Join a game, it’s immediately your turn, not playing

[Fuchur]

You seem to be upset if someone on your table is going into the red, as if it was a personal insult to you.

It might not be a personal insult, but it is definitely disrespecting the time of everyone else that signed up to play in that table at the listed speed. I don't understand why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp. Or are you being intentionally obtuse this entire conversation?

Hm, are you trying to insult me ? Your remark seems slightly aggressive.

For your information, i understand the concept of turnwise games (but i think that it isn't foolproof; depending on the timezones you might get in trouble without any chance to do anything about it).
What i haven't understood is why the creator of this thread seems paying more attention on players getting over time then their actual playing time :
If you have to wait one week to destroy a game it might be useful to continue until the end (and red thumb the slow player afterwards). At least you do play something (even if it takes 10 % more time than initially planned) instead of passing all of your BGA time to wait until you can destroy the next table.
Another point i don't understand : He complains about the long laps of time he will have to wait to kick the other player but refuses any hint to get shorter kick-times.

[buu441]

1. Continuing to play the game just because you have already spent time in it = sunk cost fallacy.

2. You seem to think that the person doing the kicking is the one "destroying" the game, not the person playing slowly and going over time. The poster is not waiting for a week to destroy a game, they are stuck for a week in a game that will eventually be destroyed by the slow player. Maybe if you change that point of view, a lot of the arguments mentioned here will make more sense.

3. The person is joining/creating tables at a speed that they are comfortable playing. To get the shorter "kick" times, they will have to create or join tables at speeds that they might not comfortable playing.

[Jellby]

they are stuck for a week in a game that will eventually be destroyed by the slow player.

But you can't know if the slow player will eventually run out of time or not. It has happened to me several times that a player takes more than 1 day (in a 2-moves-per-day table) to play a turn, so I'm prepared to expel them in their next turn, but then they play all their other turns in much shorter time, recover their full time, and never go into red.

Of course, you can suspect a player will run out of time, and many times you may be right. And there are players who ignore (purposefully or not) the time limits. But there is nothing that can be done, other than politely informing those players and/or red-thumbing them. You can't (and rightly so) expel a player just because they took "too long" in a move if they have still positive time left: in BGA terms, that is not too long.

[Fuchur]

1. Continuing to play the game just because you have already spent time in it = sunk cost fallacy.

2. You seem to think that the person doing the kicking is the one "destroying" the game, not the person playing slowly and going over time. The poster is not waiting for a week to destroy a game, they are stuck for a week in a game that will eventually be destroyed by the slow player. Maybe if you change that point of view, a lot of the arguments mentioned here will make more sense.

3. The person is joining/creating tables at a speed that they are comfortable playing. To get the shorter "kick" times, they will have to create or join tables at speeds that they might not comfortable playing.

1. I'm sorry, i don't know the meaning of "sunk cost fallacy". Do you mean something like " you shouldn't throw good time after bad time" ?

2. Well, In fact, i do. I usually don't look at the tables where it isn't my turn (at least if i have enough tables to join left). Some days ago i discovered two tables in my playing list, one dead (i was the last player left, the third had ejected the second, it was my turn since 5 days but that table never showed up in my list of tables to look at -- don't know if this is a bug) and another stuck since 11 days (i closed that one but without any hard feelings against the player who joined and never showed up).
As these are turnwise tables it doesn't matter to me if someone takes slightly longer than agreed -- we are talking about people who dip slightly into red (2 hours where 24 are allowed). There are much chances that i wouldn't even see this tiny overlap and i would never consider that destroying that table is an good option (but i'm don't care about my ELO, and, as long as i can open other tables, i don't care about tables that got stuck : That is the huge advantage of turnwise games to be able to concentrate on the games that are moving and ignoring those that don't.

This is an entirely different topic for life games : As one can't do anything else while one does a real time table it is really annoying to wait for the others.
And when you have reached your maximum number of tw tables to join and all of them are slowed down by someone, than yes, that is annoying and i understand that kicking/red thumbing players is necessary.

3. Well, he didn't clearly state this, but i agree that this is a valid argument.
But in this case nothing can be done and i don't see the purpose of this thread : Is he searching recomforting of others, telling him :"Yeah, there are bad people out there, joining tables without keeping their engagements. The best would be to delete their accounts ... 3
S*** happens and some of the people who don't make their moves in time might have valid reasons which even you would accept as excuse.

