Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Meeplelowda]

I agree with this because I don't want to play with people who will force me to continue to play a game that I know for sure I'll lose.

It's permissible to just red thumb someone based on what kind of player they say they are in the forums.

If it can be said about me, it can be said about you as well.

Did I say it couldn't? That post is unedited, so feel free to search for it. I'm sure it has been done before and will be done again.

By the way, I was indicating that YOU could red thumb someone who says they would force you to continue a game you're losing if they could, but you decided it was an attack on you.

[Archisian]

It's permissible to just red thumb someone based on what kind of player they say they are in the forums.

If it can be said about me, it can be said about you as well.

Did I say it couldn't? That post is unedited, so feel free to search for it. I'm sure it has been done before and will be done again.

By the way, I was indicating that YOU could red thumb someone who says they would force you to continue a game you're losing if they could, but you decided it was an attack on you.

My apologies then. I misread your intention.

[DoctorZeus]

What are the reasons you want the game to end?

[tbhp]

And the excuses I've heard just sound like *.

I agree. If someone doesn't want to waste time waiting for the other player to make their move, as some people argued, then they can just leave the game and go do something else, since they decided they were gonna lose anyway. When their time runs out, the other player will be able to kick them out if they want to, thus ending the game. And if the other player "forces" them to keep playing, they can just take a few seconds of their time to make some random move, which is of no consequence since they are losing anyway.

I don't see any legit reason why someone would want to concede a game that is not just poor sportsmanship.

[BarnardsStar]

What are the reasons you want the game to end?

I’m assuming you mean “end normally with final scoring here”… conceding ends a game, though, so this question is a little vague and I’m not 100% sure what you are asking.

Assuming you mean “conclude normally with final scoring”, I could well imagine wanting to see how well a particular strategem worked out, and that may not be obvious without a final scoring. But I am neither a conceder nor someone who would get particularly upset if someone concedes on me.

[Archisian]

And the excuses I've heard just sound like *.

I agree. If someone doesn't want to waste time waiting for the other player to make their move, as some people argued, then they can just leave the game and go do something else, since they decided they were gonna lose anyway. When their time runs out, the other player will be able to kick them out if they want to, thus ending the game. And if the other player "forces" them to keep playing, they can just take a few seconds of their time to make some random move, which is of no consequence since they are losing anyway.

I don't see any legit reason why someone would want to concede a game that is not just poor sportsmanship.

Since I can possibly misunderstand your point, correct me if I'm wrong. But you are saying that you think it's better for the other player just to leave the game instead of conceding?

[tbhp]

Since I can possible misunderstand your point, correct me if I'm wrong. But you are saying that you think it's better for the other player just to leave the game instead of conceding?

Well, it's better as long as they end up coming back at some point, finishing the game normally. If they never come back, then that forces the other player to kick them out or wait until the game reaches its maximum duration, which would still lead to the same problem of ending up with a conceded win rather than a "real" win.

The post was more so trying to understand the mentality of people who concede. If you don't want to waste time waiting for the other player to make their move, why not just go back to the game at a later point (when the site warns you that it's your turn to play) instead of conceding?

[Archisian]

Since I can possible misunderstand your point, correct me if I'm wrong. But you are saying that you think it's better for the other player just to leave the game instead of conceding?

Well, it's better as long as they end up coming back at some point, finishing the game normally. If they never come back, then that forces the other player to kick them out or wait until the game reaches its maximum duration, which would still lead to the same problem of ending up with a conceded win rather than a "real" win.

The post was more so trying to understand the mentality of people who concede. If you don't want to waste time waiting for the other player to make their move, why not just go back to the game at a later point (when the site warns you that it's your turn to play) instead of conceding?

I think people who concede aren't conceding because they don't want to waste the time of a player to make a particular move, but rather that they know the game is lost regardless of what happens. I look at it similarly to how chess is played. Conceding can be an act of courtesy. It can also be that handing the win early in a lost effort is a way to gracefully admit defeat why saving some bit of face for the loser. Because who wants to see all their pieces get wiped out when it's already a forgone conclusion? The only thing it that does is give enjoyment to the winner. It, in no way, benefits the loser.

