Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Archisian]

It has been changed for quite some time at this point (at least a year, maybe more). Red thumbs no longer effect karma.

I looked at the reputation section and it says that "Too many red thumbs from other players decreases your karma limit."

Is that still in effect or is that just a holdover from the previous system?

[Meeplelowda]

It has been changed for quite some time at this point (at least a year, maybe more). Red thumbs no longer effect karma.

I looked at the reputation section and it says that "Too many red thumbs from other players decreases your karma limit."

Is that still in effect or is that just a holdover from the previous system?

As nik said, it's no longer in effect.

Public red thumbs (the ones you have to give a reason for) used to result in a karma penalty if you had too many. The problem was that they were being abused to target people who actually hadn't done anything wrong, so now it only functions behind the scenes to trigger a private warning to that person.

Release 13th September 2023 230913-1000

• reputation: Red Thumbs are now advisory only, causing no Karma drop and
  the personal display banner for high Red Thumb percentage players has been reworded

Source

Unfortunately, they didn't reword wherever it is you found the language you quoted.

[Archisian]

It has been changed for quite some time at this point (at least a year, maybe more). Red thumbs no longer effect karma.

I looked at the reputation section and it says that "Too many red thumbs from other players decreases your karma limit."

Is that still in effect or is that just a holdover from the previous system?

As nik said, it's no longer in effect.

Public red thumbs (the ones you have to give a reason for) used to result in a karma penalty if you had too many. The problem was that they were being abused to target people who actually hadn't done anything wrong, so now it only functions behind the scenes to trigger a private warning to that person.

Release 13th September 2023 230913-1000

• reputation: Red Thumbs are now advisory only, causing no Karma drop and
  the personal display banner for high Red Thumb percentage players has been reworded

Source

Unfortunately, they didn't reword wherever it is you found the language you quoted.

It still says that when you hover over the "i" icon near the reputation bar on a profile and the pop-up explaining karma comes up. They might have forgotten about that.

[Archisian]

So "completion" means "Final turn for all players is finished" in your opinion?

2) Yes, we have established that values are not universal. So, the best we can do is go by what is generally considered appropriate, partly based on what typically is done or not done. Conceding near the end of the game is done rarely enough that we can infer an implicit understanding that such a behavior is not generally considered appropriate.

If this is a rare occurrence, then I don't know why this is even an issue that people are bringing up.

4) I am not comfortable with the way you use words such as "coercion" and "force". Having a set of rules on a board game site is neither coercive nor a use of force. Those are very strong words with a connotation of violence or the threat of violence, or the act of or threat of withholding crucial or vital necessities to a person.

Rules in a board game are different than rules imposed outside of the context of the game. For example, a time limit is a part of the mechanics of the game. Forbidding obscene language has no bearing on the mechanics of the game. So how do we impose out-of-context rules onto a game? By having separate, usually harsher penalties than violating the rules of the game. To illustrate my point, I'm not sure if you watch American football or not, but if a defensive back holds onto a receiver to prevent them from making a catch, that would be defensive pass interference and 15 yard penalty. That's violating the rules of the game. However, if you flip the bird towards an opposing player, that will incur an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and possible ejection from the game along with fines from the league. Flipping the bird at someone has no effect on the mechanisms of the sport, it is a social rule being enforced. In order to do that, the penalty must be greater than that of the rules of the game. What that penalty should be is what is debatable. For example, I think most people would agree that nulling that player's contract would be too harsh of a penalty.

Bringing it back to this context, I think that disabling the concede button for all games regardless of how much the game is completed is too draconian of a rule. I've played games where I was losing and as long as the game was quick, I'd just get it over with. But I've played against people who would take ages just to do their turn. A game of Wingspan, which typically last 20 minutes, can go over an hour if someone takes so much time on their turns. If I'm losing to who someone who is filibustering their time, why must I continue playing with that person without incurring a significant penalty that can affect my ability to play more games on the platform? I receive a loss, a large karma penalty and possible red-thumbing or reporting by that person. And I don't think saying "Too bad" for a seemingly rare occurrence is worth doing that for the whole site. Maybe the communities around the individual games can decide that. But I don't think it's right as a site-wide rule.

