Tactical red thumb

[Ken Corbin]

There are a couple of players that I want to red thumb for purely tactical reasons. They are decent enough people who perservered enough to make elite level while maintaining an ELO score in the low 100's. They just aren't very good at this particular game. If I get matched against them in arena mode, I win more games than I loose, but I win 7 AO points and loose 23. It just does not pay to play them.

If I red thumb them and say it is being done for personal reasons, are there any negative consequences for them, other than no longer being matched with me in any game whatsoever. And would doing this be considered abusive or unethical.

[Philoupino]

That's a good question, and I want to add another question, linked to your topic:

If there are very good players at a certain game (in particular 1vs1 games), some people could give a red thumb to them so as not to play against them, not because of their bad behaviour, but just to try not to play (and "always" loose) against them.
I don't think that's an acceptable & ethical use of red thumbs, but I would be interested to know what people have to say about your question and also about the situation I mentioned as well.

[Meeplelowda]

That's a good question, and I want to add another question, linked to your topic:

If there are very good players at a certain game (in particular 1vs1 games), some people could give a red thumb to them so as not to play against them, not because of their bad behaviour, but just to try not to play (and "always" loose) against them.
I don't think that's an acceptable & ethical use of red thumbs, but I would be interested to know what people have to say about your question and also about the situation I mentioned as well.

This is a frequent complaint about the Arena system: that you can red thumb top players and thus not be matched with them. I believe this completely undermines the spirit of Arena, which is to compete with the best* for bragging rights. But if you avoid playing the best, then you are not deserving of whatever crown you are awarded. It would be like the world chess champion being able to maintain his title by only playing matches against amateur club players.

*I recognize that the "best" in Arena aren't necessarily the best players of a game, because some top players don't participate in Arena.

[Lumin_S]

As far as I know there are unlikely to be any consequences for "personal reasons" red thumbs - I don't actually know if these still impact maximum karma limit like the other red thumbs do once a player gets a certain amount, but if they're decent people I doubt there will be any impact to them.

In terms of ethics, I think it's in a bit of a gray area but maybe closer to OK than not OK. It's very reasonable to believe that Elo is somewhat unfair to higher-rated players (especially in 3+ player games,) but that's how the BGA system works. The BGA system is also meant to not allow choosing opponents in Arena, after setting your Arena filters. Then, do you consider red thumbs to be part of the filter setup? I think there's an argument both ways.

In terms of abusive/against BGA terms, I think it's completely legal and allowed. The BGA system also allows you to red-thumb players for personal reasons. To the best of my knowledge there's a threshold of1/5th of green thumbs given, but not sure.

[Meeplelowda]

Then, do you consider red thumbs to be part of the filter setup?

Red thumbs are by definition a filter, because they remove (i.e., filter) a certain portion of otherwise eligible players from being matched with you. But it's a false equivalence to say any use of a filter is ethically the same.

It's all about intent. If your intent is to cowardly avoid strong players when you are ostensibly trying to demonstrate how strong you are (in Arena), then I don't think it's a gray area at all. On the other hand, there is a filter to avoid players far from your tier in Arena (e.g., preventing platinum from playing bronze). That has a legitimate use: players ranked too far below you award no Arena points (I'm talking about the tiers below Elite) for a win. So you could be matched in a game in which it is impossible for you to gain any Arena points for a win if you do not set this filter; you'd literally be wasting your time, assuming your goal was gaining Arena points. If, however, you are using red thumbs to preserve your ELO outside of Arena, that's a different intent.

In terms of abusive/against BGA terms, I think it's completely legal and allowed.

There's no denying that it is allowed. We can go down a deep rabbit hole discussing the difference between "legal" (or allowed by the rules) and ethical.

[RicardoRix]

This is all my own interpretation, I could well be wrong, I have no proof:

I thought that red thumbs did not count for completive play like tournaments and arena, so you deliberately can't avoid certain players. It's just for standard games that red-thumbs work.

