Is booting an out of time player poor sportsmanship?

[JoshOnFire]

I'll lead off with, no. It's not.

I was recently ripped into by a tournament competitor whom I kicked for being over-time on the last turn of a game, declaring that I was being a poor sport. Ironically enough, based on my rough calculations, I would have won that game anyway.

Here's my thought process:
In any competitive game, anywhere, a failure to play will lead to forfeiture.
You signed up for a tournament, knowing the time limits, and the approximate number of turns per 24h you need to take to play it - thus, you agreed to play by those rules.
I am showing up. I am playing within that time limit, and by doing so I am showing respect to YOUR time and play.
You are not doing the same for me.
I don't care if it's by one minute, if you have exhausted the typically generous amount of play time to the degree that I can kick you, you should be kicked.
I expect the same response from any of my competitors who kick ME for running out of time.

I understand that life happens, and this is just a boardgame site with literally no stakes - But if you want to play in a tournament, abide by it. If you can't abide by it, set up a casual table with relaxed timing.

Don't yell at people for following the rules.

[yodamus]

You make a lot of valid points. Not poor sportsmanship. But. It could be a lot better. Kicking someone for over time in a tourney on the last turn would be frowned by nearly all. Most would wait knowing the tourney match has its own ending time and finish the game properly. Players go over the time limit regularly in tourneys sometimes not their fault but the fault of tourney director with poor playing time setup for turns needed. And if you say you were going to win anyhow. Then why kick. And not let the game finish. Or let time of match run out and you still win for most time left. Brutal Last turn kick out ???. Wow. Cold blooded.

[Andrew Davidson]

No. Tournaments are expected to be competitive. The specific settings establish the tournament rules and there's now a explicit "players out of time" setting for whether booting is or isn't allowed (they call it skipping but that's confusing because skipping also means getting a bye in a BGA tournament). If it's allowed then players should expect it to be used. If they don't like this then they should stick to tournaments in which it is not an option.

If players prefer an even looser and more sociable setting then they should play regular pick-up games or games which are specifically "friendly". There's plenty of choice...

[nik592]

Tournament play is a very different thing to regular play in terms of how the timing works. Timing in tournaments is fixed - you get a certain amount for the whole game, which is based on the maximum table time. Maximum table times are limited to 30 days. For a decent number of games, this is not nearly enough to complete a game. Additionally, if players play simultaneously (eg. 7 Wonders, Race for the Galaxy), all clocks tick down at the same time, and ALL players can be over time before it's even close to the maximum time on the table. I participated in a RftG tournament with drafting (so about 30-40 rounds of drafting). Basically all players were over time at the table before we even got through the drafting, and the games still managed to finish without the table timing out.

Typically, one player at a (24h) tournament table ends up getting last play of the day and their clock ticks all night (or most of it) while they sleep. They lose 6-8 hours every day. When your total time is 3.75 days (90 hours, which is what you get for a 4p, 15 day tournament), you'll be out of time by 11-12 days. If you're playing regularly and the game is about to complete, then how is it fair to boot that person? I personally am on BGA probably 4-6 times per day during my waking hours, and I've found myself in that situation. What more do you suggest I do to meet the time constraints? Or are you among those who believe "tournament play is an endurance sport" and I should be getting up every 3 hours overnight to check if a turn is ready for me? I have heard people express this opinion, and frankly, I think it is insanity. I am not about to compromise my health for an online board game tournament, and anyone who thinks people should may need to check their priorities. That's not a comment on those who boot though - that's a comment on those who say that the way to avoid being booted is to disturb your sleep in order to stay within your time.

While the "no skip" setting is now available on tournaments, and I think that is a good thing, some creators (and players) don't like using it because it means a completely absent player will cause games to drag out to maximum time unnecessarily. There's a big difference (imo) between someone who is playing regularly and is out of time at 12 days in, but with maybe 90% of the game completed, compared to someone who disappears after the first or second move (or never shows up at all), seemingly never planning to return. So you have two choices - rely on the other players to choose whether to boot sensibly, for actually absent players, and not just because they can, or turn off skips altogether and let absent players drag the tournament out.

Personally, I do think booting a player who has been regularly engaged with a game, that is likely to be able to be completed, is poor sportsmanship. And I don't really understand a player who would prefer to end an almost-finished game prematurely on time, rather than see how the actual game plays out (even if you know you're about to win). I'd rather see how I and the other players actually scored. And I will red thumb players who do this (on personal reasons, as is my right), not that that matters for tournament play anyway. I don't bother saying anything to my competitor, as I don't think there's much point.

At the end of the day, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to change your perspective, just pointing out mine. You do you. There are those who agree with your perspective but also those who agree with mine (and probably some that see it differently again), and chances are the latter group may decide they don't want to play with you. Those who share your perspective may also decide they don't want to play with people like me, which is also fine by me. But there really isn't a right and wrong here - it's a matter of opinion. If you don't like being thought of by some as having bad sportsmanship, then you may need to reconsider how you play. But it's up to you.