[Cile]

2. Well, In fact, i do. I usually don't look at the tables where it isn't my turn (at least if i have enough tables to join left). Some days ago i discovered two tables in my playing list, one dead (i was the last player left, the third had ejected the second, it was my turn since 5 days but that table never showed up in my list of tables to look at -- don't know if this is a bug) and another stuck since 11 days (i closed that one but without any hard feelings against the player who joined and never showed up).

So you're fine with players abandoning the table, but not with a player being ejected? What's the difference? Either way the game ends prematurely.

As these are turnwise tables it doesn't matter to me if someone takes slightly longer than agreed -- we are talking about people who dip slightly into red (2 hours where 24 are allowed). There are much chances that i wouldn't even see this tiny overlap and i would never consider that destroying that table is an good option (but i'm don't care about my ELO, and, as long as i can open other tables, i don't care about tables that got stuck : That is the huge advantage of turnwise games to be able to concentrate on the games that are moving and ignoring those that don't.

By the same logic what does it matter if a game ends early by another player being ejected? That's the huge advantage of playing games on-line: You can just start another table with different players and ignore the games that don't get completed.

If you're not even aware enough of the game to realize a turn hasn't been taken in 11 days, what does it matter if it gets played to completion or someone got ejected? It sounds like for you the ideal solution would be: if someone got ejected from the game for running out of time, the system just removes it from your list and not tell you. You wouldn't even notice.

[Jeff de Matiss]

To be honest, it is always a little stupid when someone had a big amount of time for his/her turns and still goes into the red zone. And since I play mainly tournaments, it is more annoying there. But there are three factors to me if one goes into red:

A) This is online gaming, it comes to be somewhat slower because of the different time zones. I play from Europe but am facing players from Asia, The USA, Brazil and so on. In their country it is sometimes a wild 2 in the morning when their turn ticks. I can understand completely they would not be able to play it immediately! And yes, this way they lose few hours. But it is not exactly their fault as it is just a whole different time, not suitable for them. Clearly they are in disadvantage when on tables with predominantly European player base. So I never kick someone because of playing "slow" if he/she is playing the turns anyway even though he/she is from the other site of the world.

B) Again, this is online gaming. Sometimes in our lives there are events we could not predict, someone does not feel well and so on. If the player is still making the turns, even slower than anyone on the table, but in reasonable periods, then I do not have any problem with that. Life is bigger than a game on here.

C) If the player has not made a turn at all, or just the first two and stopped for several days and does not say anything in the chat for having an issue, then those on the table may decide whether to boot now or just assume he/she might still be able to end the game in the combined allowed period for the game (as there is a total time that the table is still functioning even if one player is past the time but also the others are very good with theirs).

Of course, if someone is doing that on purpose, then it is a completely different story. I had a player who once was in Ticket to ride tournament, got into the table and we were randomly with a Russian player. And those individual dropped something like "He is in war, I am not going to play with him. Just kick me when I time out." Now, please, never act like this! He is a player, not a soldier, so saying he is in war... The least to say is it sounds extremely absurd! People from Belarus and Russia on here are very often purposely being accused of the war as they were the ones who fight in it themsleves. They are being pushed down way too harsh, even though they are players like all of us. The same we are and the same reason has gotten us on the site. War is never something to be idolised and cheered for, 100% for certain! But players here? They just play. Why we sometimes way them down for being citizens of their war-involved country? It is not like they are playing on here in the breaks of the fightfield when they aim for people or drop bombs! They are the same people we are. Respect that! Or at least do not punish them for something that is not their fault, not their call to have happened! Plus, no one has ever proved Belarus is in any way involved in the war!

But, again ot the point of the post, in general I wait for players who time out. I have been past play time for some games and I think I have been kicked three times in total. The rest of the games - others let me finish. So I respect that and do the same. If they are playing within reasonable period and the game goes on, just let them finish it as it is all we are here for - to play games.

[Fuchur]

2. Well, In fact, i do. I usually don't look at the tables where it isn't my turn (at least if i have enough tables to join left). Some days ago i discovered two tables in my playing list, one dead (i was the last player left, the third had ejected the second, it was my turn since 5 days but that table never showed up in my list of tables to look at -- don't know if this is a bug) and another stuck since 11 days (i closed that one but without any hard feelings against the player who joined and never showed up).

So you're fine with players abandoning the table, but not with a player being ejected? What's the difference? Either way the game ends prematurely.

