Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[FrankJones]

Nobody is "forced" to do anything. I think you and I use the word "force" differently.

This is the only point you're refuting? The precise definition of "forced"? How about the point that a few missed game stats shouldn't matter too much in the long run? Or that there's no reason to "compel" some poor soul, who didn't read the fine print, to keep playing, under some kind of penalty he unwittingly agreed to?

Of the millions of BGA members, is anyone, other than you, all wound up about stats? I don't know. Maybe it goes into the low single digits.

I'm not "all wound up about it"

I find it irritating enough to worth mentioning in this thread, which wasn't even initiated by me.

I would say that the people who continue to respond, often by completely ignoring anything I have written, are just as much "wound up about it: as I am.

You're portraying yourself as someone who cares less about this than I do, and yet you feel compelled to reply... again and again and again, adding nothing new each time.

If the topic is of little meaning or interest to you, the door is over there on the left. Feel free to see your way out.

As for the people complaining about being "forced" to do something, why are they not barraging the message boards complaining about being "forced" to finish a 3-player game? Oh, right, because they aren't forced to.

I mention the stats because you and one other person (who seems to be merely trolling) keep going on and on about the stats. I have also given several other reasons why these concessions are annoying. You're welcoming to address any of those other reasons instead of hammering away at the stats that you don't care about but other people might.

[MarkSteere]

I'm totally fine with stats. I just don't think anyone in a two-player game should be prevented from conceding, just so you can get your precious stats.

I'm only going on about stats because you're going on about stats. You're as free to leave the discussion as I am, if it's all so "irritating."

[FrankJones]

I'm totally fine with stats. I just don't think anyone in a two-player game should be prevented from conceding, just so you can get your precious stats.

I'm only going on about stats because you're going on about stats. You're as free to leave the discussion as I am, if it's all so "irritating."

"Just so I can get my previous stats".

You are rather rude and abrasive.

If the stats aren't important to you, or you don't think anyone else should care, then why do you keep replying?

By your own reasoning, why should anyone be prevented from conceding in a 3-player game? I keep asking this, and no one answers.

[FrankJones]

I'm totally fine with stats. I just don't think anyone in a two-player game should be prevented from conceding, just so you can get your precious stats.

I'm only going on about stats because you're going on about stats. You're as free to leave the discussion as I am, if it's all so "irritating."

I could use your same nonsense argument:

"Why should I be forced to lose the end-game state, score, and stats just because you need your previous one minute of time?"

Your entire argument relies on what you consider to be more important while disregarding what anyone else cares about.

The vast majority of players do care about playing the game to the end rather than conceding. Probably for various different reasons.

So, if anyone is making some sort of "crusade" out of this, it's the loud vocal minority who is going to great lengths to defend and justify an inconsiderate action.

[Trailblazer23]

Following a root cause analysis, now seems like the moment for each of us to complete an I-statement.

"I feel (identify the emotion you are feeling) when (state the problem, conflict, or scenario in a blame-free way) because (describe how it affects you)." Then, explain your needs - Let the other person know what you need them to do instead.

For instance, I feel let down, abandoned, and rejected when a game is conceded on the last play because last-minute rejection causes intense emotional and physical pain because it triggers the same brain regions as physical injury (the anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex), activating a "social survival" panic response that threatens core psychological needs for belonging and self-esteem. I know I need to reframe the narrative and depersonalize it, recognizing that the opponents rejection is often about the opponent's fears and limitations and is not a reflection of my own worth. However, it would be easier to skip all of this if the conceder just played the last move.

[FrankJones]

I feel disappointed, sad, frustrated and gypped when a player concedes near the end of a game because I play games of the enjoyment of the entire process start to finish, of which the end-game position, score, and stats are a part. I feel sad because the community at large benefits from the detailed statistical analysis that has been done on a large scale in a manner that benefits a very large number of players. I feel sad because considerable time and effort have been put into playing a game only to have it neutralized to a "1-0" result with no score, no statistics, no end-game state, as though the game never happened. I feel sad because sometimes a truly rare and/or special game has occurred, and nobody gets to see these results.

[MarkSteere]

I could use your same nonsense argument:

"Why should I be forced to lose the end-game state, score, and stats just because you need your previous one minute of time?"

Your entire argument relies on what you consider to be more important while disregarding what anyone else cares about.

The vast majority of players do care about playing the game to the end rather than conceding. Probably for various different reasons.

So, if anyone is making some sort of "crusade" out of this, it's the loud vocal minority who is going to great lengths to defend and justify an inconsiderate action.

I just disagree with you on a philosophical level about conceding. You seem more than willing to debate about it, and so am I. I don't know if I'm in the minority or the majority, and I don't care. I'm not crusading. Just debating.

