Prolonging losing game to make opponent run out of time

[Ceaseless]

I agree there are other reasons, like pointless delaying out of spite, but it’s not the subject of this thread.

In other words...

The obvious interpretation here is that it's referring to a losing position as far as the game itself. Otherwise it would be a useless mention.

The quote that I specifically replied to is mistaken. It's not a useless mention. Therefore, the otherwise follow-up to your so-called "obvious interpretation" is not the case. The note on not stalling losing games does already have a purpose that is not covered by the subject of the thread.

Right, but my statement wasn't about which motivations are covered by the rule, but rather whether "losing position" can ever refer to something other than the game state itself. I maintain that it's the only interpretation that makes any sense (you can't both be in a losing position according to remaining time, and also be in a position to waste time, it's nonsensical).

So what the rule means is that it's never okay to waste time on a game you know you've lost according to the rules. Whether the player is trying to win by timeout or is just being spiteful, in all cases the behavior is condemned by the rule.

Trying to make policy based on information you don't is not usually a good idea. It creates impossible situations for whoever has to enforce it and just creates more conflict and drama. We end up right back where I said we would. It's rather easy to say you won't allow it when you're not the one who has to deal with enforcement. In the end, it's an ambiguous headache for the moderators to sort out.

I somewhat agree, but the rule exists so it's meant to be enforced. And while it's true that you can never really know someone's intentions for sure, there are cases where anyone of average intelligence would agree that a game is 100% lost, which would therefore make highly suspicious the player who is taking forever to make their move.

All in all, my post is not trying to say that there exists a perfect solution that could be enforced in most cases. I'm more trying to raise awareness about the fact that it's not a good behavior, so that the people who know they have been doing it stop doing it. We all have a responsibility to play games on here as ethically as we can, because like you say there's many things that are just impossible to enforce. So my personal case I've written above can, I hope, make some people understand, if they haven't already, that they are potentially causing harm when they are trying to win games that they shouldn't be winning.

If you want to say you don't like a given set of behavior or that you think it's unethical, be my guess. Everyone is free to their opinion.

Thought your comment on "you can't both be in a losing position according to remaining time, and also be in a position to waste time, it's nonsensical" makes no sense at all, lol. The rule says not to waste time in a losing position; this statement does not require that every single losing position be one where it is possible to waste time. Not that it's necessary for my argument, but on top of that, yes, it is possible to be in a position to waste time if you're losing on time. Say you realize that even if the position looks favorable on the board, you are not in a position to complete all of the remaining moves with enough time to play at the level required to win. Therefore, you realize you will lose on time and decide to instead sit out your remaining time doing nothing. That would also be wasting time while in a losing position.

For one thing, yes, you can be down in time and choose to waste it. Sitting there doing nothing and watching your clock run to 0 is still a thing. But even that doesn't matter, as all you did with your argument is say that a player is not in a position to waste time. When someone says not to waste time in a los

It's for positions where a player refuses to play a lost game. Sure, you're slotted to all of your time to play the game, but you still have to actually play it. Using the clock as your weapon of choice for a rage quit is a great way to get banned on gaming sites. Winning on time is not a losing position.

So you mean where a player has lost but then just refuses to play anymore turns and eventually runs out their clock? So then another player can boot them. I mean that's just the first point in the list of things one shouldn't do on BGA - run their clock out. I can't see that they need to stipulate essentially the same thing but in one specific situation, so I would think it must be referring to a wholly different situation.

While winning by the clock is a valid way to win, in tournaments where time is fixed, doing pointless moves to run out the clock seems like poor sportsmanship. Even if your purpose is to run out the maximum table time and therefore make standings happen based on time remaining, and potentially end up in a higher position than another player who would have beat you if the game had ended, that'd still be workable in some scenarios, but again, seems like poor sportsmanship to do so. But given the way timing works in tournaments, I don't think most "win on time" scenario in tournaments are valid (and I'm quite happy that booting can now be disabled for tournaments for that reason).

If we limited malicious AFK to only until getting booted, that would require going overtime on an automatic platform like BGA, so it's fair to expect that "not wasting time" should have more to it to be worth being its own rule compared to the "don't go over time rule" I suppose it might be argued it could be made separate to avoid being considered in the same league as someone going overtime because they were a bit slow making their moves rather than intentional stalling, but I'll make another note.

