Why no invisible status showing one offline?

[TheDogOfWisdom]

I don't understand why. People have many legitimate reasons to "hide" from people who might be their friends from time to time.

[ToughCookie]

I completely agree with you on this, and there has even been a suggestion put in for this with over 2,000 upvotes, but it hasn't been looked at yet. Today was a perfect example of when I needed an offline status despite being online. I've had a very stressful day, and I need my space to play the games I want to without being interrupted. Instead, I continue to see friends peek at my games to say hi or even tell me I made a bad move. The reason I keep these friends on my friends list is because I do enjoy playing with them every now and again. The continuous conversations that interrupt my gameplay stresses me to the point where I can't recharge after a long day, and I actually want to get off of BGA during my stressful times.

[sanlty]

I support this feature request. I want to be able to set my status according to my preference at any given time, not just by logging in or logging out.

[tbhp]

By the way, it seems it would be against the rules of the site for other people to comment on your play. Only the players of a game currently playing should be able to make strategic remarks, otherwise it interferes with the fairness of the game.

[FrankJones]

By the way, it seems it would be against the rules of the site for other people to comment on your play. Only the players of a game currently playing should be able to make strategic remarks, otherwise it interferes with the fairness of the game.

Correct. Commenting on a game in progress is against the rules. A general statement such as, "Oh, I see you're playing against [whoever], let me know how it turns out", is likely okay. But no explicit or specific strategy discussion or advice.

[Shivaware]

By the way, it seems it would be against the rules of the site for other people to comment on your play. Only the players of a game currently playing should be able to make strategic remarks, otherwise it interferes with the fairness of the game.

Correct. Commenting on a game in progress is against the rules. A general statement such as, "Oh, I see you're playing against [whoever], let me know how it turns out", is likely okay. But no explicit or specific strategy discussion or advice.

Would you mind quoting the specific part of the Terms of Use or Terms of Service that says you cannot comment on a game in progress?

[FrankJones]

By the way, it seems it would be against the rules of the site for other people to comment on your play. Only the players of a game currently playing should be able to make strategic remarks, otherwise it interferes with the fairness of the game.

Correct. Commenting on a game in progress is against the rules. A general statement such as, "Oh, I see you're playing against [whoever], let me know how it turns out", is likely okay. But no explicit or specific strategy discussion or advice.

Would you mind quoting the specific part of the Terms of Use or Terms of Service that says you cannot comment on a game in progress?

It's in the FAQ.

[Shivaware]

Correct. Commenting on a game in progress is against the rules. A general statement such as, "Oh, I see you're playing against [whoever], let me know how it turns out", is likely okay. But no explicit or specific strategy discussion or advice.

Would you mind quoting the specific part of the Terms of Use or Terms of Service that says you cannot comment on a game in progress?

It's in the FAQ.

Do you mean this part?

On Board Game Arena, you should not:

Give some piece of information about the current game situation that disturbs the normal game flow.

It's not clear if this rule was meant to apply to publicly available information, or if it's referring to people disclosing secret information, such as in a game like Hanabi. There is a recent discussion in the Catan forum about a player pointing out that someone is about to win unless a specific action is taken. Most people seem to think that is a normal part of the game.

All that said, there's a big difference between table talk, and some bystander offering unsolicited advice. I would probably red thumb such a spectator, or have a discussion with them if they were a "friend".

[tbhp]

Do you mean this part?

On Board Game Arena, you should not:

Give some piece of information about the current game situation that disturbs the normal game flow.

It's not clear if this rule was meant to apply to publicly available information, or if it's referring to people disclosing secret information, such as in a game like Hanabi. There is a recent discussion in the Catan forum about a player pointing out that someone is about to win unless a specific action is taken. Most people seem to think that is a normal part of the game.

All that said, there's a big difference between table talk, and some bystander offering unsolicited advice. I would probably red thumb such a spectator, or have a discussion with them if they were a "friend".

I believe they mean the part just after that, do not communicate about a game. The part you quote does seem to be more along the lines of sharing secret information.

Pointing out that someone is about to win would fall under the "don't communicate" part and certainly should be considered cheating. If the player didn't realize that they were in position to win, then you just gave them the information that they can win, possibly leading them to unfairly winning because of what you said.

[FrankJones]

Do you mean this part?

On Board Game Arena, you should not:

Give some piece of information about the current game situation that disturbs the normal game flow.

It's not clear if this rule was meant to apply to publicly available information, or if it's referring to people disclosing secret information, such as in a game like Hanabi. There is a recent discussion in the Catan forum about a player pointing out that someone is about to win unless a specific action is taken. Most people seem to think that is a normal part of the game.

What.

A spectator saying to a player, "Hey! If you don't do [This move], your opponent will win and you will lose. You must do [This move]", doesn't fall into the category of "giving some piece of information about the current game situation that disturbs the normal game flow." !?

What a bizarre interpretation of what I see as a clear and unambiguous rule.