Also I thought that if a player receives enough red-thumbs then at some point they get an auto moderation karma penalty hit.

The assumption about it not being worth the pay off because you might lose more points than you win should be balanced already by the rating difference.
So if you win 75% of the time, you'll get +5 for a win, and -15 for a loss. Both are a 3:1 ratio.
You shouldn't want to avoid too strong or too weak players. Maybe only bandits (players that are much better than their actual rating, having experience outside of BGA).

I looked up some facts from the FAQ:

If you think a player behaved badly during a game, you can give them a 'red thumb' at the end of the game. The effects of a red thumb are:
This player will not be able to play with you anymore (except if you meet in a tournament).
This player will not be able to send you private messages or watch your games as a spectator.
A red thumb may also contribute to lowering this player's reputation (see 'Reputation/Karma' for more details).

-----------------

If you receive too many 'Red thumbs' from the other players when compared to the amount of 'Green thumbs' received, your karma will be reduced to a low value each time you receive a Red Thumb. In this case, the best is to have a perfect behavior to get Green thumb and restore your ratio and reputation.

[frogstar_A]

This is all my own interpretation, I could well be wrong, I have no proof:

I thought that red thumbs did not count for completive play like tournaments and arena, so you deliberately can't avoid certain players. It's just for standard games that red-thumbs work.

Also I thought that if a player receives enough red-thumbs then at some point they get an auto moderation karma penalty hit.

The assumption about it not being worth the pay off because you might lose more points than you win should be balanced already by the rating difference.
So if you win 75% of the time, you'll get +5 for a win, and -15 for a loss. Both are a 3:1 ratio.
You shouldn't want to avoid too strong or too weak players. Maybe only bandits (players that are much better than their actual rating, having experience outside of BGA).

If you think a player behaved badly during a game, you can give them a 'red thumb' at the end of the game. The effects of a red thumb are:
This player will not be able to play with you anymore (except if you meet in a tournament).
This player will not be able to send you private messages or watch your games as a spectator.
A red thumb may also contribute to lowering this player's reputation (see 'Reputation/Karma' for more details).

Red thumbs DO apply in arena but DO NOT apply in tournaments

PERSONAL red thumbs do not impact karma or harm the player thumbed down in any way. They simply say I personally on't want to play with you again

To be honest it seems a bit lame to red thumb people just to boost one's own ELO or Arena chances but I see it often and BGA doesnt disallow it so if you did it you wouldn't be alone. I don't there is ever a definitive answer to what is ethically right.

[Jellby]

A side effect of a red thumb (when used for the reasons discussed here) is that it applies to all games. So maybe you want to avoid some player in a particular game, but wouldn't matter playing with them in other games... but the red thumb cannot discriminate, it's just all or nothing.

[Ze Monstah]

I think that people who are antagonistic towards lower players Red Thumbing stronger ones in Arena (arguably for tactical reasons), should also be as antagonistic the other way around (the situation presented by the original poster).

Because it's similar... he wants to avoid his Arena ranking dropping by avoiding accidental losses against "weaker" opponents (one might say that if it's meant to happen, it should happen); same as for the "weaker" ones trying to increase their scores, by avoiding playing with "stronger" opponents (they may lose against even weaker opponents, they might even win against stronger ones, yet they prefer to Red Thumb).

I am personally ok with whatever Red Thumb, and I find it an exhaustive process to try to mind-read the intentions of every Arena player who gives a Red Thumb, because the line between tactical reasons and other reasons is invisible, in my opinion.

[voriki]

*I recognize that the "best" in Arena aren't necessarily the best players of a game, because some top players don't participate in Arena.

Can confirm, now is the first time I play King of Tokyo in Arena and it is stressful, as I want to see how well I place at the end. Currently 34th place, but I bounce between 10 and 100. Been 6th for a while. So it may not be bragging if I call myself a top player.

After this arena season I'm going back to normal games.