[Ceaseless]

Tournament play is a very different thing to regular play in terms of how the timing works. Timing in tournaments is fixed - you get a certain amount for the whole game, which is based on the maximum table time. Maximum table times are limited to 30 days. For a decent number of games, this is not nearly enough to complete a game. Additionally, if players play simultaneously (eg. 7 Wonders, Race for the Galaxy), all clocks tick down at the same time, and ALL players can be over time before it's even close to the maximum time on the table. I participated in a RftG tournament with drafting (so about 30-40 rounds of drafting). Basically all players were over time at the table before we even got through the drafting, and the games still managed to finish without the table timing out.

Typically, one player at a (24h) tournament table ends up getting last play of the day and their clock ticks all night (or most of it) while they sleep. They lose 6-8 hours every day. When your total time is 3.75 days (90 hours, which is what you get for a 4p, 15 day tournament), you'll be out of time by 11-12 days. If you're playing regularly and the game is about to complete, then how is it fair to boot that person? I personally am on BGA probably 4-6 times per day during my waking hours, and I've found myself in that situation. What more do you suggest I do to meet the time constraints? Or are you among those who believe "tournament play is an endurance sport" and I should be getting up every 3 hours overnight to check if a turn is ready for me? I have heard people express this opinion, and frankly, I think it is insanity. I am not about to compromise my health for an online board game tournament, and anyone who thinks people should may need to check their priorities. That's not a comment on those who boot though - that's a comment on those who say that the way to avoid being booted is to disturb your sleep in order to stay within your time.

While the "no skip" setting is now available on tournaments, and I think that is a good thing, some creators (and players) don't like using it because it means a completely absent player will cause games to drag out to maximum time unnecessarily. There's a big difference (imo) between someone who is playing regularly and is out of time at 12 days in, but with maybe 90% of the game completed, compared to someone who disappears after the first or second move (or never shows up at all), seemingly never planning to return. So you have two choices - rely on the other players to choose whether to boot sensibly, for actually absent players, and not just because they can, or turn off skips altogether and let absent players drag the tournament out.

Personally, I do think booting a player who has been regularly engaged with a game, that is likely to be able to be completed, is poor sportsmanship. And I don't really understand a player who would prefer to end an almost-finished game prematurely on time, rather than see how the actual game plays out (even if you know you're about to win). I'd rather see how I and the other players actually scored. And I will red thumb players who do this (on personal reasons, as is my right), not that that matters for tournament play anyway. I don't bother saying anything to my competitor, as I don't think there's much point.

At the end of the day, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to change your perspective, just pointing out mine. You do you. There are those who agree with your perspective but also those who agree with mine (and probably some that see it differently again), and chances are the latter group may decide they don't want to play with you. Those who share your perspective may also decide they don't want to play with people like me, which is also fine by me. But there really isn't a right and wrong here - it's a matter of opinion. If you don't like being thought of by some as having bad sportsmanship, then you may need to reconsider how you play. But it's up to you.

I'd like to point out that "If you don't like being thought of by some as having bad sportsmanship, then you may need to reconsider how you play." just as easily applies to the way you're doing things too. So let's not get carried away.

On the other hand, you've laid out a very persuasive argument for how bad turn-based games are. I mean, I know they sucked before, but just, wow. At that point if I went over time, I would kick myself from the game, even if I would win. I have a greater appreciation for why players kick others from tournaments when going over time, waiting out a single game that long would be torture.

[FSKFSK]

If it's a 2 player game, booting the other player for running out of time is something I would always see as "fair". However, I'm usually generous and let them finish if the game is close to ending normally, even if I'm losing.

In a 3+ player game, it's more complicated. There, booting someone affects everyone else. For example, in a 4 player game, if I'm in last, and I boot someone for running out of time, now I get a 3-way tie for first instead of a 4th place finish. By booting someone, I got an advantage over the 2 people who didn't run out of time but were beating me.

If the game is on pace to finish normally, I usually prefer for the game to end normally rather than booting someone. If someone is hopelessly slow and it's obvious the game will never end on time, then I prefer booting them. There is no way to enforce this in the tournament settings.

[mrdoctor]

Most tournament games are turn-based. Most participants will be in different time-zones, and have jobs, families, and a need to sleep. If a game can be finished in the overall time-limit set for the game - just play to that time-limit. It's not a real-time chess tournament, in-person, with a clock.

Personally, I'd say it's only cool to skip people if they're literally not playing and it's basically a certain-inevitability that the game is going to time-out anyway.

I've had 2 Blood Rage games end this week because another player has kicked another player. In both games the kicked-player was still playing - they were just in the red-time. One game had 18 days left to finish it, and the other had 12 days. Both games would have been able to be completed normally if people had just carried on playing.

