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.