Board Game Arena

Kayvon wrote: ↑27 April 2023, 01:13

Cerebrovore wrote: ↑23 April 2023, 17:24I 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.

I don't believe there was an accusation - I was underlining the original point in contrast to the point that was trying to overcome it.

If we were to approach Jest's points, the punishment would be equal to both malicious and accidental users. I still believe that would be detrimental to the site in general.

Cerebrovore wrote: ↑09 August 2023, 20:30

Kayvon wrote: ↑27 April 2023, 01:13

Cerebrovore wrote: ↑23 April 2023, 17:24I 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.

I don't believe there was an accusation

The accusation, intended or otherwise, is that the poster was willfully ignorant (unwilling to accept what you want him to) or malicious (determined to punish you).

Perhaps you intended an honest conversation, but the words you chose attacked the poster rather than his ideas. A better approach to foster discussion is to push back on the reasoning rather than the motive for adding them.

Kayvon wrote: ↑09 August 2023, 22:44

Cerebrovore wrote: ↑09 August 2023, 20:30

Kayvon wrote: ↑27 April 2023, 01:13 Attacking an idea or concept is fine, but hurling accusations because someone doesn't accept your view feels counterproductive.

I don't believe there was an accusation

The accusation, intended or otherwise, is that the poster was willfully ignorant (unwilling to accept what you want him to) or malicious (determined to punish you).

Perhaps you intended an honest conversation, but the words you chose attacked the poster rather than his ideas. A better approach to foster discussion is to push back on the reasoning rather than the motive for adding them.

I don't believe it was. I believe that the poster was deliberately shutting down my soloution in order to punish others - as he stated. There is no point to fostering discussion with someone trying to overrule you by repetion.
The post specifically says that the discussion is about mitigation after a fault - so demanding punishment for the fault is either ignorant(as it has already been given) or malicious(there is no need for this discussion).
If someone is flipping the table, there's no need to discuss why. Just to stop it.

I have suffered from the issue myself. Currently, my internet is rather better, but it's not perfect.
I find it exagerated to claim that internet connexion issues are all the responsibility of the player. To some degree it is, but it also depends on your region, your conditions of living, etc.
But what bothers me the most is that this is what determines mostly your "reputation". BGA created a concept of "reputation" / karma, but appears to only really use it over "quitting games". This means that the majority of players with a bad reputation are literally just players with a bad internet connexion.
To be sure, it is suggested that other aspects can have an impact on your karma. But the rest is very unevident and not transparent (what is the effect of a red thumb? a report if claimed and you won't play with them again, but is there an effect on reputation? probably not...?). So it really feels like the overall reputation of players in the whole website is determined 95% by "quitting" and 5% by hidden stuff.
So I believe a problem with BGA is that there are a hella lot of players and the majority of them, especially the ones arriving during the confinement waves, are not trying to be part of a community or anything, not trying to be nice, to chat, etc. And maybe there is not enough incentivization on behaving well (after all, your reputation is affected mainly by your internet connexion; if you are not friendly, little's gonna happen)
I am expanding the topic here, but I believe it should be.
But to come back on the topic directly at hand, the thing is, I think it can be abusing the system in some cases to just respect the clock and hit it right as soon as the opponent reaches red. For 1, it is not very fair play when it is almost the end, the opponent is winning, they have barely gone below the limit and you are barely above it yourself (or even under it but your opponent is nice), and your opponent is chatting and trying their best to end on time, but you are just happy to get your elo. For 2, games are unequally well calibered for time. I'm thinking of Dragon Lines and Time Master in particular. Especially Time Master. The players of the latter game will understand.
But the case where players can (and probably do in some cases) really abuse the system is in tournaments.
Consider the following situation. A and B are playing their match in a tournament. A and B are sometimes connected at the same time, and A plays their move, mentions it in the chat, but B doesn't respond and disconnect. 15 minutes later, B connects, plays their move and leaves. A keeps suggesting to connect at the same hours, tries to get B to play real-time based while both are connected, but B keeps doing this way, never responds in the chat, and ends up winning on time (winning on time is veeeeeery common in tournaments).
B advances in the tournament. They also get elo, as well as 1 karma for completed game. Meanwhile, A loses the match in the tournament (and is eliminated if it's elimination system), loses elo, and loses 10 of reputation.
Absolutely nothing will ever signal that A did anything good (being friendly and trying to find a solution with their opponent), and absolutely nothing will ever signal that B did anything bad. Officially, B has a better "reputation" than A. Is this fair?
(this scenario is inspired by real experience; at the very least, a very common experience is to have opponents not try to play at the same time; and I am suspicious when they playing like 20 min later, quite systematically: it's probably a coincidence the majority of the time, but I suspect it is not always a coincidence)

So in conclusion, I think the followings:
1) I do find the loss of elo a bit extreme. I do not find any reason to do anything more than having the player loses exactly the same as if the game had ended up on a loss for them. I don't find any ground for an additional malus. As long as they lose elo just the same as if they had normally lost, it's already enough to make the behaviour irrational. I would be interested to hear people justify otherwise. Remember there is also a loss of reputation in addition.
2) I understand the reputation loss, but I am wondering whether there would not be any way to signal friendly and unfriendly (and fairplay, unfairplay) behaviour in a broader way, without having it be 95% a matter of quitting the game (which is to say, in the big majority, a matter of internet connexion). For instance, there could be additional ways of regaining karma than just finishing games. You could even have the reputation hit a maximum of 100% with finishing games, but having special ways (like participating in translations, receive thumbs up, idk, it is really an open topic) to go above 100.
Alternative/complementary idea: maybe there would be a way of implementing sth similar to Blablacar feature. Blablacar is a company of my country (totally irrelevant, sorry for the patriotic moment) for carpooling that lets you indicate the level of talking you want to have. It doesn't exactly solution the topic at hand, but it is related to some degree. Typically, if you are a talkative player, and your opponent too, you will often succeed in understanding each other and finding common ground.