Players out of time - code of conduct

Discussions about BGA (all languages)
Forum rules
Warning: challenging a moderation in Forum = 10 days ban
More info & details about how to challenge a moderation: viewtopic.php?p=119756
Fuchur
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 May 2016, 22:45

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Fuchur »

Cile wrote: 24 May 2026, 18:11 I would not be suggesting it if it wasn't for the fact that every time the topic comes up someone posts a comment like
In a >2 player game, do NOT boot them and ruin everyone's game, coz that makes you the impolite one, to put it very mildly.
For some reason people blame the person who doesn't want to be stuck at a table being played at a slower speed than what they thought they joined, instead of the person running out of time (including time bank) which is why the booting is happening in the first place.
I would blame you (and i blame any other person who expels a slow player) -- in turn based tables.

I understand that this is necessary in real time tables but i can't see any valid reason in turn based tables. Usually you should be able to open a sufficient number of other tables if one of them is slower than expected and play there instead of ruining the slow table for everybody else.
FrankJones
Posts: 2441
Joined: 30 June 2024, 00:24

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by FrankJones »

I agree.

Unfortunately, because of these issues, I avoid some 3-player games I would otherwise enjoy playing.
I just don't want to be in a spot where I am winning and clearly will win, but player B runs out of time and so player C (who is in last place) expels player B. I get gypped on a well-earned win for something I had no control over.

So, I just don't play. Or, I play but only in friendly mode.
User avatar
Meeplelowda
Posts: 3832
Joined: 14 March 2020, 10:31

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Meeplelowda »

Fuchur wrote: 24 May 2026, 22:37 but i can't see any valid reason in turn based tables. Usually you should be able to open a sufficient number of other tables if one of them is slower than expected and play there instead of ruining the slow table for everybody else.
Why even have more than one turn-based speed setting if you're never supposed to kick someone who is out of time anyway? The unstated premise behind your statement is that as long as someone isn't playing real-time, then they don't care AT ALL how long a game takes. That simply does not follow. Or even worse, you think just because YOU don't care that no one else should care, but it's unclear if that's your position.

And not everyone wants to have 20+ turn-based games going at the same time. I don't even like to have TWO of the same game going at the same time, although it occasionally happens when I'm in between rounds of a tournament and have started a non-tournament instance of that game when the next round starts. I tend to be very lenient, and in the most recent two games where someone went over time I didn't expel. I even check to see if they usually play slower times and accidentally joined a faster game and factor that in the decision. But I will do it with no qualms if someone goes way over time within the first two days of the game.
Play Now lobby 4ever! https://boardgamearena.com/lobby
User avatar
tbhp
Posts: 715
Joined: 16 April 2025, 00:35

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by tbhp »

Cile wrote: 23 May 2026, 20:06 Tournaments have their own broken issues with timers that need to be fixed separately. This thread was just about normal 1-off games. If an option is not compatible with tournaments then don't make it an option for tournaments.
The issues are very limited if everyone behaves well. The only inherent issue that we can't always avoid is that if a game reaches its maximum game duration, then the ranking will be done by remaining time, which is not the worst metric they could have chosen but not exactly an ideal outcome for a game either. But it's very rare in my experience that this happens.

Also, I brought up multiplayer games, but even for 2 players tournament games, the idea would be very bad, for a different reason: now if someone runs out of time when playing against you, the game automatically ends without asking your opinion on it. This would lead to exactly the same issue as when someone concedes on you. People should always be in control of whether they want a game to end, unless there is absolutely no other choice (in other words, if the maximum game duration is reached).

If people are just researching games, then I guess the option is fine since both parties agree on it beforehand. The same applies to conceding: it's fine for casual games where the pro-conceders can choose to play against each other. But for tournaments, you don't get to pick who you play against, so more general rules that respect the integrity of the competition should apply.
Cile wrote: 24 May 2026, 18:11 I would not be suggesting it if it wasn't for the fact that every time the topic comes up someone posts a comment like
In a >2 player game, do NOT boot them and ruin everyone's game, coz that makes you the impolite one, to put it very mildly.
For some reason people blame the person who doesn't want to be stuck at a table being played at a slower speed than what they thought they joined, instead of the person running out of time (including time bank) which is why the booting is happening in the first place.
The person who ran out of time is in the wrong obviously, but the person kicking them out is much worse since they are intentionally choosing to end the game, which is the worst possible scenario.

The whole point of having clocks in the first place is to give people incentive to play so that games rarely reach their maximum game duration. The person doing the kicking out is jumping straight to "let's terminate the game even though we still have a possibility to end it normally", which defeats the whole point of having thinking times.

It's like if you were late for a party, and instead of doing your best to still attend the party, someone said "let's just not go". Or if water was leaking in your house, and instead of working together to fix the issue, someone said "let's just blow up the house". It doesn't make any sense.
User avatar
buu441
Posts: 147
Joined: 12 March 2022, 06:52

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by buu441 »

The amount of mental gymnastics from people defending ignoring timers is amazing. Keep them coming, it is very entertaining :D
User avatar
Cile
Posts: 301
Joined: 13 March 2012, 06:01

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Cile »

Godsmurf wrote: 24 May 2026, 19:35 because you are ruining the game of the other players who WERE taking their turns on time.
The Player playing significantly slower than everyone else is ruining the game for people who wanted to play at a specific speed, and were taking their turns on time.
That's equivalent to suddenly wiping away all the pieces on a table game because 1 other player annoys you.
You are never obligated to play with anyone. You are free to red thumb someone who annoys you and never play with them again. If someone logs in once a week to take their turn I should not be forced to sit there and wait for them. If that is what you like play in friendly mode, not at timed tables.
Fuchur wrote: 24 May 2026, 22:37 I would blame you (and i blame any other person who expels a slow player) -- in turn based tables.
Let's say, for example, that I want to play a 4 player game at 4 moves per day. On Average I will be making one turn a day, but I am prepared to check in 4 times a day that it is my turn. I have created a table for 4 players at 4 moves per day. I have made my desires known. There was already a 4 player table for 1 move every 2 days that I did not join because that is not the speed I wish to play at.
Someone joins my table and decides they only want to log in every other day (1 move per 2 days playing speed). Seeing as I have stated clearly the speed I wish to play at, and have done everything I can to indicate that, why should I be forced to play at a table with different settings than I explicitly stated I wanted?

