Imgur image link: imgur.com/a/BNnjsw1

Table 151809156

Move 109.

The Dice Forge game became blocked and could not advance because "The First Titan" card had a bug. Brocconel informed the other players through the game chat that the game had glitched, and had attempted refreshing with F5 several times. Finally, Brocconel clicked on the suggestion to abandon the game, due to the block.

A less-experienced player (Tomsawer) chose to skip and expel Brocconel, rather than agree to abandon the blocked game.

Brocconel's ELO at the start of the game was 501. Because Tomsawer singularly chose to skip Brocconel's turn, rather than abandon the game (which the two other players were agreeable to). Brocconel lost 42 points in ELO. This was very unfair, as Brocconel was actively attempting to play the turn, and constantly communicating with the group about the blocked situation.

All other ways of ending or changing a game require full table consensus- this should as well!

I play mostly 4-turns-per-day games and this drives me nuts. Several times, I've been more than half way through a game and someone will force-skip and then quit a game because another player is half a day late. I really don't understand why anyone cares in turn-based unless the player is days late. For sure, the force-skip decision should be by consensus or at least majority, possibly with a time-out after some much longer time just to clean out old games that will clearly never be finished.

More detailed bug with more votes here boardgamearena.com/bug?id=35289

I agree that skipping the player must be consensus of the table. It is very easy to reach time limit in some cases especially in turn based tournament with players from whole world. I see very often that the player with the worst position skip other player and there is still enough time to finish it.

Why is expel the only option displayed atop the page? Why not display "Go turn-based" and "Abandon" also, instead of only the harshest option? It causes unnecessary feuds among the players, many of whom do not even realize the other two are options.

We really really really need this.

another way to implement this would be to include as an option when starting a game. any game but especially long-time investment games. a simple box to click whether expels must be group or individual chosen.

I vote AGAINST this proposal.
Especially in real-time games I don't like to be forced to wait forever.

If you want to avoid such situations then simply play with "slow" setting or "friendly mode". Why should anyone play normal or even fast speed when each player can play as slow as he likes? Imagine you have two buddies at your table, then it would effectively be a "friendly game" except you can't leave without penalty.

"Change to turn based" is a completely different matter. Everyone at a real-time table decided to play real-time. Therefore everyone must agree to change that.

Following the explanation of The MGT, I vote AGAINST this proposal.

I vote in favour it this proposal. This should be a priority. Sore losers expel players when they will not be able to win by their own merits. This is a gaming platform, it should be fun and welcoming for everyone.

This proposal, that an out-of-time player can be expelled only by a majority of the other players in the game, seems to be intended primarily for non-tournament games. I made a different suggestion boardgamearena.com/bug?id=107708 which applies only to tournament games, and calls for any expulsion to be a unanimous decision of the non-out-of-time players in the game. I think it should be unanimous (not just a majority) because of the common situation where one player has a big lead, a second player is out of time, and all the remaining players wish to end the game prematurely. To me, that scenario seems unfair to the player with the big lead, particularly in a tournament game. I acknowledge the objection made above by The MGT (and endorsed by Cigma) but I think in multiplayer tournament games particularly, it is better to end the game prematurely only if all the players who are not out of time agree.

100% agree - have often seen situations where 2 players are in the red on time in a tournament, and one of the 2 players in the red has kicked out the other to make sure it's not them who've been kicked out.

Likewise, plenty of situations where people kick out a player out-of-time if it looks like they're about to lose, but they know that by kicking someone else out that can scam themselves a win.

Really frustrating when organizing events for 4p Ticket to Ride or 5p 7Wonders. Kicking is happening too often.

Please do something about this. At table 508147099 the game was at 100% (just the last player, not me, to play) and I had taken my last turn, but was 1 h 43 m overdue and someone canceled the result. The game was essentially over no idea why anyone would cancel unless they were angry or losing. No way would there have been a consensus to cancel.

and another example, game 511775908 where a player was 2 hours overdue and 1 person expelled them and ended the game. When a game takes days to play and someone goes overdue by a short period there should be a consensus among the other players before ending the game early.

Only solution now is to stop playing in tournaments. Everyone joining the tournament knows that it's going to be several or many days to complete a game. It's frustrating for everyone at the table to be in a game for 10 days and then when it is almost complete someone is booted for going minutes past time and the game result is meaningless.

boardgamearena.com/6/spacebase?table=520096364
Tournament with players from Australia, USA and Europe.
Turn-based.
I was expelled for a 16min delay.
In this case, it feels like downright cheating.

Again...boardgamearena.com/14/catan?table=522485636

I personally disagree with this. The rules around pace of play are set up at the beginning of the game, and can be consensually negotiated by players before and during the game.

If one player breaks the contract for how long they are taking, they are breaking the contract for how long it takes to play and it should only take one player's opinion to say they are no longer interested in playing.

I mostly agree with this due to many of the problems other posts mentioned, but I think a unanimous decision could cause new problems (like having to wait for ages for one player to decide whether to kick, even when someone is clearly not coming back), so I think a majority decision would be a better idea.

I DON'T agree with this.

I strongly disagree with this.

If you join a game, you play BY THE RULES of the given game, time limit per move being one of them.
If you go over your time limit, you are cheating (yes, even for one minute. Rules are rules: non-negotioable).
If you have a problem IRL, just use a time-joker.
If you know you're not gonna be able to play for a while, just don't join a game (a warning is displayed every time you join to estimate - generously - the time it's going to take).

So many players tag along games with a high number of moves per day and then go afk for 3 days.
So many players timeout SEVERAL times in just a couple of days.
So many players think they have the right to have more thinking time than others, while it's not fair.