The issue of concession resentment first came to my attention at least a year ago in a game of Backgammon. The game devolved into a pure race early on. Our armies had moved completely past each other, and his was way ahead of mine. There was virtually no chance of me winning. It was just a matter of inanely rolling dice and making pointless moves. So without a care in the world, I conceded. Next thing I know, the guy is totally berating me for how thoughtless and inconsiderate and dishonorable I am. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I had always thought that when you've lost, you concede. BGA provides an option to do it, so I did it. Now I'm being subjected to this maniacal tirade.

To me, the inconsiderate thing is the browbeating and complaining and disparaging after someone rightfully exercises their option to concede.

That's my opinion. The only proposed exceptional circumstance I've heard of is conceding on the last turn and killing the stats. And you know what? Come to think of it, I don't even consider that an exception, for reasons I explained and which were ignored. The loss of one game's stats is totally insignificant in a huge, cumulative aggregation of stats. I can, and will, concede any time I want, up to and including the last turn. If that's a problem for you, that's your problem. Not mine. The only inconsiderate thing is badgering people to stay in the game when they want out, and not respecting their choice to concede when they've done so.

Maybe there is a reason not to concede. I can't imagine what it would be, and I sure haven't heard anything convincing in this discussion.

[tbhp]

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.

That's not a good comparison. Making your moves is a unilateral decision. You aren't supposed to ask your opponent when you make them, because games are about winning. They are supposed to be selfish.

Real life on the other hand is not supposed to be selfish, it should be about trying to be a good person. Conceding is an action that exists outside of the game itself (since as I said, it's not even part of the rules of most games). So, it falls under the realm of social interaction and common courtesy, where you should ask the other person before you do something.

Conceding without asking seems more comparable to forcing someone to play a game. When a game starts and ends is not something that one person can decide by themselves, it should be a mutual agreement. A game can only start if both people signed up for it, and the agreement is that they'll play it to the end unless they both agree to end it sooner. Otherwise, it's like a promise not kept.

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.

Then we have a discussion about it, we figure out which alternative would be the more harmful, and we pick the one that causes the least harm. That's how functioning in a society and being a good person works.

If we're just having a random game and my board is nothing special, it's likely I'd agree to your request. If on the other hand it's an important tournament game, that's something of great value so your slight discomfort with the game wouldn't be in the same ballpark as the harm caused if you were to concede. So in that case you would have to recognize that it's a bigger deal for me than it is for you, and therefore not concede.

The great thing about asking people and discussing is that it can never go wrong. You just figure out what is the morally right decision, and you follow it. Whereas when you don't ask people first, then you are just taking a chance on the assumption that your decision might be ethical.

[MarkSteere]

I feel disappointed, sad, frustrated and gypped when a player concedes near the end of a game because I play games of the enjoyment of the entire process start to finish, of which the end-game position, score, and stats are a part. I feel sad because the community at large benefits from the detailed statistical analysis that has been done on a large scale in a manner that benefits a very large number of players. I feel sad because considerable time and effort have been put into playing a game only to have it neutralized to a "1-0" result with no score, no statistics, no end-game state, as though the game never happened. I feel sad because sometimes a truly rare and/or special game has occurred, and nobody gets to see these results.

There's only one relevant objective in playing a game. To win. If you've virtually won, by locking in a near certain victory, and your opponent concedes, then you've absolutly won. You've accomplished your objective. You've completed the "entire process."

If your concept of "entire process" requires your opponent to coddle you and waste his time with the excruciatingly boring, inane, absurd process of making a series of random, meaningless moves that won't change the outcome, then something is seriously wrong. You're not entitled to that. You're not even justified in asking for that.

If you want to feel "sad" about a variety of tangential factors, including the stats that you never tire of bringing up, that's certainly your prerogative. But don't subject your opponent to a bizarre, irrational, pointless ritual so you can rub your protracted victory in his face.

[tbhp]

Conceding is never something you absolutely need to do anyway, since even if you have an emergency, you can always just let the game running and take the penalty.

Sorry, this is crazy talk. You expect a person to take a karma penalty in an emergency, rather than just taking a loss on the game?

I don't concede as a rule. I don't like it when my opponents concede (but I respect their right to do so). I think conceding on the last turn is a jerk move. Conceding is not quitting, conceding is accepting a loss, for whatever reason. It's far more polite to concede than to just vanish into thin air and leave your opponent wondering what happened.

Politeness is not a universal thing, it's relative to what the person on the other side wants. If you were playing against me, it would be infinitely more polite to vanish and leave me hanging than to just concede on me. The latter would be devastating to me, while the former would be a minor inconvenience.

If you are in an emergency and you don't have the time to ask your opponent what they prefer, you should always just let the game running instead of conceding. That's because the harm you would cause if they are the type of person who hates conceding is much greater than the harm that would be caused by the alternative. By letting the game run, you are leaving your opponent the choice. Maybe they'll kick you out, or maybe they'll keep waiting, hoping you eventually come back. Conceding is forcing something on them, something potentially devastating, so it's a big no.