It seems to me that you didn't understand what i wrote: I'm not fine with players abandoning one of my tables. And i will close tables when there isn't any hope that they will continue.
BUT -- this holds only for turnwise tables, under the condition that i can still join other tables : As long as a game proceeds, even when a player is in the red, i will continue to play it. The idea of seeing somebody taking more time than initially agreed and thinking immediately : "Oh my goodness, now i will have to wait one week until i can finally kick that guy" is totally strange to me.

As these are turnwise tables it doesn't matter to me if someone takes slightly longer than agreed -- we are talking about people who dip slightly into red (2 hours where 24 are allowed). There are much chances that i wouldn't even see this tiny overlap and i would never consider that destroying that table is an good option (but i'm don't care about my ELO, and, as long as i can open other tables, i don't care about tables that got stuck : That is the huge advantage of turnwise games to be able to concentrate on the games that are moving and ignoring those that don't.

By the same logic what does it matter if a game ends early by another player being ejected? That's the huge advantage of playing games on-line: You can just start another table with different players and ignore the games that don't get completed.

Same logic ? I prefer to finish every game i've started. Sometimes they don't because a player never returned. But as long as everybody is still onboard, even when slightly over time, i would like to see the end and it's really annoying that some players feel the need to punish others for being late by kicking them.

If you're not even aware enough of the game to realize a turn hasn't been taken in 11 days, what does it matter if it gets played to completion or someone got ejected? It sounds like for you the ideal solution would be: if someone got ejected from the game for running out of time, the system just removes it from your list and not tell you. You wouldn't even notice.

Well, do you continue to play on tables where someone's been ejected ?
I usually don't because of the idiot IA which makes the moves for the missing players. So, when someone has been ejected, that best option i have is to quit that game too.
So in fact i would prefer that BGA closes that table for me, showing it in the list of finished games.

[Cile]

It seems to me that you didn't understand what i wrote: I'm not fine with players abandoning one of my tables. And i will close tables when there isn't any hope that they will continue.

You said you have no hard feelings towards the guy who abandoned your game for 11 days, would you have been bothered by a player who kicked them once they were in the red instead of waiting 11 days first?

BUT -- this holds only for turnwise tables, under the condition that i can still join other tables : As long as a game proceeds, even when a player is in the red, i will continue to play it. The idea of seeing somebody taking more time than initially agreed and thinking immediately : "Oh my goodness, now i will have to wait one week until i can finally kick that guy" is totally strange to me.

The idea of having multiple tables of the same game is totally strange to me. I have no problem with people doing it, but as I have made clear previously, I do not like it myself. I frequently do not have more than 2 or 3 tables going at a time, and they are different games. One of which I am quite interested in playing, and 1 that is a more casual game I can quickly pop in and out of. So when someone is taking noticeably longer turn times it's not "I have to wait a week to kick the guy" it's "I have to wait a week before I can finally leave this table and go join another one to actually play this game."

Same logic ? I prefer to finish every game i've started. Sometimes they don't because a player never returned. But as long as everybody is still onboard, even when slightly over time, i would like to see the end and it's really annoying that some players feel the need to punish others for being late by kicking them.

I find it really annoying that some players feel the need to slow down games by joining tables they can't meet the time commitments for, instead of just joining tables with longer turn times that match how often they can actually take their turn.

If players just joined tables they could actually meet the time requirements for they wouldn't be able to be kicked by "impatient players", both of our problems would be solved.

[landon1013]

I had someone join a 2 moves / day game, it was their turn 5 minutes after the game started and it took them 26 hours to take their first turn.

I understand joining a table that isn't ready yet and not necessarily waiting around until it starts, but maybe just give it 5 to 10 minutes first? Or don't join a game that if it starts you can't take your turn within the indicated time frame...

I get that this might be frustrating, but the point of a turn based game is to be able to play when you have the time to play (within the allotted amount of time set by the timer) and per BGA rules all players absolutely have the right to use all of their thinking time every time. If you can't/don't want to wait that long try a real time game or a turn based with less time allowed between turns.

[Cile]

I had someone join a 2 moves / day game, it was their turn 5 minutes after the game started and it took them 26 hours to take their first turn.

I understand joining a table that isn't ready yet and not necessarily waiting around until it starts, but maybe just give it 5 to 10 minutes first? Or don't join a game that if it starts you can't take your turn within the indicated time frame...

I get that this might be frustrating...

That literally all I was saying: It's frustrating. I don't believe I in any way advocated for being able to kick players / leave games before the turn time has been sued up.

For what it's worth, that game ended within about 5 or 6 turns as that player had already used up their available time. It was not a good sign to start with, and things did not improve.