Abandoning Game

[Jellby]

The whole point of being able to kick out a player who is out of time is that it can give people a way out when the other player is taking forever to play.

No, that's not "the whole point". Another part of the point is to let players out of a game that is taking longer than what they signed up for. Another part of the point is to punish players who do not stick to the time they agreed with.

Maybe it would be, that's why I asked what may be the disadvantages of including those players in the vote.

An obvious disadvantage is that missing players will not vote. For instance, when a player loses connection and you vote for converting the game into turn-based (to avoid expelling the player), it would be absurd to require a positive answer from the player without connection.

[tbhp]

You have failed in your obligation to the other players at the table, and they have been given the right to end the game as a result.

Your obligation to the other players is to play in time so that the game can be finished normally. Once that goal is achieved, what time is shown on your clock becomes irrelevant. To put so much focus on that seems to forget why kick out exists and why we are on this site: to play games and finish the most of them as we realistically can.

Once again you seem to be playing devil's advocate in this discussion by taking the defense of people who really don't need to be defended, because they are evidently using the feature in a way that doesn't fit any notion of sportsmanship, or even the way the way it was meant to be used. Abandon exists for various reasons players may collectively agree to end a game. It doesn't exist to conveniently neutralize a game you were supposed to lose.

[tbhp]

Another part of the point is to punish players who do not stick to the time they agreed with.

Players already receive a punishment when they get kicked out. They already have an incentive to play quickly when it's their turn and they are out of time: because they may be kicked out any moment. Once the game reaches its conclusion regardless, the deterrence loses its purpose and the pendulum swings in the other direction, because now terminating the game is what is creating a problem that doesn't need to exist, rather than solving an existing one.

An obvious disadvantage is that missing players will not vote. For instance, when a player loses connection and you vote for converting the game into turn-based (to avoid expelling the player), it would be absurd to require a positive answer from the player without connection.

That's a good example, though it only applies to converting a game to turn based, which is not a way someone could grab an unfair win anyway, so I don't see much of an issue with not accounting for the missing players in this case. But if the vote is about abandoning the game, there is no urgency like in your example. Players have no reason not to either wait for the out of time player, or kick them out when they can. Removing the option to abandon the game without their agreement would reduce the possibility that someone decides to expel them specifically to avoid a loss.

[Meeplelowda]

An obvious disadvantage is that missing players will not vote. For instance, when a player loses connection and you vote for converting the game into turn-based (to avoid expelling the player), it would be absurd to require a positive answer from the player without connection.

I'm not sure how something so glaringly obvious could be debated, but I'm sure they came up with something in the blocked posts above this one.

[Jellby]

Actually, the reply was "That's a good example"