Board Game Arena

FrankJones wrote: ↑18 July 2026, 19:28 But, based on what you said, that the game was obviously lost for the opponent, and that the opponent was active in other games, I would think any moderator with any knowledge of the game would be able to rule the player to be acting in bad faith.

Therein lies the problem. With 1400 games and (I assume) few moderators, there are likely dozens or hundreds of games that none of the moderators know enough about to make such a ruling.

This falls into the category of aspirational rules: "rules" you hope people abide by but can't feasibly enforce. The problem is that a "rule" with no feasible enforcement mechanism ceases to function as a rule. It becomes a mere suggestion.

FrankJones wrote: ↑18 July 2026, 19:28 I see; I wasn't taking tournaments into consideration, hence my confusion. The scenario described would be very unlikely in a non-tournament turn-based game.

You're right, it would be difficult to prove, though only because it requires subjective analysis. But, based on what you said, that the game was obviously lost for the opponent, and that the opponent was active in other games, I would think any moderator with any knowledge of the game would be able to rule the player to be acting in bad faith.

More than that, the player is within their rights to use all of their time. Just because they're taking other turns doesn't mean they have the headspace for that particular game. I've got a few heavier games going right now and was sick with a cold this week - I could play some of my lighter, better-known games in that state, but kept skipping those heavier games. And if we're going to accept someone taking ages at the start of the game to get themselves to only having 15 min remaining, then we also need to accept someone taking a long time at the end, even if it APPEARS that the motives are around avoiding an inevitable loss. Moderators can't make that distinction based on previous patterns of behaviour, they don't have all the evidence to know if there's a quite reasonable reason for their behaviour to now change - as Meeplelowda says, it's an aspirational rule, not something enforceable.

nik592 wrote: ↑19 July 2026, 03:07 I've got a few heavier games going right now and was sick with a cold this week - I could play some of my lighter, better-known games in that state, but kept skipping those heavier games. And if we're going to accept someone taking ages at the start of the game to get themselves to only having 15 min remaining, then we also need to accept someone taking a long time at the end, even if it APPEARS that the motives are around avoiding an inevitable loss.

Similarly, I was crazy busy with work for the past couple of weeks and didn't start any new turn-based games just before that period started. I only had some tournament games that I had to deal with. But if I'd had a heavy turn-based game that hadn't finished before then, I certainly would have been taking the minimum number of turns to stay out of the negative for the past couple of weeks.