Board Game Arena

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 06:56 If they say no without enquiring, it means they can't conceive any scenario where they might say yes.

No, it means they say no in *this scenario*, where a request was made with no explanation. They might have said yes in another scenario, but it's not their job to search for a possible scenario where they might have said yes, their job is just to answer to the current request as it was made.

Jellby wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 07:24

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 06:56 If they say no without enquiring, it means they can't conceive any scenario where they might say yes.

No, it means they say no in *this scenario*, where a request was made with no explanation. They might have said yes in another scenario, but it's not their job to search for a possible scenario where they might have said yes, their job is just to answer to the current request as it was made.

Oh so they think that because the other person didn't think of giving an explanation, that justifies them not caring what the explanation is? That's not a good look either.

That's like when we do things that might inconvenience someone and we are like "well they never explicitly said it bothers them so it's okay for me to do it". That's intellectual dishonesty because you're conveniently avoiding knowing the thing that you may not like knowing. We all should feel guilty when we do something like that.

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 07:35

Jellby wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 07:24

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 06:56 If they say no without enquiring, it means they can't conceive any scenario where they might say yes.

No, it means they say no in *this scenario*, where a request was made with no explanation. They might have said yes in another scenario, but it's not their job to search for a possible scenario where they might have said yes, their job is just to answer to the current request as it was made.

Oh so they think that because the other person didn't think of giving an explanation, that justifies them not caring what the explanation is? That's not a good look either.

The onus to explain why is on the person MAKING the request. I don't recall if the OP said they communicated why they'd like to go TB, but if they didn't, then that could be another reason they are getting rejected in addition to the other reasons noted in this thread.

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 06:56

The fact that they refuse without asking questions already constitutes worst case in my view. If they say no without enquiring, it means they can't conceive any scenario where they might say yes. It means they are refusing no matter what the situation is for the person on the other end.

Perhaps, but we must consider the OP's history showing this to be a habitual occurrence. Maybe the opponents view the OP's page and see the number of forfeits and clock violations and aren't inclined to be lenient or gracious, given that the OP seems to make a habit of starting games and not wanting to finish them.

By the OP's own admission, these are happening often, and not for an emergency, but rather, for reasons such as "some friends dropped by unexpectedly".

If the OP finds this happening often, the OP could start the games in turn based mode against opponents who are obviously okay with turn based, rather than starting games against people expecting a real time game and then asking them to accommodate unexpected guests dropping by.

Or, the OP could just ask the friends to hang out for a little while and finish the game.

Looking at the OP's history:

Two recent forfeits in Azul's Garden, which appears to be a 30-40 minute game in real time.

The 2 forfeits occurred after 35-ish minutes had elapsed, meaning the game was almost over. The OP couldn't tell the unexpected guests, "I need 5 more minutes to finish this game?"

These sound like rude and intrusive friends.

I don't see why 2-3 opponents expecting a 30-40 minute game should be expected to convert to turn-based when the game is 90% complete, possibly causing the game to require hours or even a day to complete. Especially Azul, which involves some aspect of memory and recall, and for which following the flow of the game might be very difficult of unexpectedly changed to turn-based. If the game starts in turn-based, players would likely use the notes feature to note anything of relevance that might matter later; this isn't necessarily the case in real-time though.

BY switching to turn-based, these players might find themselves needing to wait hours between moves and not recalling what had happened, thus playing onward lacking relevant information.

If the game is close to being finished anyway and the OP cannot take the remaining 5-10 minutes, then the OP likely isn't planning on making the next move anytime soon, leaving the other players stranded at 90+ % completion for no good reason.

Notice that the OP made no mention of explaining to the other players why the request was being made. Likely because the OP knows it would sound absurd to give the actual reason.

In an actual emergency, nobody is going to bother with any of this. The person would just leave and deal with the emergency, or if there are a few seconds to spare, click "quit" and then deal with the emergency.

If it's a non-emergency and simply a choice to do something else (spend time with friends), then request abandon or a switch to turn based and accept whatever decision the opponents make. If the opponent(s) say no, then decide which is more important: Finishing the game, or abandoning to hang out with friends.

If the Karma and Elo penalty are enough of a big deal to write a lengthy complaint thread, the simple solution is just to finish the game.

FrankJones wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 07:58 given that the OP seems to make a habit of starting games and not wanting to finish them.

Actually, they want to finish them, since they always ask to switch turn based. It's other people who don't want to finish them. Seems weird to inverse the blames like that.

And as you've pointed out some of those games are abandoned with only a few minutes left, the argument that some people just don't like playing turn based doesn't hold in this case. If they only have a couple moves left, they could easily perform them in turn based despite the mode generally not suiting their playstyle.