You can intentionally waste time without running out the full clock. Waiting until the very last second to make every single move in a lost position would also count as stalling, especially in a longer time control, where it should be easier to demonstrate intent to help reduce the headache for the moderators.

The problem with the logic of "it's okay if you end up winning" is that it's a twisted logic that depends on whether the potential offender reaches their desired outcome. It's kinda like if you said "stealing is bad, unless you don't get caught".

Not at all. The player is not just wasting time for an inevitable outcome, but attacking the clock, a known method of winning games. Stallers are wasting your time for no change in the outcome, at best they might hope you quit out of frustration, but there's no way they can affect the results of the game through their own efforts, an unexpected external event would have to occur. However, in this case, the player has the clock that they are pressuring for their win condition. It's not a matter of whether they won the individual game or not, we don't say it's not stalling if the staller won because their opponent died of a heart attack, and we don't say it was stalling if someone tried winning on time but was unsuccessful. The win on time, if it occurs, wasn't some unexpected event to pop out of nowhere, but something visible from the start of this situation.

If you want to argue this is also a problem, you'd be in conflict with tournaments where games can be decided by who wins on time, though if you modified your objections to longer time controls, such as the one in the OP's example, you could probably make a case for it. I don't have a problem with adding a new rule attempting to cover this sort of situation. It would be a separate kind of problem from just stalling in a losing position, or at the very least you'd need to make a more rigorous definition for BGA if you really wanted to try and merge them under one umbrella though.

There is no way to define a concept of "losing position" according to remaining time because that's not a knowable thing, it all depends on the rate at which both players make their remaining moves. So it's only at the end of the game that you are able to tell who was effectively in a "losing position". That makes the rule useless, since there is no way to enforce it until the game is already over, in which case it's too late because either the potential offender managed to win and "clean their hands", so to speak, or they lost and in this case the loss is their punishment. So the existence of the rule doesn't change anything about the outcome of games or about how people on this site choose to play games.

Therefore, the only interpretation of "losing position" that makes sense is the one that has to do with the game itself.

Saying that enforcement gets applied after the game is not an issue, this is a common timeframe for such penalties, especially on an automatic platform with timers. A manual site where a call judge feature exists would be more likely to have things apply before the game ends, depending on the judge activity at that time.

If you're complaining that the stalling rule is useless because it will never get enforced, so the stallers get free reign, and might even win as a result of their stalling, that's a matter for the moderators.

[Ceaseless]

If you want to argue this is also a problem, you'd be in conflict with tournaments where games can be decided by who wins on time, though if you modified your objections to longer time controls, such as the one in the OP's example, you could probably make a case for it. I don't have a problem with adding a new rule attempting to cover this sort of situation. It would be a separate kind of problem from just stalling in a losing position, or at the very least you'd need to make a more rigorous definition for BGA if you really wanted to try and merge them under one umbrella though.

While it's on my mind, besides time control, the method of move making to kill your opponent's clock might have its own divide. Making moves so that the sheer quantity of turns will cause the opponent to time out or making moves to force your opponent to think long enough to time out, are one group. Whereas timing when you make your moves to try and time your opponent out would be another. In real time you have this when a player tries to run out almost all of their clock then snag a "surprise" move in hopes the opponent has walked away for a bit and didn't notice. In turn-based you could probably make a case for this with time zone manipulation. Basically, the difference between "the moves I make will cause timeout" vs "the time I don't do anything will help my opponent timeout".

[nik592]

You can intentionally waste time without running out the full clock. Waiting until the very last second to make every single move in a lost position would also count as stalling, especially in a longer time control, where it should be easier to demonstrate intent to help reduce the headache for the moderators.

But hang on, this comes up regularly in the forums too, and is often argued back that all players are allowed to use every second of their time each turn if they want to. There are certainly situations where that could happen without malicious intent - eg. needing to analyse a complicated board state, or even dashing to the kitchen for a snack or drink of water. I suspect most people would argue so long as you still play your turn within your time, that's perfectly acceptable.

