only mistake was raising a valid point about the system while my Karma was low, which gave you an easy excuse to resort to personal attacks rather than actually debating the topic.
I will raise this discussion again when I am back at 100%
Have a great life

[Ceaseless]

[ say it now. What the OP is ...

It is clear you completely missed the point of the discussion. But of course, you must be right, you are clearly God's gift to board gaming.
My only mistake was raising a valid point about the system while my Karma was low, which gave you an easy excuse to resort to personal attacks rather than actually debating the topic.
I will raise this discussion again when I am back at 100%
Have a great life

The answer won't change for getting to 100% just like everyone else. It doesn't take a check at your profile to realize "my karma should stop being hit because I like to quit games" is ridiculous.

[Cile]

I'm not really understating the problem. In what way are you being inconvenienced here? You are still able to create and join tables.

The people that are playing slower than you would like are joining tables that suit their speed of play. Whatever their reasons are, be it multi-tasking, taking more time to think, or being in a highly distractable environment, they have chosen table settings for the speed they are able to play at. What should they be doing instead?

I understand the frustration of being at a table that is going too slow, I have been there. My solution was to play at tables with faster settings and remove the slower settings from my preferences. That's what the settings are for: to set the play expectations of the table. "Players at this table are expected to make their move within x time. They also may take up to x time to make their move."
Joining slower speed tables and expecting people to play faster is no more reasonable than someone joining a fast speed table and expecting others to wait while they play at a slow speed.

And ultimately, the only "consequence" to you leaving these tables are other player's being warned "this user might not finish the game even if you are playing within the settings of the table you have joined" which is true and accurate. So what's the problem?

[LorenZo-M]

You regularly play slowly and get kicked for going over time. You should already be aware of this option when facing opponents playing too slowly themselves.

Out of 127 recent games, I only timed out 4 times and resigned 7 times, precisely because of reasons I've been explaining. Calling that "regularly getting kicked for playing slowly" is a ridiculous exaggeration.
The arrogant attitude I'm receiving here perfectly highlights the very issue I wanted to raise: the system unconditionally punishes any resignation, completely ignoring that sometimes people concede out of fair play or due to genuine real-life emergencies.
Please don't bother replying, I'll concede the win to you. Good luck. and Goodbye.

[LorenZo-M]

So what's the problem?

Maybe I structured this thread poorly, or perhaps my English isn't perfect, which might explain the defensiveness here. But this is not a personal complaint, it is a question of system logic.

Resigning a game (whether it is out of fair play, obvious defeat, a personal emergency, or an unbearably slow opponent) already has a natural penalty: you lose the match and you lose ELO. This does not ruin the opponent's experience; they get an instant victory and can immediately move on to another game.

Yet, BGA also punishes this with a loss of Karma. As we can clearly see from the replies in this thread, players automatically misinterpret a lower Karma score as toxic behavior or "poor sportsmanship." In reality, the player might have just chosen to politely resign instead of wasting everyone's time.

The fact that actively clicking "Resign" is treated with the same harsh reputation penalty as rudely walking away and letting your timer run out is the logical flaw I am trying to discuss. It completely confuses a polite concession with toxic behavior.