Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[nik592]

I see enforced anti-concession norms the same way. Preventing players from conceding, or labeling concession as immoral, requires stronger justification than has been offered here. Another point that was raised is that final statistics are a paid premium feature. If those statistics were truly lost as a result of conceding, that would be a much stronger argument for restricting or discouraging it. However, as we’ve already established, at least in games like Wingspan, the statistics are not lost. They simply aren’t automatically compiled into a final summary.

Was anyone in this thread "anti-concession" (in all situations)? The title of this thread is that people shouldn't be conceding in the dying stages of a game. You yourself have acknowledged to do so on an opponent's turn after the conceder has played their own final turn appears to be a jerk move.

I don't personally like conceding, but I'm not arguing for concession to be removed (though maybe as an optional table setting wouldn't be a bad thing), but I do think people should be courteous enough to let a game play out if it's basically done anyway. I don't know of a good way to enforce that courtesy, so I'm not advocating for one, simply pointing out that those who don't aren't people I want to play with (and will red thumb).

One main reason that's difficult to enforce is that there doesn't seem to be agreement on at what point a game is "basically done", and there's been a lot of discussion in this thread about that. Though, referring again to the title of the thread, the boundary originally expressed was with "one move to go". I agree that seems a reasonable boundary, but again, it's difficult to programmatically enforce, and to be honest, even I wouldn't say that that boundary applies to every game. For a short game, maybe the last couple turns would be reasonable. For some games, it isn't obvious when the last move is going to be - if I have a card that will let me win on the next turn and my opponent doesn't know, maybe they're conceding because they think the game is going to go on much longer. So once again, it comes down to courtesy. And if you feel your opponent isn't being courteous, you option is to red thumb them - in the former of my last examples, I might still red thumb, in the latter, probably not.

I'm among those who don't see much point in offering greetings, glhf, gg, etc. I will usually return a greeting if offered, and I reserve gg for games I think were actually good (well-played, close, etc.). Maybe some people have red thumbed me because of that. Fair enough. I'm not taking it personally - if someone feels those kind of pleasantries are essential to their gaming experience, then I am probably not a good choice for opponent. Similarly with me and people who concede late in the game. Some of them might be jerks, some might have other reasons for doing so (as expressed in this thread), but in any case, they're probably a poor choice of opponent for me. Not necessarily a bad person (though they might be, if their motivations are spiteful, but I can't infer that most of the time).

As as aside, I also agree with BarnardsStar that communicating your intention is probably the best way around this if you care how your opponent perceives your concession. But that communication is also a choice - if you don't care whether your opponent is annoyed by your concession and will be doing it anyway, then probably don't bother asking. I don't care if others are annoyed by my lack of small talk, I accept the red thumbs that may come my way because of it.

[FDHenneberg]

This is a very sensible way to see things. You are correct in pointing to the title of the thread, but I think it’s fair to interpret any argument that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s late or early in the game as an argument against conceding in general. When someone says that conceding is unfair because the game won’t give proper statistics or because by starting the game one committed oneself to play to the end, this applies to conceding mid game as well. One argument even is stronger in regard to early conceding: you have a right so see how things would’ve went with your strategy. Hating on conceding in general is mostly what prompted me to participate in this thread, as I think it’s clear for nearly everyone that it’s totally valid to say that conceding on the last turn is unfair, not much need to further validate that. But the solutions presented that would actually work and be realistic (ie, hardly any work for BGA and no work for the game devs) are aimed at general constrictions on conceding, which is something I could live with but which I don’t support. Like you’re saying, but others aren’t, conceding doesn’t necessarily and in all situations make you a bad person. Not having a problem with opponents conceding and liking it way more than quitting without just by running down the clock forever in turn based games including a fair additional waiting time without any explanation, I simply didn’t know how important it is to others to play every single online game to the end. I’ll ask from now on, though I’m playing mostly 3p or 4p at the moment, so it isn’t that much of a thing for me anymore.

[nik592]

You are correct in pointing to the title of the thread, but I think it’s fair to interpret any argument that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s late or early in the game as an argument against conceding in general. When someone says that conceding is unfair because the game won’t give proper statistics or because by starting the game one committed oneself to play to the end, this applies to conceding mid game as well. One argument even is stronger in regard to early conceding: you have a right so see how things would’ve went with your strategy.

I don't like conceding - I'm here to play games, not necessarily win them, and I'd rather play a game out in most scenarios. But I respect people's right to do so. That may make them an less desirable opponent for me.

Similarly, I don't like people who immediately boot other players either. I will boot, but I give a good amount of grace before doing so (usually 1-2 days over time in TB, and a good 5 minutes over time in RT), because I'd rather play a game out than have to queue for another. I especially dislike booting in tournament play in the scenario where a user is playing their turns regularly, but due to timing issues, are running their time down faster than the rest of the table (but still sufficiently quickly to finish the game before max table time is hit). I will red thumb in the latter case, and I may red thumb those who kick "too quickly". But again, I still respect people's right to do so (and will defend it). They just don't make good opponents for me.