I take the point that this shouldn't be the case for every move in a game (or every move from a certain point), but it is still possible, if unlikely. I'd be surprised to learn anyone had actually been moderated for taking full time each turn (but quite happy to be proven wrong). Again, I don't agree with that behaviour - I'd probably red thumb someone who did it to me, but I wouldn't report them. Much like someone who boots another player at my table within seconds of them going over time - they're within the rules to do it, but I don't like that behaviour, and I don't want to play with it at my tables.

[Ceaseless]

You can intentionally waste time without running out the full clock. Waiting until the very last second to make every single move in a lost position would also count as stalling, especially in a longer time control, where it should be easier to demonstrate intent to help reduce the headache for the moderators.

But hang on, this comes up regularly in the forums too, and is often argued back that all players are allowed to use every second of their time each turn if they want to. There are certainly situations where that could happen without malicious intent - eg. needing to analyse a complicated board state, or even dashing to the kitchen for a snack or drink of water. I suspect most people would argue so long as you still play your turn within your time, that's perfectly acceptable.

I take the point that this shouldn't be the case for every move in a game (or every move from a certain point), but it is still possible, if unlikely. I'd be surprised to learn anyone had actually been moderated for taking full time each turn (but quite happy to be proven wrong). Again, I don't agree with that behaviour - I'd probably red thumb someone who did it to me, but I wouldn't report them. Much like someone who boots another player at my table within seconds of them going over time - they're within the rules to do it, but I don't like that behaviour, and I don't want to play with it at my tables.

I recall the statements you're talking about being made, but you'd have to link me to the actual posts so I could see exactly what context they're being argued for. And yes, there are multiple reasons a person might use up their time, cases for this sort of thing would require context-based arguments on a case-by-case basis. A turn-based game where a player takes their full 3 days a turn to play out being mate in 3 with their lone king against 2 queens, is probably going to have a hard time making a case for normal behavior. Not that all such cases would be that clear.

And of course, the whole Code of Conduct concern has things listed like "you should not run out of time" that you noted earlier, which I doubt is something you'll get special moderation for, just a very minor automatic penalty, if you want to call it that. So even arguing if something was against the rules by that standard may not be enough to be worth actual penalties by BGA moderation standards, frustrating as that can feel.

[Meeplelowda]

And yes, there are multiple reasons a person might use up their time, cases for this sort of thing would require context-based arguments on a case-by-case basis. A turn-based game where a player takes their full 3 days a turn to play out being mate in 3 with their lone king against 2 queens, is probably going to have a hard time making a case for normal behavior. Not that all such cases would be that clear.

That's not at all clear, precisely because "there are multiple reasons a person might use up their time" and you can't know why they took up that time. Maybe they needed that time for life events and used it because they had that time to spare and didn't want to use a time joker.

The message that pops up when you are playing a game after about a minute (even in a turn-based game, which makes no sense) is "My opponent is not playing. What can I do?" And it explains to you that they are allowed to use their time. So you can come to your own conclusions for the purpose of red thumbs all you want, as is your prerogative, but I don't want moderators' time being taken up with reading tea leaves about someone's intent.

[nik592]

I recall the statements you're talking about being made, but you'd have to link me to the actual posts so I could see exactly what context they're being argued for.

They're frankly hard to search for because take, all, time, and long are all stop words for searching. I could use "slow" however, which found me this thread (couple of quotes for context, but you can read the whole thread): https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=161038

Setting speed to fastest does not help, because it's refreshing too much (like +3 minutes every move, cmon)
So, I'm waiting 3 minutes to make a move in 5 seconds... and again and again.

As long as they're playing within their time limit and not intentionally stalling, this isn't on them. That time was given for that game for a reason, was agreed upon by the participants, and it's theirs to use.

I know you've said if they're not "intentionally stalling", but this OP is arguing that their opponents are taking 3 minutes every move for an action that should (at least sometimes) take 5 seconds, which if true, is possibly intentional stalling. But how would you know?

And yes, there are multiple reasons a person might use up their time, cases for this sort of thing would require context-based arguments on a case-by-case basis. A turn-based game where a player takes their full 3 days a turn to play out being mate in 3 with their lone king against 2 queens, is probably going to have a hard time making a case for normal behavior. Not that all such cases would be that clear.

