Conceding

[kaduzy]

Why is the site rigged so that you cannot concede a game that has not yet reached the halfway mark? If you see that a game is inevitably going to be lost or you simply don't wish to play anymore but don't want to take a hit to your reputation points, you should be allowed to just give up, lose the ELO and let the other person win. There's nothing wrong with that. Please change that silly rule.

[RobertBr]

Look up Chesterton's Fence.

[Suoivax]

Why is the site rigged so that you cannot concede a game that has not yet reached the halfway mark? If you see that a game is inevitably going to be lost or you simply don't wish to play anymore but don't want to take a hit to your reputation points, you should be allowed to just give up, lose the ELO and let the other person win. There's nothing wrong with that. Please change that silly rule.

so, lets say you want to play a game of Catan.
you wait for an opponent
Game starts and your opponent doesnt like his starting spots.
he quits.
You have to queue up again.

see where this is going?

[yodamus]

It is there for a very good reason. So players can't cheat the system on elo rating. Hit on reputation points are small and easily and quickly gotten back. And there are other choices to end the game. Not a silly rule.

[nik592]

While I understand the annoyance of having someone concede on the first move, don't you lose full Elo for conceding, as if you played and lost the entire game? I personally don't much like conceding at all, as I'd rather play out the game - and often when people have conceded to me, I don't feel like it's an obvious loss, but in any case, it is their choice to make, so I accept that. I'm just confused how conceding before 50% allows anyone to manipulate Elo.

[Suoivax]

While I understand the annoyance of having someone concede on the first move, don't you lose full Elo for conceding, as if you played and lost the entire game? I personally don't much like conceding at all, as I'd rather play out the game - and often when people have conceded to me, I don't feel like it's an obvious loss, but in any case, it is their choice to make, so I accept that. I'm just confused how conceding before 50% allows anyone to manipulate Elo.

it would involve one person with multiple accounts (which is also against the rules obv.)

[euklid314]

it would involve one person with multiple accounts (which is also against the rules obv.)

In academic exams (e.g. school,...) we usually have the rule that no communication is allowed during the test.
Furthermore we ask the students to put all their communication devices (cell phones, smart watches,...) on the front desk at the beginning of the exam.

Of course they could keep them since communication is disallowed anyways. Similarly BGA could allow 1 second games with full ELO scoring since multiple accounts are not allowed there anyways.
Both is not done - for obvious reasons, if you ask me.

[nik592]

While I understand the annoyance of having someone concede on the first move, don't you lose full Elo for conceding, as if you played and lost the entire game? I personally don't much like conceding at all, as I'd rather play out the game - and often when people have conceded to me, I don't feel like it's an obvious loss, but in any case, it is their choice to make, so I accept that. I'm just confused how conceding before 50% allows anyone to manipulate Elo.

it would involve one person with multiple accounts (which is also against the rules obv.)

Yeah, but if you're controlling both players, do whatever, concede at 50% anyway? Or just lose outright? Like I can't see that concessions at less than 50% would make it that much easier if you're already using a stooge.

I have no particular opinion either way. As I said, I'd probably choose no concessions at all, but I understand people's reasons for having them. So from my POV, 50% (or more or less, whatever) isn't really relevant for me, I was just curious.

[Jellby]

If you concede at 100%, the other player gets full elo for the win.
If you concede at 50%, the other player gets full elo for the win.
If you quit at 100%, the other player gets full elo for the win (and you get a karma penalty).
If you quit at 50%, the other player gets 50% of the elo for the win (and you get a karma penalty).
If you quit at 0%, the other player gets 0 elo for the win (and you get a karma penalty).

So, using a fake account to raise your elo, it's useless to quit at 0%. If conceding was allowed at 0%, it would be perfect: start game, concede, get full elo, start game, concede, get full elo. With 50% at least you have to "play" through 50% of the game.

[nik592]

So, using a fake account to raise your elo, it's useless to quit at 0%. If conceding was allowed at 0%, it would be perfect: start game, concede, get full elo, start game, concede, get full elo. With 50% at least you have to "play" through 50% of the game.

Yes, I get this, the difference between quitting and conceding. I said, lose the game (which means playing through it), or do whatever for 50% of moves and then concede. Even for a long game, I'm pretty sure I could blow through it in not many minutes if I'm playing both sides. But I guess, if it dissuades a few people from cheating the system, then that's something.