Also, rationally I say they're not bad people (and I don't abuse them in chat or otherwise), but honestly? I probably think some less than charitable thoughts about anyone I red thumb, even as I do so for "personal reasons".

[FrankJones]

What would be my reason for conceding and possibly denying all this to my opponent? Because I can't spare the minutes it will take to complete the final 18% of the game? Because my ego "can't handle seeing a 20-point loss? That doesn't bother me. I'm actually curious to see how badly I lose this game, because, that's unusual, and I think seeing it play out is more interesting than just ending it abruptly.

If you feel that way, that’s fine but I don’t share that preference. I don’t find enjoyment or insight in seeing a lopsided loss play out, and I don’t think declining to watch it unfold reflects a personal deficiency. People simply value different things in games, and that difference alone doesn’t justify moral judgment.

This is why I think the disagreement here is fundamentally about values, not harm. Some players value seeing every game completed, every stat recorded, and every outcome finalized. Others don’t. The question isn’t whether those values exist, it’s whether they are sufficient to impose obligations on others.

Social rules in games require justification beyond “this is what some people prefer.” For example, I might value always greeting an opponent before a game, while someone else doesn’t. Without good reasoning or evidence that failing to greet causes meaningful harm, it would be unreasonable to enforce a mandatory greeting rule. Until such justification exists, that norm should remain optional.

I see enforced anti-concession norms the same way. Preventing players from conceding, or labeling concession as immoral, requires stronger justification than has been offered here. Another point that was raised is that final statistics are a paid premium feature. If those statistics were truly lost as a result of conceding, that would be a much stronger argument for restricting or discouraging it. However, as we’ve already established, at least in games like Wingspan, the statistics are not lost. They simply aren’t automatically compiled into a final summary.

In principle, the information is still accessible, though reconstructing it may take time and be somewhat tedious depending on the game and the point at which it was conceded. But inconvenience or reduced convenience is generally not sufficient justification for imposing a universal rule on player behavior, especially when the behavior in question is explicitly allowed by the game’s design.

You're repeating the exact same things you've already said without addressing any of the points I made.

1) No, the information is not still available. It does not get logged to the system by BGA, and thus does not become part of the statistical database. When people view statistics for a game, whether it's their own history of that game, or all players', or the winners', none of those filter otions would be including these conceded games. I have emphasized this point many times.

2) You said you have no desire to "see a lopsided loss play out". I've been specifically referring to late-game concession when the game has essentially already been played out, and the natural completion of the game would barely take any more time. In that situation, the outcome was obviously clear well before the game reached that point, since, as you noted, it's a lopsided loss. So, as I've asked a few dozen times, why play it to 99% only to concede then? I have emphasized this point many times.

3) You said, "Social rules in games require justification beyond 'this is what some people prefer.' "
And yet we have heard the chess analogy over and over in this thread, with the explanation of "Well, in Chess, it's preferred and accepted to concede when checkmate is imminent. How am I supposed to respond to that point if I'm then not allowed to say what is typical or expected or customary in non-chess games?

Yes, this comes down to values. Just like it does when people concede in Chess. Just like when people quit a game and thus receive an Elo and Karma penalty. Failing to adhere to social norms sometimes results in adverse consequences, even if those consequences fall outside the legal system and pertain only to what it considered proper, moral or ethical.

Are you saying any act can be justified by saying, "Well, this just comes down to values" ? That's seems to me to be a rather flimsy argument that defeats the entire purpose of having any intellectual debate on any topic in the first place.

Most or all of the rules on BGA "come down to values". It's not as though anyone is going to be jailed or arrested for any of the things that are prohibited on BGA or that are against their terms of service or code of conduct.

Constantly saying "this is about values" is both obvious and meaningless.

I also find it difficult to believe that people who concede have never found themselves in a position late-game in which, for one reason or another, they would prefer the game to be played to its natural conclusion if/when the game is nearly over anyway. And even in the rare case where that's true, is it really all that difficult to put oneself in the other person's shoes and think, "Well, this game outcome is decided, but maybe my opponent would prefer to play the final move for various reasons, and we're just about there anyway, so I'll do it"? Is this really viewed as some sort of burden or hardship?

[FrankJones]

I see enforced anti-concession norms the same way. Preventing players from conceding, or labeling concession as immoral, requires stronger justification than has been offered here. Another point that was raised is that final statistics are a paid premium feature. If those statistics were truly lost as a result of conceding, that would be a much stronger argument for restricting or discouraging it. However, as we’ve already established, at least in games like Wingspan, the statistics are not lost. They simply aren’t automatically compiled into a final summary.

Was anyone in this thread "anti-concession" (in all situations)? The title of this thread is that people shouldn't be conceding in the dying stages of a game. You yourself have acknowledged to do so on an opponent's turn after the conceder has played their own final turn appears to be a jerk move.