Also, seeing OP's history doesn't change the fact that they don't seem interested in finishing the games. I mean, if I want to finish a game with someone, why does their personal history matter to me? My goal is to finish the game, not to find reasons to justify ending the game early.

Now, I don't think OP should quit, I think they should just leave the game running. But it seems that the opponents would just see that as an opportunity to kick them out, as they don't seem particularly interested in playing the game.

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 08:18

And as you've pointed out some of those games are abandoned with only a few minutes left, the argument that some people just don't like playing turn based doesn't hold in this case. If they only have a couple moves left, they could easily perform them in turn based despite the mode generally not suiting their playstyle.

[emphasis added]

A few minutes left in real-time.

With a switch to turn-based, it could be hours between turns. And if the OP is leaving the computer for awhile because friends are over, that means the OP likely won't be making any moves anytime soon. So, if this switch to turn-based occurs, the OP leaves the computer to spend time with friends. One opponent waits for, let's say, 20 minutes, sees nobody has moved, and goes to do something else. At some point, one of the players goes to sleep, or to run errands, or whatever. Who knows when this game will be completed at this point?

If the game could be finished quickly in turn-based, then it can be finished quickly in real-time. The OP had not presented any valid reason to impose turn-based upon opponents who signed up for real-time.

The fact that these games were near completion makes it all the more baffling that the OP couldn't just finish them in real-time.

caz_manc wrote: ↑31 July 2026, 19:23 I had to get an penlty on quite a number of occasions in the last yesr. I politly asked via text to go turn based, sometimes as people turned up unexpected or the game was taking too long. I then after a min hoping they read my text go to the request to ask for turn based.

I would say that in 90% of games people have refused and i just had to quit which is a huge loss on my repution and was a pain for the other players too.

Why do people not accept moving to turn based?

Dont start a real time game you cant finish.

FrankJones wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 08:53

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 08:18

And as you've pointed out some of those games are abandoned with only a few minutes left, the argument that some people just don't like playing turn based doesn't hold in this case. If they only have a couple moves left, they could easily perform them in turn based despite the mode generally not suiting their playstyle.

[emphasis added]

A few minutes left in real-time.

With a switch to turn-based, it could be hours between turns. And if the OP is leaving the computer for awhile because friends are over, that means the OP likely won't be making any moves anytime soon. So, if this switch to turn-based occurs, the OP leaves the computer to spend time with friends. One opponent waits for, let's say, 20 minutes, sees nobody has moved, and goes to do something else. At some point, one of the players goes to sleep, or to run errands, or whatever. Who knows when this game will be completed at this point?

If the game could be finished quickly in turn-based, then it can be finished quickly in real-time. The OP had not presented any valid reason to impose turn-based upon opponents who signed up for real-time.

The fact that these games were near completion makes it all the more baffling that the OP couldn't just finish them in real-time.

I don't think OP is free of reproach, but I can understand their perspective better. Like if I have friends that come over, I can understand that I'd switch my attention to them and would leave the game running for a later date. I think that's okay as long as I plan to finish the game later (which is why I don't condone quitting, but I would condone just leaving the game running).

In the case of the opponents, however, I don't really understand what the problem is. To me saying they can't be bothered to take a few notes and play their remaining moves at a later date is essentially the same as saying they aren't interested in finishing the game. I don't see a functional difference. Not everything can be excused away as a "preference". By their refusal to make the necessary effort, they are showing that they don't care enough about the game to finish it.

tbhp wrote: ↑17 August 2026, 09:10

I don't think OP is free of reproach, but I can understand their perspective better. Like if I have friends that come over, I can understand that I'd switch my attention to them and would leave the game running for a later date. I think that's okay as long as I plan to finish the game later (which is why I don't condone quitting, but I would condone just leaving the game running).

In the case of the opponents, however, I don't really understand what the problem is. To me saying they can't be bothered to take a few notes and play their remaining moves at a later date is essentially the same as saying they aren't interested in finishing the game. I don't see a functional difference.

Maybe they have plans for the remainder of the day and will not be available to make any TB moves. They are perhaps available for the next hour, but after that, will not be. And perhaps will not be available for the next few days. We can't know.

I prefer to play some games real-time, but I do not. Why? Because like the OP, I have a high likelihood of being interrupted and forfeiting.

Two major differences:

1) In my case, the interruption would be an actual legitimate medical reason pertaining to a family member, and
2) Because of this, I simply do not play real-time games. I play all of them turn-based. I choose not to make my problem other people's problems, especially since I know beforehand of the situation I described in reason #1. If situation #1 occurs, it would not be "new information" to me, and so it would be my fault.