I personally think intentional stalling in turn-based play is harder to argue. There have been times where life has gotten on top of me, and I haven't gotten on to BGA to play turns. OK, so let's rule out anyone who hasn't been on BGA in that time as probably not intentionally stalling. But I've also had times where life has gotten on top of me, and I've tried desperately to get on BGA, but only got on long enough to play a table or two before getting distracted by life again and not actually finishing all my turns. Yes, I know eventually turns with the least time remaining pop to the top of the list, but your time is usually a lot lower by then.

[Ceaseless]

I recall the statements you're talking about being made, but you'd have to link me to the actual posts so I could see exactly what context they're being argued for.

They're frankly hard to search for because take, all, time, and long are all stop words for searching. I could use "slow" however, which found me this thread (couple of quotes for context, but you can read the whole thread): https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=161038

Setting speed to fastest does not help, because it's refreshing too much (like +3 minutes every move, cmon)
So, I'm waiting 3 minutes to make a move in 5 seconds... and again and again.

As long as they're playing within their time limit and not intentionally stalling, this isn't on them. That time was given for that game for a reason, was agreed upon by the participants, and it's theirs to use.

I know you've said if they're not "intentionally stalling", but this OP is arguing that their opponents are taking 3 minutes every move for an action that should (at least sometimes) take 5 seconds, which if true, is possibly intentional stalling. But how would you know?

And yes, there are multiple reasons a person might use up their time, cases for this sort of thing would require context-based arguments on a case-by-case basis. A turn-based game where a player takes their full 3 days a turn to play out being mate in 3 with their lone king against 2 queens, is probably going to have a hard time making a case for normal behavior. Not that all such cases would be that clear.

I personally think intentional stalling in turn-based play is harder to argue. There have been times where life has gotten on top of me, and I haven't gotten on to BGA to play turns. OK, so let's rule out anyone who hasn't been on BGA in that time as probably not intentionally stalling. But I've also had times where life has gotten on top of me, and I've tried desperately to get on BGA, but only got on long enough to play a table or two before getting distracted by life again and not actually finishing all my turns. Yes, I know eventually turns with the least time remaining pop to the top of the list, but your time is usually a lot lower by then.

You'd have to handle it case by case. First of all, what do you think the player's reason for stalling is? That they're losing is a common one. We'd see the absurd move time only occur in obviously bad positions, especially standing out when there is little delay for more complicated moves in more favorable positions relative to far longer moves in blatantly obvious ones. In my 3 days a turn Chess example, we're losing at a position a player should have just resigned in, they have nothing to really do, especially in turn-based, in real time they could play this whole thing out in under a minute. Making this a 9-day affair, especially if we've seen they don't tend to make their moves in such a dragged-out state, is rather absurd. Note that we're also talking a repeated set of moves here, resigning a board like this would be obvious on a normal day, with life on top of them it's even more clear there's no reason they'd want to drag this out.

Sometimes you're just not going to know. Sometimes when making a judgment you have to accept it's too ambiguous to say what went down and you leave it alone for now. On some sites if you found it suspicious but not clear enough yet you could make a note and gives other further tools to help make a judgment should they see a similar situation. I can't speak for BGA's moderation policy, though I'd imagine it doesn't get into gameplay related stalling as much as other sites do. A site might even choose to make it a policy not to hit for stalling for any 1 situation, no matter how obvious, but rather require several separate incidents of that nature and such judgments pop up before taking action. The players get a few freebies in exchange for added security in the judgment when it comes down to avoid any one game's odd circumstances throwing things off.

Having policies to handle stalling players does take work though, and having to make judgments is going to require effort. BGA's automatic leanings would make them disinclined to want to go very far in this direction. It's nice on the player end to see malicious activity directly cut down like that, but it can be rough on the moderation side of things.

[nik592]

In the end, the question here seems to be whether the rule saying you should not "Take an unnecessary and unreasonable amount of time at the end of game in an obvious losing position." refers to the situation where doing so can cause your opponent to run out of time and allow you to win a game that you would have otherwise lost if moves had just been played out more promptly. You seem to think not.

It's for positions where a player refuses to play a lost game. Sure, you're slotted to all of your time to play the game, but you still have to actually play it. Using the clock as your weapon of choice for a rage quit is a great way to get banned on gaming sites. Winning on time is not a losing position.