I don't personally like conceding, but I'm not arguing for concession to be removed (though maybe as an optional table setting wouldn't be a bad thing), but I do think people should be courteous enough to let a game play out if it's basically done anyway. I don't know of a good way to enforce that courtesy, so I'm not advocating for one, simply pointing out that those who don't aren't people I want to play with (and will red thumb).

Archisian has repeatedly ignored this key aspect of the conversation.

The repeated statement has been something like "why should I be 'forced' to play out the final move just because [whatever]." And yet by that same self-defeating logic, the winning player has been "forced" to play the moves from 80% to 95% completion for no reason since the person conceding intended to concede anyway right at the end.

[FrankJones]

This is a very sensible way to see things. You are correct in pointing to the title of the thread, but I think it’s fair to interpret any argument that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s late or early in the game as an argument against conceding in general. When someone says that conceding is unfair because the game won’t give proper statistics or because by starting the game one committed oneself to play to the end, this applies to conceding mid game as well. One argument even is stronger in regard to early conceding: you have a right so see how things would’ve went with your strategy. Hating on conceding in general is mostly what prompted me to participate in this thread, as I think it’s clear for nearly everyone that it’s totally valid to say that conceding on the last turn is unfair, not much need to further validate that. But the solutions presented that would actually work and be realistic (ie, hardly any work for BGA and no work for the game devs) are aimed at general constrictions on conceding, which is something I could live with but which I don’t support. Like you’re saying, but others aren’t, conceding doesn’t necessarily and in all situations make you a bad person. Not having a problem with opponents conceding and liking it way more than quitting without just by running down the clock forever in turn based games including a fair additional waiting time without any explanation, I simply didn’t know how important it is to others to play every single online game to the end. I’ll ask from now on, though I’m playing mostly 3p or 4p at the moment, so it isn’t that much of a thing for me anymore.

Conceding is entirely not allowed in any game that has more than 2 players. Are people upset about this? I mean, some people are saying they are not comfortable with an outright removal of the option to concede, and yet in any multiplayer game (more than 2 players), this is exactly the case - no conceding allowed - and the specific reason is that is it not fair to the other players.

I understand that some people think it's going to far to completely disallow conceding - and maybe those players never play 3+ player games specifically because they are bothered by having their "right" to concede taken away.

Personally, I would like a table setting option for 2-player games to disallow conceding. That way, as the table creator, I can screen out people who feel that conceding is appropriate in situations in which I do not, and, those same people would not be placed at my table with a game setting that bothers them.

That said, yes, mid-game concession and late-game concession are two very different things. And originally this thread was about the late-game (basically end-game) concession.

Various people have made various points about why they think concessions in various contexts are unfair, unreasonable, improper, or not societally acceptable. If others are now aware of those reasons and opinions and still doing it anyway, without even asking the opponent first, is simply a way of saying, "I just don't care," and to me, that's rude and poor sportsmanship.

[varietyCH]

1) No, the information is not still available. It does not get logged to the system by BGA, and thus does not become part of the statistical database. When people view statistics for a game, whether it's their own history of that game, or all players', or the winners', none of those filter otions would be including these conceded games.

Are you sure about this? Isn't this something the game developer and their teams decide?

In Quoridor it's quit common that someone concedes as soon as the defeat is obvious and I couldn't identify missing games or statistics, it all looks complete.

[Fuchur]

Could you explain the use of one statistic in one game ?

I'll use the game "Earth" for this example.

A completed game logs the ... 8<

That is a large collection of valuable statistics.
For a completed game, any player can view those stats for that one game.
Additionally, any player who can view stats (apparently, it's a premium feature) can view his or her collective stats for all games of "Earth" played.
On the same screen, those stats can be compared to all players' averages, and to winner's averages.

As you've pointed out, some players can See These statistics , Others Don't.
. I'm Not convinced that thèse statistics can give you thé insight you need to understand why you Lost that particular game --- i havent Played earth more than two or three times and have nearly No Idea about how yo win that game, but i Guess there IS more than one way. Knowing the number of cards you Played doesn't Say anything about which cards you Played AT what moment, what synergies you we're able to create.
(Sorry for thé typos -- m'y phone keeps on to translate randomly some words into french and i haven't been able to turn that off)

[Fuchur]

Perhaps we could get some statistics before demanding drastical measures : How often do you encounter players who do abandon in the last minute ? Did you communicate that you are particulary interessted in the end-game statistics ?

[FrankJones]

1) No, the information is not still available. It does not get logged to the system by BGA, and thus does not become part of the statistical database. When people view statistics for a game, whether it's their own history of that game, or all players', or the winners', none of those filter otions would be including these conceded games.

Are you sure about this? Isn't this something the game developer and their teams decide?

In Quoridor it's quit common that someone concedes as soon as the defeat is obvious and I couldn't identify missing games or statistics, it all looks complete.

Yes, I am sure.