tbhp wrote: ↑12 December 2025, 07:58
Archisian wrote: ↑12 December 2025, 07:23
I didn't say they are robbing the satisfaction from the winner. That is the perception of the winner. The loser can concede without any intention of taking away the winner's satisfaction. I was extrapolating it out more to demonstrate the playing a lost cause is a one way street.
To your second point, I disagree. I don't think it's basic decency that just because someone lost that the winner then gets to dictate what the loser must do. What a cruel world that would be if we had winners make losers do things that don't want to do, including things that potentially humiliate them. Of course, that's an extreme example. However, my counter-argument is that the primary argument of "Well, I won. Now you do what I say otherwise you're a bad person." is not a good one to make and creates moral dilemmas in certain situations. Losers shouldn't totally acquiesce just because they lost. Your point could be stretched to justify humiliating someone, though I don't think that was your intention. Overall, I think you still need to demonstrate why losers
must give that "beautiful ending" outside of "You lost, so you must do so."
I'm a bit confused about your point that "this goes against the spirit of why games exist in the first place." Why do you think games exist and what relevance does that have here?
It's irrelevant what their intention was, the problem is the harm that their action may cause. Of course I know that some people concede mindlessly, and I also know that some players may not be bothered by winning in that way. But it is always a lack of regard for the other person when someone concedes, because they aren't even stopping to think about whether the other person is going to be happy that the game is ending abruptly. They are only thinking of themselves, when they are the one who lost and therefore should extend their opponent the courtesy of concluding the game in the way they like.
If a player views their loss as humiliating, that's their perspective on the matter. It probably isn't the intention of the winning player in most cases, who is probably just trying to win the game in the way they find the most satisfying (which is not the same as trying to humiliate someone). But regardless of what their intentions may be, the point remains that they are the one who won, and therefore it's only right that they get to experience the win they fought for. Granting that favor to the person who lost makes no sense whatsoever, and that too would go against the spirit of games. Victories are supposed to be good for the victorious, and defeats are supposed to be bad for the defeated. This is what games are, it's what you sign for when you enter a competition, and it's what gives it its meaning. What is the sense of wanting to be "nice" to the loser?
The position that it's a cruel world for winners to decide doesn't make much sense, because this isn't real life, this is a game. Real life should have no winners and losers. Real life should be about maximizing the happiness of everyone. But games are the exception to that rule. Games are about having winners and losers, that's their whole point, so the sort of logic you'd generally apply to real life doesn't work here.
I could say the same thing in forcing the other person to continuing playing a game that they don't want to continue playing. It seems to me that this is a matter of values rather an actual analysis of harm. You simply value the emotions of the winner over the loser. Which is fine, but saying that there is some harm being done to the winner either hasn't been demonstrated. Or, if there is harm, doesn't justify why the winner's harm exceeds the harm of the loser. Do you believe the loser isn't harmed at all by forcing a game that they don't want to continue playing?
In your second paragraph, you immediately contradicted yourself by saying it probably wasn't the intention of the winner that the loser views their loss as humiliating. Why in this case isn't the winner's intention, or lack thereof, not irrelevant but the loser's is? Again, it signals to me that your dispute is not in a matter of actual evidence, but simply a difference in values. You then go on to reinforce that value by saying:
"...the point remains that they are the one who won, and therefore it's only right that they get to experience the win they fought for. Granting that favor to the person who lost makes no sense whatsoever, and that too would go against the spirit of games. Victories are supposed to be good for the victorious, and defeats are supposed to be bad for the defeated."
Yet you have not demonstrated why this is either an inherent right of the winner nor that the loser in your value system should be accepting of it. You merely assert it. Why should the defeated in your system be willing participants?
In your third paragraph, you stated that:
"The position that it's a cruel world for winners to decide doesn't make much sense, because this isn't real life, this is a game. Real life should have no winners and losers. Real life should be about maximizing the happiness of everyone. But games are the exception to that rule. Games are about having winners and losers, that's their whole point, so the sort of logic you'd generally apply to real life doesn't work here."
But again, the entire thesis of your post is about how conceding creates some kind of harm, a kind of injustice that affects you in your real world, emotionally, morally, statistically, or otherwise. If it's all just about winners and losers, what was even the point of everything you said prior to this? Conceding is losing the game. If that's all it is, then they are doing what the game was intended to do: have a winner and have a loser. Why is there still a problem?
