Triple-punishment after browser crash - ideas to mitigate punishment for tech issues

[Cerebrovore]

Also, the argument seems to be "mitigatiing damage due to technical issues." So can we examine the damage?

Loss of reputation: Easily gained back by finishing several short games.

One random computer failure - three games running - -10 +-20 + -20 = =-50 Karma
This sinks you well below games you being able to get into some games.
You're also unable to choose which length of games you want in - so in that time, if you pick up 1 (of the 50 you need to get) that doesn't - that's another -20 - which puts you in the red bracket, and you may as well make a new account.

This is regardless of how nice or nasty I have been. In parallel, someone who leaves a game as a newbie can take a month off and still only take -10 damage.

I am pointing out that this change has issues, including that it is a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist.

It does exist. It is a problem.

You need to respect the time of the people you've started a game with, either by bringing a reliable setup to play the game with, or by accepting the penalty when you don't.

I didn't realise that I had to take ownage for acts of god to play an online game. Even * aren't that harsh.

If it's less time-consuming to delete/remake my account than to play on an account that's missed a few games due to RL, what point is there to continue an account?

*moderator edit: please do not mention other game sites by name

[Jest Phulin]

One random computer failure - three games running - -10 +-20 + -20 = =-50 Karma

Hm. The original post was talking about a real-time game, not 3 turn-based games. In which case the random computer failure has several hours to be fixed, not just a couple of minutes.

I didn't realise that I had to take ownage for acts of god to play an online game. Even * aren't that harsh.

OK, a further explanation of my allusion to the Terms of Service.
For User1 to play User2 via BGA, there are several entities involved:
User1
User1's browser
User1's Operating system
User1's hardware
User1's Internet service provider
One or more telecommunication providers

BGA hardware
BGA software

One or more telecommunication providers
User2's internet service provider
User2's hardware and software.
User2

According to the Terms of Service, these are bundled into 3 groups: User1's responsibility, BGA's responsibility, and User2's responsibility. Yes, the user is responsible for telecommunication failure. The user is responsible for their computer crashing. The user is responsible if they rage quit. According to BGA, all of these events are the same -- BGA servers are not receiving game play data from the user.

[Cerebrovore]

One random computer failure - three games running - -10 +-20 + -20 = =-50 Karma

Hm. The original post was talking about a real-time game, not 3 turn-based games. In which case the random computer failure has several hours to be fixed, not just a couple of minutes.

Time limits are irrelevant if the computer or the network is no longer accessible.

I didn't realise that I had to take ownage for acts of god to play an online game. Even * aren't that harsh.

OK, a further explanation of my allusion to the Terms of Service.
(snip)
According to the Terms of Service, these are bundled into 3 groups: User1's responsibility, BGA's responsibility, and User2's responsibility. Yes, the user is responsible for telecommunication failure. The user is responsible for their computer crashing. The user is responsible if they rage quit. According to BGA, all of these events are the same -- BGA servers are not receiving game play data from the user.

You seem to be labouring under the idea that this is a blame game. It is not.

This is a work around to those suffering from unforeseeable technical issues that are outside of normal responsibilities. User 1 builds up a Karma Buffer by playing, User 2 gains a Karma reward for being on the other end, BGA gets positive reinforcement and doesn't get cloned accounts due to Karma losses disabling content due to Acts of God.

[Jest Phulin]

Time limits are irrelevant if the computer or the network is no longer accessible.

This discussion is about receiving penalties for timing out of a game. Time limits are quite relevant.

I didn't realise that I had to take ownage for acts of god to play an online game. Even * aren't that harsh.

OK, a further explanation of my allusion to the Terms of Service.
(snip)

You seem to be labouring under the idea that this is a blame game. It is not.

I was simply showing where the user did, in fact, have to take ownage for any failure to communicate with BGA that is not BGA's fault. I am not assigning blame, I am assigning responsibility.

This is a work around to those suffering from unforeseeable technical issues that are outside of normal responsibilities.

Technical issues, foreseeable or not, are the responsibility of the user. Yes, they happen rarely, and the penalty for a rare offense is not that great. If it happens more often, then they are not unforeseeable, and the user should take action to mitigate them. All of this is normal responsibilities.

User 1 builds up a Karma Buffer by playing,

Which is the current situation. It's just that the Karma Buffer tops out at 100 Karma, gained a point at a time by finishing a game without their clock going negative.

Let's see if we can refocus the discussion.
Assumption: willingly disconnecting from a game should be punished. BGA has long stated that their overriding goal is to have games finish by game mechanics, not by people quitting the game. Even after timing out, it takes a conscious act by an active player to terminate a game.

So, what happens when a player runs out of time? Whether it is because of an intentional quitting or by a technical issue, the result for the other players at the table is the same: a user did not fulfil their commitment to finish the game on time. BGA servers have no way of knowing the cause of the user running out of time, and so must assume it is something that the user is responsible for. And as stated, the ToS make everything from the user up to the BGA servers the user's responsibility. As such, they get punished.