Turn-based players plan their games in advance.
If I know I have time ahead of me, I won't skip someone.
But if I know that I cannot personnaly afford to wait one more day, then I need the ability to skip the douchebag who is not playing by the rules. Otherwise I'm going to ruin my schedule.

With this suggestion, if someone just plain refuse to expel another player, then what? The games drags on forever? You and your friend can now take hostage other players in a game, and then wait for you to be in vacations to skip them?

This suggestion makes absolutely no sense.
All I read here is people being mad for being late to play by the rules they had previously commited to play by.

Because we had players in Bolivia and Europe, and actual sleeping time... I play from 9am to 10pm and click any table that shows with "Your turn". Sometimes, usually with Catan trade turns, I don't get notified.
I don't know how exactly, I ended-up with -36hrs (but I work on my computer and the window is always open).
Then I went back to -16hrs.
I only got kicked out when I started to win (Catan #540257492): that is the issue.

WHAT ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO KICK OUT THE PERSON WHO IS WINNING BEFORE REACHING -48hrs?

Completely agree, it so annoying when people who may not like a game expel a player them for being a few hours late, to get out of playing the game themselves. Life happens, people are late. It should be a consensus NOT a single player deciding for everyone. I stopped playing anything but once every two days as I got sick people expelling each other.

VOTE AGAINST.

I only play fast past games. The social contract that you are agreeing to when playing is that you will take seconds per turn with a couple of minutes total contingency (need to answer the phone?). I'm choosing to play a quick game, I have other things to do when I'm done (maybe playing other games). I don't want to sit waiting, not knowing for how long, in my leisure time.

Massive agree, though it should be a majority vote rather than unanimous.

I played a 12 moves/day game of Caverna #614558035 where one player was in a different timezone, their time was negative for a while but it was clear they were still trying to keep up as best they could.

Player Bruyns kicked this player during round 10 of 12. Bruyns had the opportunity to kick this player much earlier, but waited until near the end of the game because they were losing terribly (live scoring) and it was too late to have a chance to catch up. The other remaining player and I both agreed that it was an incredibly poor-sport move. Meanwhile, Bruyns was awarded 5 gift points for his first "win" at Caverna.

So, yes. The current system needs to be changed somewhat because this was not fair. Seems like most of the people opposing this are referring to their experience with real-time games, which I understand. In a real-time game you are agreeing to be present until the games ends, so it should be easy to kick people who fail to do so. But the purpose of turn-based over real-time is that you don't have to be present, you can log off, do other stuff, and take your turns when you log back on. Real life happens sometimes. For this reason, kicking someone from a turn-based game is a much heavier decision, and should require input from more than one person.

This should NOT be implemented.
If I play a game that should last 5 minutes, a player need to be certain that after 5 minutes the game is finished.
This is the very reason the option "fast game" exists.

A majority option on expelling slow players would make the"fast game" option useless.
Or to put in another way, it would force those you call "impatient players" that cannot play for more than the amount of time fixed at the beginning to quit as well, so basically it does not change the current situation of the game finishing earlier than expected, just make more player quit after the first has quit.

To avoid kicking out players too early, one possibility could be to change the time options to make them longer in non-fast game.
Or Maybe recalibrate the time, adding more initial time and less afterwards so that if a player has problems entering a game he has more time initially

For me, the skipping is most problematic in turn-based tournament games. In these games, there is a hard deadline for completion of the games, so the game will always be ended by the deadline whether it’s complete or not. Oftentimes, a player will skip even though steady progress is being made, just because they realize they’re not going to win.

Maybe a fix could be implemented just for these games. Or maybe all types of games should have a drop-dead completion time/date limit, with consensus based skipping.

For all the good reasons that have already been mentioned here: I DISAGREE with this suggestion!

I would click on a tile and it said situation in progress i had plenty of time but was was frozen out I just sat there watching my time go over and lost reputation. Nothing was working why was I frozen out it said I had plenty of time it was my turn i clicked on tiles the would not move to the grid

Original poster here (I closed the Brocconel account a few years ago ... then came back recently). For those who are disagreeing, I wonder if you actually read my opening report to understand the situation?

"Social contract" doesn't apply when the game is blocked because of a bug. For the record, I prefer "fast" real-time games, too. The Dice Forge game in question that originated my suggestion about needing a majority concensus to skip a player (in a multi-player game, not a two-player game) was blocked on my turn because of a programming glitch. I was immediately communicating with the other 3 players via the chat that no matter what I tried, the game wouldn't let me proceed. I and two experienced players agreed to abandon the game, but one inexperienced player instead chose to unfairly "Skip" me.

Aside from my situation, I have seen skipping to avoid losing happen a lot in turn-based tournaments, too -- as mentioned by others here.

I just roll my eyes at these "social contract" comments. I see where you're coming from, but I think you've all missed the point.

The way things currently work — anyone can kick an out-of-time player, but abandoning a game requires consensus — should not be changed. If a game bug causes someone to run out of time and they get kicked, the problem is the game bug, not the fact that anyone can press the "eject a player who's out of time" button. The ability of any player to press that button is the correct design because it prevents scenarios where one player's lack of participation holds others hostage. Many annoying situations can arise from this design choice, but it is the correct choice: all others are worse because they lead to more people's time being wasted and more negative experiences.

I agree something has to be done with the possibility that one person kicks out another person without consensus about this. Other players can be knocked out of a tournament (for example multiplayer elimination) as well because of this, while they have done nothing wrong.

Because an unanimous decision is rare I would prefer a 50% majority among the remaining players who are within their time limit. This means actual voting to give a player extra time or not, with the possibility to start voting again 48 after a voting did not result in a 50% majority.

But most important for me is the possibility to finish the game and play for the spots in the next round of the tournament with the remaining players who have not exceeded their time limit.