Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[FrankJones]

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)

So, if I may paraphrase your statement:

Actually, I cannot, because it was complete nonsense.

You basically said you don't know what you're talking about.
you're "not sure these statistics give insight"?

In other words, you don't understand the game in question or the statistics.

It's totally okay to just slowly back out here by saying, "I don't know what I'm talking about, I have no experience with the games being discussed, and I don't understand the statistics."

No one would fault you. In fact, you would gain a lot of respect for acknowledging the facts and backtracking in the face of contravening evidence.

Or you can just continue to try to die on your hill of "I don't know anything about anything related to this topic, but I'll continue to argue anyway."

I mean. COME ON. At this point, you're clearly just arguing to argue.

I could combine the collective wisdom of the 10 smartest people ever to live and use that collective genius to make a point, but your response would simply be, "Well, I'm not sure I see it that way and it's subjective".

In which case, WHAT. IS. THE . POINT. OF. THIS. DISCUSSION.

You don't understand the game I am referencing. You don't understand the value of statistics. And yet you have strongly formed opinions that your won't change.

Hey, good your you, I hope that works out well for you in life. Let me know how it turns out.

[tbhp]

People simply value different things in games, and that difference alone doesn’t justify moral judgment.

That sounds like a cop out. You are acting like conceding is a neutral solution for both parties, when in reality the conceder would lose nothing if they were to simply not concede, whereas the winning party is losing something valuable when the game is conceded.

You can't just say "people like different things, let them like what they like". When you concede, this is the equivalent of entering someone's party and ending it because you want it to be over, instead of just ignoring it. One side is interested in enjoying themselves, the other side is only interested in destroying the other's fun. Since when is it considered respectful behavior?

[tbhp]

No, I don't think you should need permission to concede. That doesn't sound right. Sorry, I tried to butt out until now, but had to throw in my two cents on that point.

So the conceder shouldn't need permission to concede, but you are okay with the winning party seeing their game abruptly end without their consent being involved whatsoever? This is the most backwards thing.

I'd be fine with conceding if it was designed as a mutual agreement by players. "Their game, their choice". But as it stands, this is not what conceding is.

[MarkSteere]

That's the definition of concede. You're admitting defeat, making a unilateral decision to exit the game, and forfeiting victory.

Forcing a player to keep playing, under penalty, after they tried to graciously concede, would be selfish, sadistic, and the epitome of poor sportsmanship.

I hear the arguments about wiped out statistics, but I think that would fall under the heading of TS. You know when you start playing that your opponent could concede at any time. Deal with it. Red thumb that player.

Here's the problem with a concession permission option: It's "fine print." I bet the vast majority of players don't pay real close attention to options. I don't. Worst case, sometimes I get roped into a game with a board size other than the default size I'm accustomed to. No biggy. I can live with that. Here's what I couldn't live with: pressing the concede button and getting an error message, "No, no, no. You agreed to play this excruciating game to the bitter end. Concede now and get penalized."

[RobertBr]

So the conceder shouldn't need permission to concede, but you are okay with the winning party seeing their game abruptly end without their consent being involved whatsoever? This is the most backwards thing.

No, that is completely normal and appropriate. Nothing backward about it at all. Yes, there is some nuance as in proper gaming etiquette you should draw a distinction between rage quitting and conceding but that isn't really practical online so we assume all players are conceding.

[tbhp]

That's the definition of concede. You're admitting defeat, making a unilateral decision to exit the game, and forfeiting victory.

And that's why the concept of conceding doesn't make sense in a societal context. Why does the loser get to decide how the game ends? If someone is gonna be harmed in the situation, it should be the person who lost, not the one who won and is trying to play the game to its completion.

Conceding is something that someone may want to do in an anarchist context, but in an environment with rules, why should we allow it? We could easily implement punishments for people who leave games. There is no real reason not to.

Forcing a player to keep playing, under penalty, after they tried to graciously concede, would be selfish, sadistic, and the epitome of poor sportsmanship.

I don't know how you can infer all that from the simple act of playing a game to its completion. This is just the normal thing to do, games are expected to be played to their completion. Just because a side is clearly winning doesn't change that concept.

