Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

One thing I definitely missed though was an answer to my question, "Aren't stats a lot less important after you won than after you lost?"

I'm not particularly on the stats side of the argument, but that seems a strange question to ask. If you won a game, you're going to be more likely to look at the replay and "admire" the stats of your winning board. So why would you think they'd be more important in the losing situation?

Maybe they would have more educational value if you lost, but that's the only reason I can think of.

[FrankJones]

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.

Well, you don't need to "imagine" reasons to not concede - numerous have been presented in this thread. I apologize on behalf of myself and the others presenting their own reasons for not making those reasons convincing enough for you. I could be wrong, but you don't strike me as someone who is easily convinced once you've made up your mind about something. (No offense intended - I'm not either. Which perhaps explains why I found the counterarguments in this thread utterly unconvincing.)

The good news for the people who find it frustrating is that very few people think it's appropriate to concede near the end of the game, and most players are okay with playing the game to its conclusion.

For me, if someone said, "such-and-such behavior is upsetting to me", that alone might be sufficient to convince me not to do it if it only takes a minute or two of my time to avoid the upsetting behavior. Even if I didn't understand why the person felt upset about it.

[FrankJones]

One thing I definitely missed though was an answer to my question, "Aren't stats a lot less important after you won than after you lost?"

I'm not particularly on the stats side of the argument, but that seems a strange question to ask. If you won a game, you're going to be more likely to look at the replay and "admire" the stats of your winning board. So why would you think they'd be more important in the losing situation?

Maybe they would have more educational value if you lost, but that's the only reason I can think of.

The stats have value in either case. The collective recording and analysis of stats has provided great value to many games. Everyone who plays those games benefits from the detailed analysis of stats and trends when those stats and trends are used to improve the game.

[Ceaseless]

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.

In addition to the exceptionally poor sportsmanship issues, it's a great way to get yourself moderated and banned from many gaming platforms. So obviously, disregard the content of the quoted post. There are plenty of other issues with that post, but I think these should be sufficient.

[tbhp]

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.

In addition to the exceptionally poor sportsmanship issues, it's a great way to get yourself moderated and banned from many gaming platforms. So obviously, disregard the content of the quoted post. There are plenty of other issues with that post, but I think these should be sufficient.

Letting a game running because you have an emergency won't get you banned. It may get you kicked and receive a penalty, as you should. It's not like conceding would be a desirable outcome anyway. It's a matter of picking the lesser evil in that situation, and it'd be backwards to ban people who are taking into consideration the feelings of their opponent if they were to concede.

Also backwards to call it bad sportsmanship when conceding would clearly be the poor sportsmanship alternative. When you let a game running, you aren't destroying anything, you are just leaving things on pause, leaving both players the choice of what will happen later.

[Ceaseless]

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.

In addition to the exceptionally poor sportsmanship issues, it's a great way to get yourself moderated and banned from many gaming platforms. So obviously, disregard the content of the quoted post. There are plenty of other issues with that post, but I think these should be sufficient.

Letting a game running because you have an emergency won't get you banned. It may get you kicked and receive a penalty, as you should. It's not like conceding would be a desirable outcome anyway. It's a matter of picking the lesser evil in that situation, and it'd be backwards to ban people who are taking into consideration the feelings of their opponent if they were to concede.

Also backwards to call it bad sportsmanship when conceding would clearly be the poor sportsmanship alternative. When you let a game running, you aren't destroying anything, you are just leaving things on pause, leaving both players the choice of what will happen later.

Like I said, you try too hard to advocate for cheating. Even you know how underhanded it is, and that's why you admit they should receive a penalty for it even as you attempt to downplay just how bad it can be. A lot of places aren't so lenient about that, and when players attempt it, they'll be banned accordingly. That sort pf poor sportsmanship just won't fly there. If you can't continue the game, don't waste people's time letting the clock emptily run, end the game.

Your talk about sportsmanship has been repeatedly debunked already, and I don't see much point in repeating it. Conceding's impressive reputation will survive you trying to denounce it while you simultaneously endorse the kind of cheating that gets people banned from other gaming platforms, lol.

[tbhp]

In addition to the exceptionally poor sportsmanship issues, it's a great way to get yourself moderated and banned from many gaming platforms. So obviously, disregard the content of the quoted post. There are plenty of other issues with that post, but I think these should be sufficient.

Letting a game running because you have an emergency won't get you banned. It may get you kicked and receive a penalty, as you should. It's not like conceding would be a desirable outcome anyway. It's a matter of picking the lesser evil in that situation, and it'd be backwards to ban people who are taking into consideration the feelings of their opponent if they were to concede.

Also backwards to call it bad sportsmanship when conceding would clearly be the poor sportsmanship alternative. When you let a game running, you aren't destroying anything, you are just leaving things on pause, leaving both players the choice of what will happen later.

Like I said, you try too hard to advocate for cheating. Even you know how underhanded it is, and that's why you admit they should receive a penalty for it even as you attempt to downplay just how bad it can be. A lot of places aren't so lenient about that, and when players attempt it, they'll be banned accordingly. That sort pf poor sportsmanship just won't fly there. If you can't continue the game, don't waste people's time letting the clock emptily run, end the game.

Your talk about sportsmanship has been repeatedly debunked already, and I don't see much point in repeating it. Conceding's impressive reputation will survive you trying to denounce it while you simultaneously endorse the kind of cheating that gets people banned from other gaming platforms, lol.