[Cerebrovore]

Let's see if we can refocus the discussion.

Refocusing the discussion to carry your point is known as sealioning.

Assumption: willingly disconnecting from a game should be punished. BGA has long stated that their overriding goal is to have games finish by game mechanics, not by people quitting the game. Even after timing out, it takes a conscious act by an active player to terminate a game.

Which isn't what we were talking about. The thread title is mitigating punishment from technical issues.

So, what happens when a player runs out of time? Whether it is because of an intentional quitting or by a technical issue, the result for the other players at the table is the same: a user did not fulfil their commitment to finish the game on time.

The user does not, at any time, accept such a commitment. They agree to attempt to do so within the limits they have.

BGA servers have no way of knowing the cause of the user running out of time, and so must assume it is something that the user is responsible for. And as stated, the ToS make everything from the user up to the BGA servers the user's responsibility. As such, they get punished.

At no point has this ever been questioned.

This is about mitigating punishment for issues that arise from the users inability to playing the game to completion - rather than their unwillingness.

This can be mitigated against by using a system known as Karma - and offsetting punishment based on Karma already achieved. This can be determined by the servers - as it is something already considered.

I do not know if you are unwilling to accept this, or are determined to punish people. Either of which are unhelpful.

[Jest Phulin]

We appear to be at an impasse.

I believe that intentional disconnection should be discouraged, and that discouragement is done by punishing with Karma penalties and notes in the user's profile. I believe this punishment is not so severe as to stop someone from playing on BGA, as they can create their own games even with 0 Karma.

I believe that in order for this discouragement to be effective, it must be applied to all instances of disconnection, as there is no way for the computer to determine if it was intentional or not.

I am willing to accept that there will be cases of unintentional disconnection that are punished as intentional disconnection. It happened to me when my neighbors were doing construction, and cut power to the block unannounced. It is possible to recover from it.

I believe that any reduction in the punishment for possible unintentional disconnections will lessen the discouragement for intentional disconnection, and therefore effectively encourage intentional disconnections. I do not want this outcome.

[KenFin1]

I've lost points when I've had a BSOD/router reset etc. It happens. Annoying but cest la vie. For the most part it is what it is. More annoying is when I'm at my desk and don't get a game start alert only to get the "hahahaha you've been expelled" flashing up shortly after.

I would make two changes (which is really one change in terms of implementation):

1) In those instances of tech failure, even if user end, BGA should be able to detect a loss of connection/input (it already gives the "player offline" grey-out and notification) and when it does move the game to TB if it is an arena match. That way rage quitting is still not allowed and the arena stats aren't affected. (The player has an option to "really quit" already and manually accept the penalty. This should stay as is.)
2) Arena matches should also go to TB if someone is afk at start with 0 play. It stops players quitting due to bad hand/who their opponent is, and forces them to see the match out or concede, and it stops the stupidity of trigger-happy expels to get cheap arena points. Rankings reflect actual game play and people don't get hammered with false quit penalties.

The time limit to respond and take first move could be capped say 30 mins ?. If no move made in that time, fine the expel applies. The players can opt to go back into real time or stay turnbased.

These two changes would solve most of the issues I've had with unfair kicks and point losses. If someone rage quits they would still be online and the system able to detect it, or if they try to be clever and pull the cable out/drop wifi they are forced into TB and either have to allow the game to end/concede later, or they manually quit/timeout in turnbased and then the full weight of penalties can rightly be applied.

Since arena awards TB wins to players with least time overrun at season end it also stops people trying to run out the clock and not finish a game to avoid losing too.

It seems to me that with these simple changes, fairness is maintained and (most of) OP's concerns addressed, without allowing a back door for quitters and cheaters to exploit.

If people are not happy with this setting then it could be made an option in the game settings menu (along with the player's ability to filter by reputation and level bands etc) for them to disable as they see fit.

[Jest Phulin]

Game mode modification should only be a manual, agreed-upon choice. If a player is wanting to play a real-time game, they should not be forced into a turn-based game. Situations where a player is available for a few hours one day, but not able to dedicate any time the next day arise.

The penalties should be site-wide, not specific to arena/non-arena matches.

[KenFin1]

If that's your preference with my suggestion you would still be able to select that to stop you getting paired with other people who want that setting.

[Kayvon]

I do not know if you are unwilling to accept this, or are determined to punish people. Either of which are unhelpful.

Attacking an idea or concept is fine, but hurling accusations because someone doesn't accept your view feels counterproductive.

We appear to be at an impasse.

That's a fair conclusion. Neither side is arguing in bad faith (or even "sealioning"), but we appear to favor different approaches to a combined problem. If the problem of "something happened outside of my control" were not inherently intertwined with "I decided to take slow turns" or even "I quit the game maliciously", then I think we would be on the same page: Little/no punishment for the first, even bigger punishment for the latter.

I've been hit by ISP problems. It's annoying, but karma rebuilds itself and I'm fine now. I figure that I committed to take turns on a certain schedule when I started the game, so I understand why my hand was slapped when I didn't meet that commitment.