The reason I think that winners hate conceders is because they it's a power move, one that's meant to take away their enjoyment of the game. I mean, I guess you could view it that way, but I think it begs the question of is it the role of the loser in a game to give that enjoyment to the winner? Furthermore, must we expect the loser of a game to do more than simply acknowledging they lost? (i.e. keep playing even though they have no chance, tell the winner "gg" regardless if they lost by double digits+, etc.) If so, why? What do both winners and losers gain from this expectation? Should losers gain anything at all?

These are just some things that I ask anti-conceders because I literally cannot comprehend their position.

[FrankJones]

Since I can possible misunderstand your point, correct me if I'm wrong. But you are saying that you think it's better for the other player just to leave the game instead of conceding?

Well, it's better as long as they end up coming back at some point, finishing the game normally. If they never come back, then that forces the other player to kick them out or wait until the game reaches its maximum duration, which would still lead to the same problem of ending up with a conceded win rather than a "real" win.

The post was more so trying to understand the mentality of people who concede. If you don't want to waste time waiting for the other player to make their move, why not just go back to the game at a later point (when the site warns you that it's your turn to play) instead of conceding?

I think people who concede aren't conceding because they don't want to waste the time of a player to make a particular move, but rather that they know the game is lost regardless of what happens. I look at it similarly to how chess is played. Conceding can be an act of courtesy. It can also be that handing the win early in a lost effort is a way to gracefully admit defeat why saving some bit of face for the loser. Because who wants to see all their pieces get wiped out when it's already a forgone conclusion? The only thing it that does is give enjoyment to the winner. It, in no way, benefits the loser.

The reason I think that winners hate conceders is because they it's a power move, one that's meant to take away their enjoyment of the game. I mean, I guess you could view it that way, but I think it begs the question of is it the role of the loser in a game to give that enjoyment to the winner? Furthermore, must we expect the loser of a game to do more than simply acknowledging they lost? (i.e. keep playing even though they have no chance, tell the winner "gg" regardless if they lost by double digits+, etc.) If so, why? What do both winners and losers gain from this expectation? Should losers gain anything at all?

These are just some things that I ask anti-conceders because I literally cannot comprehend their position.

You literally cannot comprehend the position even though it has been explained many times over in every thread on this topic?

[tbhp]

I think people who concede aren't conceding because they don't want to waste the time of a player to make a particular move, but rather that they know the game is lost regardless of what happens. I look at it similarly to how chess is played. Conceding can be an act of courtesy. It can also be that handing the win early in a lost effort is a way to gracefully admit defeat why saving some bit of face for the loser. Because who wants to see all their pieces get wiped out when it's already a forgone conclusion? The only thing it that does is give enjoyment to the winner. It, in no way, benefits the loser.

Your post seems contradictory, because how can it be graceful and an act of courtesy when you are, as you say, robbing your opponent the satisfaction of ending the game in the way they want and planned for? Calling it courtesy is evidently disingenuous. You yourself admit that conceding benefits the loser.

When you lose a game, it's basic decency to recognize that and let the player dictate how they want the game to end. It certainly shouldn't be the losing player who gets the benefit of doing that, they lost the game. Deciding to ruin the fun and all the efforts their opponent put into constructing a good game because they want to "save face" seems quite immature and goes against the spirit of why games exist in the first place. Why would you choose to defend the person who wants to dismantle the board in the end, rather than the one who is trying to play well?

It's also important to note that most board games don't work like chess, where it's possible to just wipe out the whole opponent's board when you have the advantage. The "beautiful" way to win chess is to devise a smart checkmate, which is more along the lines of what conceding players on this site are trying to prevent, not letting the winning player get their beautiful ending, but instead an unfinished board and a lame 1-0 win.