If you think it's sadistic, that's clearly a notion you created yourself in your head, it's not a fact and probably isn't the experience of the opposing player, who is most likely just trying to finish the game in the most satisfying manner for them, with no particular intent to hurt their opponent (of course, gaming rivalries can exist, but that's a totally different topic).

[tbhp]

No, that is completely normal and appropriate. Nothing backward about it at all. Yes, there is some nuance as in proper gaming etiquette you should draw a distinction between rage quitting and conceding but that isn't really practical online so we assume all players are conceding.

The problem is that the impact on the winner is exactly the same, whether the other person is rage quitting or leaving for some other reason. This is not a meaningful distinction.

One may even say that it's the winner who is "rage quitting", since that's what it feels like when a game is conceded on you. I don't care if the other player is raging or is just clueless about what they did, the problem is that they ruined the game for me. This is not a fate you should wish on your worst enemy, which is why I can't comprehend how some people are so okay with conceding games.

[Jellby]

Why does the loser get to decide how the game ends?

1. When games are played for fun, it makes a whole lot of sense that anyone can decide when the game ends: when you stop having fun there's no point going on.

2. When games are played as competition (for a win), it makes sense that the anyone can decide at any point that the game is over... if they agree to take a loss. After all, that's the point of the game.

3. When games are played for show (i.e. when others pay to watch the game), it makes sense that no one can end the game early, because the spectators deserve getting what they paid for.

Now, BGA is mostly a balance between 1 and 2, with the complication of multiplayer games that cannot continue when one player leaves and cheating and abuse prevention.

[FDHenneberg]

People simply value different things in games, and that difference alone doesn’t justify moral judgment.

You can't just say "people like different things, let them like what they like". When you concede, this is the equivalent of entering someone's party and ending it because you want it to be over, instead of just ignoring it. One side is interested in enjoying themselves, the other side is only interested in destroying the other's fun. Since when is it considered respectful behavior?

No, Archisian is absolutely right. People value different things in games. Some are all about winning. They should be happy when their opponent concedes. Others are all about having fun building an engine or whatever, chaining bonuses and whatnot - they don’t like conceders, I got that and I can totally understand it. Yet others are all about the social aspect or like the haptics of board games and think playing online is a crazy thing to do, killing everything that board gaming is about. On BGA, while you won’t find the type I mentioned last, you don’t have a right to play with an opponent that shares your views on what board gaming is about. With your party example, you say that your view on board gaming is correct and the others are wrong and even immoral. That’s because you think all they want to destroy other people’s fun (which would be immoral, true). But how do you know that? You said yourself that you can’t understand why some people don’t mind if their opponent concedes. Obviously because they don’t have the feeling that conceding is about destroying their fun, at least if it’s not on the last turn. So there seems to be a blind spot.

[tbhp]

People simply value different things in games, and that difference alone doesn’t justify moral judgment.

You can't just say "people like different things, let them like what they like". When you concede, this is the equivalent of entering someone's party and ending it because you want it to be over, instead of just ignoring it. One side is interested in enjoying themselves, the other side is only interested in destroying the other's fun. Since when is it considered respectful behavior?

No, Archisian is absolutely right. People value different things in games. Some are all about winning. They should be happy when their opponent concedes. Others are all about having fun building an engine or whatever, chaining bonuses and whatnot - they don’t like conceders, I got that and I can totally understand it. Yet others are all about the social aspect or like the haptics of board games and think playing online is a crazy thing to do, killing everything that board gaming is about. On BGA, while you won’t find the type I mentioned last, you don’t have a right to play with an opponent that shares your views on what board gaming is about. With your party example, you say that your view on board gaming is correct and the others are wrong and even immoral. That’s because you think all they want to destroy other people’s fun (which would be immoral, true). But how do you know that? You said yourself that you can’t understand why some people don’t mind if their opponent concedes. Obviously because they don’t have the feeling that conceding is about destroying their fun, at least if it’s not on the last turn. So there seems to be a blind spot.

The point is that conceding destroys the thing that some people value in games. Not conceding, on the other hand, doesn't destroy anything that anyone cares about, so why is it not the preferred solution?

It's not like we have to choose between one value or another. Now that would be an unsolvable dilemma. In our case, we have on one hand conceders destroying something, and on the other non-conceders not doing anything bad, just trying to live their life and play their game. I don't understand why some people aren't able to recognize who is being hurt in the situation.