Annoying player

[Krstalynn]

Hi guys!
Here is the situation. There is a player who I met multiple times here. They have a questionable and in my oppinion not very fair strategy.
So they start playing ok. Then after the first two rounds if it seems like they are losing they offer to mutually end the game. If you don't want to do that they wait until their time runs out and you kick them out of the game.
Now I blocked them but can anything else be done about this?

[detlefchef11]

while that is annoying it isn't "not fair". They concede and you win. So it's completely "fair" to you. They just choose a childish way to go about it. But you can just ignore that game until they time out and then end it.

[RicardoRix]

I've got a feeling it's a worse penalty if they deliberately quit a game rather than timeout.
So you can argue that's the reason they did this after the decision not to play.

[nik592]

I don't think there is a difference between quitting and being booted from a table (in terms of penalty).

I'm also assuming the player isn't "conceding", they're asking to abandon the table, which is entirely different. The OP is within their rights to refuse, and wait for a win (either by playing out the game, concession, or kicking them). Sometimes abandoning is valid, but I guess it depends what reason they offer (and then it's still up to the other players whether they think that's reasonable), and if they're doing it regularly, then I think players are within their rights to be annoyed by it.

If you red-thumbed them, you won't meet them against except in tournament play. So that's probably the best you can do.

[Ceaseless]

while that is annoying it isn't "not fair". They concede and you win. So it's completely "fair" to you. They just choose a childish way to go about it. But you can just ignore that game until they time out and then end it.

Intentionally going mal AFK and timing out is not the same as conceding. Conceding is where you end the game immediately by losing. BGA has an absurd policy in place where you can't concede whenever you want without additional penalties, so sometimes you have to hit the quit game button to properly do it, which is also sportsmanlike on their part. What the OP is describing here is not appropriate behavior. That's the sort of thing that gets you banned from game sites.

[Ceaseless]

I don't think there is a difference between quitting and being booted from a table (in terms of penalty).

I'm also assuming the player isn't "conceding", they're asking to abandon the table, which is entirely different. The OP is within their rights to refuse, and wait for a win (either by playing out the game, concession, or kicking them). Sometimes abandoning is valid, but I guess it depends what reason they offer (and then it's still up to the other players whether they think that's reasonable), and if they're doing it regularly, then I think players are within their rights to be annoyed by it.

If you red-thumbed them, you won't meet them against except in tournament play. So that's probably the best you can do.

No good reason for abandoning like that is coming to mind for me. They can concede/quit the game for whatever reason they want, and that's fine, but intentionally getting timed out to be kicked isn't.

[Meeplelowda]

but intentionally getting timed out to be kicked isn't.

On other sites that specialize in an ancient abstract game that shall not be named, you get a warning if you intentionally let your time run down instead of resigning....umm, I mean conceding.

[nik592]

I don't think there is a difference between quitting and being booted from a table (in terms of penalty).

I'm also assuming the player isn't "conceding", they're asking to abandon the table, which is entirely different. The OP is within their rights to refuse, and wait for a win (either by playing out the game, concession, or kicking them). Sometimes abandoning is valid, but I guess it depends what reason they offer (and then it's still up to the other players whether they think that's reasonable), and if they're doing it regularly, then I think players are within their rights to be annoyed by it.

If you red-thumbed them, you won't meet them against except in tournament play. So that's probably the best you can do.

No good reason for abandoning like that is coming to mind for me. They can concede/quit the game for whatever reason they want, and that's fine, but intentionally getting timed out to be kicked isn't.

Correct - if you're abandoning with no explanation (and especially if you happen to be losing), I'd probably refuse as well. But I mean, if someone starts a game and then says, sorry, my building has just sounded the fire alarm, I have to leave right now, I might consider doing it. And realistically, what's to stop a person lying about that everytime they want to abandon for losing? But if they offer no explanation at all, or this is the third time I've played this person and they've offered that excuse, I'm probably also going to refuse to abandon. They want to run out their clock after that, well, whatever. Although, I suppose it is annoying when you're stuck in the RT game until their clock runs out, but that's a maximum of what, 3-4 minutes?

[Ceaseless]

I don't think there is a difference between quitting and being booted from a table (in terms of penalty).

I'm also assuming the player isn't "conceding", they're asking to abandon the table, which is entirely different. The OP is within their rights to refuse, and wait for a win (either by playing out the game, concession, or kicking them). Sometimes abandoning is valid, but I guess it depends what reason they offer (and then it's still up to the other players whether they think that's reasonable), and if they're doing it regularly, then I think players are within their rights to be annoyed by it.

If you red-thumbed them, you won't meet them against except in tournament play. So that's probably the best you can do.

No good reason for abandoning like that is coming to mind for me. They can concede/quit the game for whatever reason they want, and that's fine, but intentionally getting timed out to be kicked isn't.

Correct - if you're abandoning with no explanation (and especially if you happen to be losing), I'd probably refuse as well. But I mean, if someone starts a game and then says, sorry, my building has just sounded the fire alarm, I have to leave right now, I might consider doing it. And realistically, what's to stop a person lying about that everytime they want to abandon for losing? But if they offer no explanation at all, or this is the third time I've played this person and they've offered that excuse, I'm probably also going to refuse to abandon. They want to run out their clock after that, well, whatever. Although, I suppose it is annoying when you're stuck in the RT game until their clock runs out, but that's a maximum of what, 3-4 minutes?

Oh, I misread what you referred to by abandon (the act of both players choosing to abandon the game, which was implied by how you used abandon earlier). I was reading abandon as in how reasonable it was for your opponent to just abandon the game to let it time out instead of conceding. That's my bad, sorry.

[detlefchef11]

while that is annoying it isn't "not fair". They concede and you win. So it's completely "fair" to you. They just choose a childish way to go about it. But you can just ignore that game until they time out and then end it.

Intentionally going mal AFK and timing out is not the same as conceding. Conceding is where you end the game immediately by losing. BGA has an absurd policy in place where you can't concede whenever you want without additional penalties, so sometimes you have to hit the quit game button to properly do it, which is also sportsmanlike on their part. What the OP is describing here is not appropriate behavior. That's the sort of thing that gets you banned from game sites.

I'm not saying this is appropriate behavior and they should simply resign rather than time out. I was merely commenting on the "fairness". The OP still wins the game in this scenario. They simply had to endure annoying behavior along the way. But it is "fair" because the person who was supposed to win, won.

I'm all for banning people who do this repeatedly, btw.