Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

Well they could display some stats but the score itself would be rather meaningless to display, since generally a score doesn't tell you the whole story until the end of a game.

Then there's the problem that the stats of that game may be added to that player's general stats, or that game's general stats, which would be misleading since it wasn't a completed game.

I have been thinking that, if we do think it’s people not wanting to accept they’ve lost (and I have a hard time believing this but an equally hard time finding any other reason for this behaviour) then the answer would be to show the stats in incomplete cases as well.

I'm not sure how showing the stats would deter people from conceding (for any reason). They already know they lost, they already know what the stats look like, so even if you display them, they still get their desired outcome of the game not registering as a win.

[tbhp]

While frustrating to deal with, I will note this would not be what conceding with one move to go would look like, in fact this would be what refusing to concede with one move to go would look like.

The effect and probably the intention are exactly the same. It's conceding just with a different name.

If they didn't want to concede, they'd just have played their last move. Instead, not content with conceding the normal way, they decided to add days of suffering to the ordeal.

They are completely different things. Concession is an acceptance of defeat that generally saves the time of the players. Stalling is a refusal to admit defeat which generally wastes the time of the players.

How much time is wasted doesn't change the meaning of the action. Obviously conceding immediately at least has the decency of saving people's time, but stalling a game with the intention of never coming back is also concession, just taking it to the extreme. Not only can the person not bring themselves to accept the loss, they also can't even bring themselves to say "I concede", choosing to flee instead. That's like next level conceding!

[BarnardsStar]

I'm not sure how showing the stats would deter people from conceding (for any reason). They already know they lost, they already know what the stats look like, so even if you display them, they still get their desired outcome of the game not registering as a win.

But the game does register as a win. Conceding is, definitionally, saying “I lost, you won.” The winner gets full Elo gains and the loser gets the full Elo loss, and nobody gets a reputation hit. Except for the stats, the outcome is the same as a regular win.

[tbhp]

I'm not sure how showing the stats would deter people from conceding (for any reason). They already know they lost, they already know what the stats look like, so even if you display them, they still get their desired outcome of the game not registering as a win.

But the game does register as a win. Conceding is, definitionally, saying “I lost, you won.” The winner gets full Elo gains and the loser gets the full Elo loss, and nobody gets a reputation hit. Except for the stats, the outcome is the same as a regular win.

But for the person who concedes with one move to go, who doesn't have an excuse like "didn't want to waste time", for those people the conceded win is not really a win. That's the whole reason they concede. They are trying to taint their opponent's win, and that happens whether you show the stats or not.

[Fuchur]

General information for anyone reading this thread:

BGA games do not have AI (computer-controlled) opponents available. So, having an absent player replaced by an AI player is not an option.

Well, if you choose to continue a game after someone has left, something has been implemented to replace the missing players. I've tried it once or twice -- the result is (at least for AZUL) catastrophic. But it is, in a way, a (really stupid) IA.

If someone is willing to invest (a lot of) time you could get much better results.

[Fuchur]

But for the person who concedes with one move to go, who doesn't have an excuse like "didn't want to waste time", for those people the conceded win is not really a win.

What a nonsense.

That's the whole reason they concede. They are trying to taint their opponent's win, and that happens whether you show the stats or not.

How do you know why anyone concedes ? You have never encountered that.

[tbhp]

That's the whole reason they concede. They are trying to taint their opponent's win, and that happens whether you show the stats or not.

How do you know why anyone concedes ? You have never encountered that.

I said in a game that mattered. I encountered it at least once in a normal game. Not that it matters, since other people on here have said they've had it happen to them.

If there existed another reason why someone would concede with one move to go, surely it would have shown up by now. All the defenses of conceding I've read refer to cases where the concession happens earlier (if I'm not mistaken).

[Ceaseless]

The effect and probably the intention are exactly the same. It's conceding just with a different name.

If they didn't want to concede, they'd just have played their last move. Instead, not content with conceding the normal way, they decided to add days of suffering to the ordeal.

They are completely different things. Concession is an acceptance of defeat that generally saves the time of the players. Stalling is a refusal to admit defeat which generally wastes the time of the players.

How much time is wasted doesn't change the meaning of the action. Obviously conceding immediately at least has the decency of saving people's time, but stalling a game with the intention of never coming back is also concession, just taking it to the extreme. Not only can the person not bring themselves to accept the loss, they also can't even bring themselves to say "I concede", choosing to flee instead. That's like next level concession!

You managed to contradict your own points within the very next sentences after making them.

[Ceaseless]

Does it save time though for a player to play up until the final move and then concede, even though the outcome was clear and obvious well before that point in the game?

I was responding to the post about conceding and stalling being the same thing, which is what I quoted. I was also referring to the general case of conceding, though considering the quoted post's alternative was stalling out the clock, I suppose relatively speaking it would still have been a timesaver, lol.

[FrankJones]

General information for anyone reading this thread:

BGA games do not have AI (computer-controlled) opponents available. So, having an absent player replaced by an AI player is not an option.

Well, if you choose to continue a game after someone has left, something has been implemented to replace the missing players. I've tried it once or twice -- the result is (at least for AZUL) catastrophic. But it is, in a way, a (really stupid) IA.

If someone is willing to invest (a lot of) time you could get much better results.

Some games do no function properly with an absent player. That's why the game result is decided immediately - the player who quits takes a loss, the other players share the win.

Likely this is why Conceding is not allowed in multiplayer games.

And for better or worse, BGA does not have AI opponents.