6) The "jump" you refer to is what I call "making an inference". Sometimes in life we make inferences based on what people say and do, and how they say it or go about doing it. Inferring no ill-intent or annoyance is just as much of a "jump" or inference as it is to infer such things. But one of them has little basis for which to make the inference. Usually, the most likely and obvious inference is the correct one.

But the inference itself isn't evidence, right? It's what people say or do, I agree. But how can we determine that on an online platform where there is no visual expression of how people say and do those things? For example, if I said "See you later." on an online platform, you'd have no idea if I was being kind or rude to you. I'd guess you'd assume I'm meaning well because, without other evidence, you couldn't imagine that someone could be rude to you saying that. That's why I find the act of conceding itself to not be sufficient evidence to determine that it was meant as a rude gesture.

7) You're not "wrong" or "a fool", but I do believe you would be ignoring the most obvious and likely explanation. In the two examples I can recall, there was obvious spite or annoyance. In one case, the player explicitly said annoyed or spiteful things and seems like a genuinely rude and unsportsmanlike person. In the other instance, the player allowed me to play out of final sequence in Terraforming Mars, as is customary, indicating that time was not a concern. And then, as I have stated many times but you don't seem to be grasping it, that player conceded literally as I was about to make my final move, which was one more click than that player would have needed to let the game end naturally, because that player had passed in a game in which after passing, there was literally no possible move or action that player could take at that point.

Yeah, nik later made mention that your opponent conceded as you were playing out your final turn. I finally understand what you meant. In that context, I agree that I perceive that to be a rude and spiteful act. At that point, just let it play out. If they conceded on their turn, then I don't think it's that big of a deal.

So, out of 1600-ish games I have played, this seemingly ill-mannered behavior has occurred twice, and both times there was obvious ill-mannered intent or stated annoyance and bad sportsmanship.

And yet you think I am making a "jump" when I state that such behavior is atypically, generally not considered appropriate, and likely ill-mannered?

In the specific two cases you cited where someone said explicitly rude things and where an opponent rejected you from playing out your final turn when they could have conceded on their turn, I'm in agreement with you that can be considered inappropriate.

[Fuchur]

8<

Sorry, can you explain which kind of statistics you need/get/analyse ?

And i don't agree that the winner in chess can generally clean the board.
Chess without clock :
There are situations where one player gains a huge advantage and will (without making a big mistake) be able to do that -- the actual checkmate might be many moves away (so conceding is the right thing to do).
In other cases one player is able to checkmate the other WITHOUT having an advantage otherwise -- he wouldn't be able to clean the board.
Usually chess is played with a clock : You win if the other one runs out of time -- no cleaning the board here either.
And finally chess knows a lot of situations where no one can win -- a draw.

I do not understand what you mean by "cleaning the board" in chess, a phase I am pretty sure I never used with regard to chess.

If you have a queen and the other player has only small pieces left you could spend your time in cleaning the board : killing all of the small pieces OR you could try to kill the king directly.

As to your question about statistics -

You really want me to list the hundreds of statistics that are shown at game end across the 15-16 games I play regularly?

Click on the statistics for any of the games in my profile, and you'll have your answer to that question.

Yes, i would like that you explain which kind of statistics is worth such a discussion (and no, i've never seen any statistics on this site as they are reserved to premium players)

[FrankJones]

Would it matter? Would it make any difference? My sense is that everyone in this thread has made up their mind about this.


If it would actually matter, if people are willing to consider a different stance than the one they seem entrenched in, I am happy to list each of the 16 games I play regularly and the benefits and details of the statistics in each one.

It would be very time consuming. And my concern is that people would just reply, "I don't care about any of that, so I don't see why I should waste a minute or two finishing a game that is near completion".

[Meeplelowda]

Would it matter? Would it make any difference? My sense is that everyone in this thread has made up their mind about this.