[nik592]

I'd like to point out that "If you don't like being thought of by some as having bad sportsmanship, then you may need to reconsider how you play." just as easily applies to the way you're doing things too. So let's not get carried away.

I mean, I'm not exactly clear how you can describe my stance as bad sportsmanship. Because I red thumb those who hold an opinion that ruins games for me? Sure, I guess. But that doesn't bother me - I'm not the one posting threads to ask if other people agree with my choices.

On the other hand, you've laid out a very persuasive argument for how bad turn-based games are. I mean, I know they sucked before, but just, wow. At that point if I went over time, I would kick myself from the game, even if I would win. I have a greater appreciation for why players kick others from tournaments when going over time, waiting out a single game that long would be torture.

If you don't like playing turn-based games, then don't play them. But your issue is that a game shouldn't take 30 days to complete? So avoid tournaments that have those limits. But if you've already spent 18 days playing a game and it's 90% complete, why would you then boot a player rather than playing it out? It'll probably be done within 24 hours. I'm not sure if you can argue, "well it was taking too long and I didn't want to wait anymore..." is really the reason at that point. If you've accidentally got into a tournament that you don't want to play (eg. with 30 day table limits), you can withdraw (yes, there's a karma penalty, but I don't believe it's that big), which feels like it makes more sense, given that you could end up in the same situation in the next round.

I agree, if you're on Day 2 of 30 and a player is out of time, that's different, although the bigger problem is the time it will drag out the tournament as a whole. If it's not my turn in a game, and a player has disappeared, that game is just going to sit in my queue until someone either boots them (and in the case that I can boot them, I will in that situation, where they haven't been on BGA for 3-4 days), or until it hits maximum time. I don't need to look at it again if I don't want to - the next tournament game will come around when it's ready.

If it's a 2 player game, booting the other player for running out of time is something I would always see as "fair". However, I'm usually generous and let them finish if the game is close to ending normally, even if I'm losing.

In a 3+ player game, it's more complicated. There, booting someone affects everyone else. For example, in a 4 player game, if I'm in last, and I boot someone for running out of time, now I get a 3-way tie for first instead of a 4th place finish. By booting someone, I got an advantage over the 2 people who didn't run out of time but were beating me.

If the game is on pace to finish normally, I usually prefer for the game to end normally rather than booting someone. If someone is hopelessly slow and it's obvious the game will never end on time, then I prefer booting them. There is no way to enforce this in the tournament settings.

100% agree. In a 2p game, I still don't like booting if a player is playing regularly (much like you), but the only people affected are the bootee and booter. 2p games also usually complete within tournament time limits - even if one player is losing 6-8 hours every night, either the other player is losing similar time during the first player's waking hours, or LOTS of turns are happening through the day, and the game completes. 3p+ is different, as you say, and there's no way to allow booting for players who vanish but not for players who just drew the short straw in player order.

[Ardice]

Considering the nature of BGA, I think the answer is also situational. Here's mine:

I was in a tournament, 4-player board. All three of my opponents are located on the other side of the world. A minimum of an 8 hour time difference. So, even playing "promptly", I would get only one turn each day, in my morning. If I was lucky and all my opponents played promptly, I *might* get a second turn before I went to bed at night. But generally, I was the one with the "last play". So yes, I ran out of time. What I found pretty unfair was, I got booted, and the very next turn was the last. I wasn't going to win, so it's not like the "extra" time gave me any advantage. All it did was give me a karma hit. And basically, there was nothing I could possibly have done to avoid it. So, is it really "fair" to boot someone when the issue is largely geographical?

In a 3+ player game, it's more complicated. There, booting someone affects everyone else. For example, in a 4 player game, if I'm in last, and I boot someone for running out of time, now I get a 3-way tie for first instead of a 4th place finish. By booting someone, I got an advantage over the 2 people who didn't run out of time but were beating me.

I think that's a pretty low thing to do, personally. Yes, tournaments are more competitive, but if you can't handle coming in last, you shouldn't play. I mean really, it's not like there's some big money reward for winning. It's prestige points. If your "strategy" involves the above idea, just to not come in last, you're missing the point of playing games. They're supposed to be FUN. For everyone at the table.

[FSKFSK]

What I wish the tournament rule was, you can only boot someone if "completion percentage of game" is less than "percent of time used".

I.e., if 50% of the total time is used and the game is 20% finished, go ahead and boot someone. The game isn't going to finish.

However, if 60% of the total time is used and the game is 85% finished, you shouldn't be allowed to boot someone. The game is on pace to finish. Let it finish.

I would only boot someone if the game isn't on pace to finish, but I don't get angry if other people do it. I intentionally avoid signing up for tournaments if I don't like the time controls.