Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
This is a very controversial issue, because first you need to determine the real reasons for the player's unwillingness (or inability?) to finish the game. This is almost impossible to do. I see the solution in either agreeing on the game duration and completion time in the season rules, so that, for example, when the game (or completion) takes longer than the specified time (e.g., a month), a previously agreed-upon "judge" is called in to either determine who is at fault for the unfinished game and award the victory accordingly, or, if both players are equally at fault, make a decision. But this path seems tedious and unpromising to me. The option of simply not playing "friendly games" with such a player (unless the tournament bracket brings them together) is much simpler and does not bother anyone.
I agree, and it is up to each person to decide whether to trust someone's claims that someone is avoiding finishing a game. The accused always has the opportunity to refute all accusations by finishing the game. As I see it, if a person cares about their reputation, such issues will be resolved easily, and no one will make baseless accusations. IMHO