I do not want to be playing multiple tables of this game. I do want to be playing at one table of this game. I want to be playing at the speed of the table I've joined. What further steps do you suggest I take to be able to do this? Why am I obligated to follow the whims of a player who ignored the clearly stated rules of the table when they joined? If I only want to play 4 players no one can come along and decide to invite more players to make it a 6 player game. (What, at a gathering you're not going to allow more people to join your table?) If I only want to play the base game no one can join my table and decide to include an expansion. So why, if I only want to play at 4 moves per day, is someone allowed to come along and decide we are playing at a slower speed?

This attitude is exactly why there should be a setting at table creation to automatically eject players who run out of time. I can think of no other way to clearly communicate to players "This is a 3 moves per day game and you will be expected to actually play at that speed. If you plan on playing slower than that don't join this table. I shouldn't have to say this, but here we are."

tbhp wrote: 25 May 2026, 01:07 The whole point of having clocks in the first place is to give people incentive to play so that games rarely reach their maximum game duration.
And people are saying it is okay to ignore the clock entirely, so there is no point in having them at all. Just play in friendly mode then.
It's like if you were late for a party, and instead of doing your best to still attend the party, someone said "let's just not go".
It's like you were late to a party that was supposed to start at 1, you show up at 11 and are offended that the host isn't letting you in.

If you are allotted 6 hours per turn you can not get kicked out for going 1 minute over 6 hours, that's what time banks are for. In order to be kicked out you will need to exceed your turn timer by an additional 18 hours which is far beyond a reasonable time to wait. More commonly, in order to be kicked you would have had to be playing significantly slower than the turn time for multiple turns.
KenFin1
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 September 2022, 16:11

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by KenFin1 »

Jellby wrote: 24 May 2026, 09:42
KenFin1 wrote: 24 May 2026, 09:16 How hard is it to just manually kick someone who's being a pain? Why does it need to be automated? I can't understand why that would be a good idea.
Because people are being blamed/harassed for expelling players out of time.
Because people are willing to wait when they're winning but not when they're losing.
Because people are being given extra time, and then they don't give that extra time to others.
Because people are people, and therefore arbitrary.

It should at least be an option when you start a game. You wouldn't have to play with that option if you don't want to.
If you're being blamed for expelling someone by the expelled person block them and report them if necessary. If you're being blamed by other players at the table then maybe consider if you're being too trigger happy.

What used to help me decide what to do was being able to see players' reputation histories. Where someone has lots of quits and expels against them it is an easier decision to boot them. If someone has a good rep then I'm much more lenient and willing to ask in chat what's happening. Not being able to see that anymore is a weird change that I just find unhelpful.

As you say people are people and sometimes life is messy. I had to forfeit a few games recently where kids had thrown up/people came to the door wanting me to take neighbour's parcel deliveries etc. Sometimes you just can't help going over time. Generally people are pretty decent about it if you explain what's happening when something like that happens. Your autokick solution is a cruel nuclear option that feels like it would only pander to the impatient and intolerant player only and not the wider player base who I find exist on here.

My take on parsing the comments on this thread is that it will be impossible to please everyone so there is no perfect solution that make everyone happy but the current options are the best balance. Ergo maintain the status quo.
User avatar
Shivaware
Posts: 322
Joined: 26 November 2012, 17:00

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Shivaware »

Here is the suggestion to have a strict time limit option for games. Feel free to vote for (or against) it.
User avatar
Godsmurf
Posts: 76
Joined: 25 January 2012, 14:10

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Godsmurf »

KenFin1 wrote: 25 May 2026, 06:41 My take on parsing the comments on this thread is that it will be impossible to please everyone so there is no perfect solution that make everyone happy but the current options are the best balance. Ergo maintain the status quo.
I think it would be pretty easy to make changes that would feel like an improvement to everyone. E.g. allow someone to call a vote to expell a player, rather than letting them decide that by themselves and incurring the wrath of the other players who weren't consulted.

Not that this ever going to happen with BGA doing basically zero development on this site, except for churning out ever more games.
User avatar
Godsmurf
Posts: 76
Joined: 25 January 2012, 14:10

Re: Players out of time - code of conduct

Post by Godsmurf »

Cile wrote: 25 May 2026, 05:21 I want to
I will be making
I am prepared to
I have created
I have made my desires known
that is not the speed I wish to play at
I have stated clearly the speed I wish to play at
why should I be forced
I explicitly stated
I wanted
I do not want
I do want
I want to be
Why am I obligated
I only want
I only want
I only want
Your problem is you only think about yourself, and not of the other people at the table who are NOT overtime, who have invested hours in a game that is 95% complete, and who want to finish it. You are so egocentric that you think it perfectly normal that you, unilaterally, decide to ruin the game for everyone else, yet you're amazed that you're considered rude for it.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussions”