Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Ceaseless]

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.

The contradiction arises because the concept of conceding is hypocritical in the first place. Conceding is refusing to let the game end normally, all the while trying to give the appearance that it’s a fine way to end things that isn’t just the loser trying to salvage their ego.

Fleeing the game is what you could say the honest version of concession. The spite and the refusal to let the game end normally are the same, except the conceder isn’t trying to hide it and make it look like some honourable thing, they just leave the room. I’d consider it more respectable than regular conceding if it wasn’t for all the time wasted.

The contradiction arises because your point and the train of thought you tried to use to make it didn't make any sense. You're trying too hard to advocate for cheating and it's causing problems with your posts.

[FrankJones]

Games are competition. Not cooperation. The goal is to beat your opponent. Not to construct something together. When your opponent concedes, you've accomplished your objective. This is not the time to be a crybaby. "No, no, you didn't let me win the RIGHT way." Just accept your victory graciously, and go play another game with someone else.

Calling somebody a "crybaby" because the end-game state, score, and stats were ruined is highly subjective and rather harsh.

[Oops. I fixed the typing error. I forgot to finish the word "subjective" ]

[MarkSteere]

Calling somebody a "crybaby" because the end-game state, score, and stats were ruined is highly subject and rather harsh.

As I thought I made clear, I'm not talking about players waiting till the last second to deliberately sabotage stats. I don't know. Maybe stats are incredibly important and have to be intensively studied after every game.

I'm only talking about players whining about being unfairly deprived of "proper victory execution." To me, that seems a little petulant.

[esayitch]

Eh, if I know I am losing and my opponent is thinking about their last move for more than a minute, of course I am conceding, I have better things to do.
If they take their turn normally I won't have time to even think of conceding, so...

[mrmivo]

Then with 1 turn to go - literally 1 click - it was clear I had won, and my opponent quit and proceeded to let the timer run out for the remaining 10 days. He kept playing other games meanwhile, so he had to actively ignore our game for the full 10 days just to not have to accept a regular loss.

I think this is the type of behavior that would be much more common if people couldn't concede games anymore or were punished for it. I'd find that much more frustrating.

[tbhp]

Calling somebody a "crybaby" because the end-game state, score, and stats were ruined is highly subject and rather harsh.

As I thought I made clear, I'm not talking about players waiting till the last second to deliberately sabotage stats. I don't know. Maybe stats are incredibly important and have to be intensively studied after every game.

I'm only talking about players whining about being unfairly deprived of "proper victory execution." To me, that seems a little petulant.

It’s all totally subjective at the end of the day. No one is trying to be petulant, people just have different experiences and values. For me, the proper victory execution is the main reason I’m against conceding, not so much the stats, but for some people it is the main argument.

Now, if people took into consideration the perspectives of others when they perform an action, everything would be fine, but unfortunately that’s not what is happening when people concede without asking first.

[MarkSteere]

... people concede without asking first.

It doesn't make sense to ask if you can concede. Your opponent is your adversary. You both make unilateral decisions. Asking if I can concede is like asking if I can capture your queen. It's like a country asking another country they're at war with if it's ok to bomb them.

What if I'm hating our game, I ask you if I can concede, and you say no? Then what? I have to waste my time and keep making random moves to coddle you? It's ridiculous.

[MarkSteere]

Just on a philosophical level, do you really want to be playing against someone whose heart's not in, and who is making random moves just to get through it? This is the epitome of pointlessness, on both sides. How meaningful could the "stats" possibly be, based a charade?

[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.

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.

That's wrong. There ARE games on BGA where you can concede with more than 2 players.

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

Also wrong, It does -- as you can continue to play even if someone has left the game (at least i was proposed to do so in all the games here on BGA where someone left before the end).

[Trailblazer23]

I think this is the type of behavior that would be much more common if people couldn't concede games anymore or were punished for it. I'd find that much more frustrating.
[/quote]

I have decided to red thumb opponents that concede on the last move. Fool me once, shame on you; I will not be fooled twice.