It probably wouldn't matter to most people, including me. I've changed my mind, but not because of the impact on stats.

I've made the argument before that conceding should be generally acceptable because it is common (and even expected) in some games, the most widely used example being chess. But this is a false equivalence. Not all games are chess. In chess, there are centuries of norms relating to the behavior in that specific game. I'm not a Go player, but I imagine things are similar for that game. But it seems that the farther away you get from a pure abstract combinatorial game, the less relevance the norms in those games have.

So where I am now is that there is a gray area and I don't claim to know where to draw the line, but I'm definitely now in the camp that at a certain point, especially on the last move, you should just let the game play out if the opponent is not dragging out the ending. One example I will give where I have conceded at the end game and do not feel bad about it is Gizmos. If I have no possibility of winning and the opponent can trigger the end game conditions on their next turn, I give them the chance to do that. However, if they do not trigger the end game even though they could, I will not indulge their vanity project and will immediately concede after they complete the turn that could have ended the game. Sorry, not sorry.

[Fuchur]

Would it matter? Would it make any difference? My sense is that everyone in this thread has made up their mind about this.


If it would actually matter, if people are willing to consider a different stance than the one they seem entrenched in, I am happy to list each of the 16 games I play regularly and the benefits and details of the statistics in each one.

It would be very time consuming. And my concern is that people would just reply, "I don't care about any of that, so I don't see why I should waste a minute or two finishing a game that is near completion".

Well, you claimed that statistics are all-important, at least to you -- but you are not willing to give at least one example ? because your time is too precious to do that ? On the other hand you (and some other persons in this thread) would like to get rid of the concede-button and hence force everybody to continue every game on this site to the end -- even if none of the parties is interested in these statistics ? (Seems quite selfish to me)

There are several ways out of here for you :

• Play only games where there isn't any concede-Option (it seems to me that certains don't propose that option if you play with 3 or more persons?)
• Find some developers willing to modify their games so that these statistics are even shown if someone has conceded (or learn to program this yourself)
• There might even be the possibility to have this done with a browser-addOn.
• Talk to the other players in your games : Explain them that you would like to see the statistics and that therefore you would be grateful if they wouldn't concede.

I don't think that i ever concede in a game played on this site -- but the argument that i should continue only because someone would like the statistics seems quite silly to me.

[FrankJones]

I don't think that i ever concede in a game played on this site -- but the argument that i should continue only because someone would like the statistics seems quite silly to me.

That wasn't the only reason given.

And, I already said I would give a fully detailed explanation of the value of the statistics, if anyone is willing to say it would matter with regard to their opinion on this topic.

Since you have already decided the statistics are silly and unimportant, what's the point of my explaining further?

[FDHenneberg]

If someone proposes a viable solution for stopping or penalizing late game conceding, I’d upvote it even though I think early or mid game conceding is ok, not only in chess (no it’s not the same as flipping over the table, playing online with strangers who usually don’t say hi or thanks for the game isn’t the same as playing in person - there is also no time limit in a game group etc., and in an offline tournament, conceding might no be seen as something disrespectful, you wouldn’t flip the table but shake hands and say, hey, you’re so much better, go to the next round) . But I’ll repeat that there are several problems:

- what Meeplelowda said above (a game where the winning party can play on forever)
- games in which you can’t know if a turn is the last one or one turn before the last turn (Pax Pamir and many games with flexible endgame conditions that don’t have a certain number of turns after the end game has been triggered)
- games in which “95% percent of the game” aren’t even a thing because they jump from 80 to 100

Not saying that there are no viable solutions to this problem but asking y’all to propose some so we can discuss themn to maybe actually change something for the better. My feeling is that a solution that can’t be applied at least to the vast majority of games without changes in their code is not a realistic one. Many older games don’t have a maintaining developer. So what could maybe be done is using a high percentage, living with the fact that this has no effect on some games (third problem above) and make exceptions for Chess and maybe Go or whatever.

Edit: the “winning player goes on forever” problem would also not be solved by a solution with percentages.