I think you're you're saying above that the rule only applies if they then go on to lose. So if they still lose, then the intentional stalling is bad, but if they manage to force their opponent to time out and win, well that's within the rules of BGA (winning on time) and is ok?

You'd have to handle it case by case. First of all, what do you think the player's reason for stalling is? That they're losing is a common one.

I feel like "I'm losing, but if I make them run out of time, I can boot them and win" (and the behaviour then goes on to support that - ie. they do boot as soon as their opponent is out of time, assuming the opponent gets there, which they may not) is a lot stronger a reason than just "I'm losing, and want to annoy my opponent by making the end game take a long time". I wouldn't report them in either case, but if they've been stalling AND booted someone from a losing position, I'm going to assume (rightly or wrongly) that their intentions were malicious, that they're not sportsmanlike and red thumb them. I realise my opinion of their sportsmanship (and red thumb) probably wouldn't matter to them, but that was the initial question of this thread: "what do you think about a situation where that happens?" If they were just playing slow in end game, maybe I wouldn't red thumb (depends on the day frankly) and I wouldn't assume they were intentionally stalling.

[Meeplelowda]

One problem I have with terms of service that are nearly impossible to enforce is that people don't recognize that some things are aspirational. They are communicating that they would like their users to behave a certain way, even if they don't really have the ability and/or resources to force them to. "Case-by-case" basis means dedicating time for a human to look at it. Every moderation on BGA other than those that are automated (such as karma penalties for being expelled) is "case-by-case," so that's kind of an empty phrase. If we need to devote human resources to a "case-by-case" review, my preference is that time be devoted to addressing abusive chat and forum posts and trying to detect cheating, not trying to mind read someone's intent in using the time that is actually on their clock. So can you come to a personal assessment that someone was being unsportmanlike and red thumb them? Sure. I've done it. Do I want BGA trying to do this when they have bigger fish to fry? No.

[Ceaseless]

In the end, the question here seems to be whether the rule saying you should not "Take an unnecessary and unreasonable amount of time at the end of game in an obvious losing position." refers to the situation where doing so can cause your opponent to run out of time and allow you to win a game that you would have otherwise lost if moves had just been played out more promptly. You seem to think not.

It's for positions where a player refuses to play a lost game. Sure, you're slotted to all of your time to play the game, but you still have to actually play it. Using the clock as your weapon of choice for a rage quit is a great way to get banned on gaming sites. Winning on time is not a losing position.

I think you're you're saying above that the rule only applies if they then go on to lose. So if they still lose, then the intentional stalling is bad, but if they manage to force their opponent to time out and win, well that's within the rules of BGA (winning on time) and is ok?

This has already been covered here.

Stallers are wasting your time for no change in the outcome, at best they might hope you quit out of frustration, but there's no way they can affect the results of the game through their own efforts, an unexpected external event would have to occur. However, in this case, the player has the clock that they are pressuring for their win condition. It's not a matter of whether they won the individual game or not, we don't say it's not stalling if the staller won because their opponent died of a heart attack, and we don't say it was stalling if someone tried winning on time but was unsuccessful. The win on time, if it occurs, wasn't some unexpected event to pop out of nowhere, but something visible from the start of this situation.

You'd have to handle it case by case. First of all, what do you think the player's reason for stalling is? That they're losing is a common one.

I feel like "I'm losing, but if I make them run out of time, I can boot them and win" (and the behaviour then goes on to support that - ie. they do boot as soon as their opponent is out of time, assuming the opponent gets there, which they may not) is a lot stronger a reason than just "I'm losing, and want to annoy my opponent by making the end game take a long time". I wouldn't report them in either case, but if they've been stalling AND booted someone from a losing position, I'm going to assume (rightly or wrongly) that their intentions were malicious, that they're not sportsmanlike and red thumb them. I realise my opinion of their sportsmanship (and red thumb) probably wouldn't matter to them, but that was the initial question of this thread: "what do you think about a situation where that happens?" If they were just playing slow in end game, maybe I wouldn't red thumb (depends on the day frankly) and I wouldn't assume they were intentionally stalling.

You can do what you want with your red thumbs, there's no rule saying you can't red thumb someone for creating their account in June, for instance. This particular reply chain began with you and tbhp saying you couldn't see any other interpretation of the rule on losing positions or that it was obvious, respectively, which has been addressed.