What does cheating have to do with this discussion? Cheating means trying to win by unfair means, which is the opposite of what the player is doing in both those alternatives. They are giving up on the game (albeit forced to).

You're the one defending cheating because the suggestion that people should just concede when they have no time to play means you are giving a way out to people who are in losing situations, who may now end up winning because their opponent followed your idea and conceded. When you don't concede, you leave open a possibility that the game will resume and that the fair result will be achieved.

That's also why I don't kick people when they are out of time. I hope they'll come back eventually, so that we can keep playing and reach the fair outcome. And now I'm the one who is being accused of defending cheating?

I'm not saying letting a game running is not a bad situation. You should be penalized for not being able to finish the game on time (even if it's not by a fault of your own). I'm saying the alternative of conceding would be much worse. It's not underhanded to have to pick the lesser of two evils. What else would you expect me to do in this situation? I can't concede, I'm against conceding in all situations, and I know the harm it can cause. So there is no choice but to just log out and go do what I have to do.

[Ceaseless]

Letting a game running because you have an emergency won't get you banned. It may get you kicked and receive a penalty, as you should. It's not like conceding would be a desirable outcome anyway. It's a matter of picking the lesser evil in that situation, and it'd be backwards to ban people who are taking into consideration the feelings of their opponent if they were to concede.

Also backwards to call it bad sportsmanship when conceding would clearly be the poor sportsmanship alternative. When you let a game running, you aren't destroying anything, you are just leaving things on pause, leaving both players the choice of what will happen later.

Like I said, you try too hard to advocate for cheating. Even you know how underhanded it is, and that's why you admit they should receive a penalty for it even as you attempt to downplay just how bad it can be. A lot of places aren't so lenient about that, and when players attempt it, they'll be banned accordingly. That sort pf poor sportsmanship just won't fly there. If you can't continue the game, don't waste people's time letting the clock emptily run, end the game.

Your talk about sportsmanship has been repeatedly debunked already, and I don't see much point in repeating it. Conceding's impressive reputation will survive you trying to denounce it while you simultaneously endorse the kind of cheating that gets people banned from other gaming platforms, lol.

What does cheating have to do with this discussion? Cheating means trying to win by unfair means, which is the opposite of what the player is doing in both those alternatives. They are giving up on the game (albeit forced to).

You're the one defending cheating because the suggestion that people should just concede when they have no time to play means you are giving a way out to people who are in losing situations, who may now end up winning because their opponent followed your idea and conceded. When you don't concede, you leave open a possibility that the game will resume and that the fair result will be achieved.

That's also why I don't kick people when they are out of time. I hope they'll come back eventually, so that we can keep playing and reach the fair outcome. And now I'm the one who is being accused of defending cheating?

I'm not saying letting a game running is not a bad situation. You should be penalized for not being able to finish the game on time (even if it's not by a fault of your own). I'm saying the alternative of conceding would be much worse. It's not underhanded to have to pick the lesser of two evils. What else would you expect me to do in this situation? I can't concede, I'm against conceding in all situations, and I know the harm it can cause. So there is no choice but to just log out and go do what I have to do.

Cheating has no requirement that a player is trying to win. If someone is playing a game of Chess and chooses to take a random piece away from the player that moves every turn, that is cheating. It doesn't matter if they took better pieces from themselves or their opponent. If someone decides to take a piece away from a player every time they fart, that is also cheating. It doesn't matter if they did just because they're morally opposed to farting and wanted to punish those that farted, rather than any desire to win the game, it would still be cheating.

You can say you're opposed to conceding in all circumstances all you want, but poor sportsmanship is not an excuse for cheating. At most you'll get a laugh from the moderator, or maybe just a sigh. Sure, obviously your actions were underhanded, but I doubt they'll be enough to be memorable. Just another easy ban and they move on.

[tbhp]

Like I said, you try too hard to advocate for cheating. Even you know how underhanded it is, and that's why you admit they should receive a penalty for it even as you attempt to downplay just how bad it can be. A lot of places aren't so lenient about that, and when players attempt it, they'll be banned accordingly. That sort pf poor sportsmanship just won't fly there. If you can't continue the game, don't waste people's time letting the clock emptily run, end the game.

Your talk about sportsmanship has been repeatedly debunked already, and I don't see much point in repeating it. Conceding's impressive reputation will survive you trying to denounce it while you simultaneously endorse the kind of cheating that gets people banned from other gaming platforms, lol.

What does cheating have to do with this discussion? Cheating means trying to win by unfair means, which is the opposite of what the player is doing in both those alternatives. They are giving up on the game (albeit forced to).

You're the one defending cheating because the suggestion that people should just concede when they have no time to play means you are giving a way out to people who are in losing situations, who may now end up winning because their opponent followed your idea and conceded. When you don't concede, you leave open a possibility that the game will resume and that the fair result will be achieved.

That's also why I don't kick people when they are out of time. I hope they'll come back eventually, so that we can keep playing and reach the fair outcome. And now I'm the one who is being accused of defending cheating?

I'm not saying letting a game running is not a bad situation. You should be penalized for not being able to finish the game on time (even if it's not by a fault of your own). I'm saying the alternative of conceding would be much worse. It's not underhanded to have to pick the lesser of two evils. What else would you expect me to do in this situation? I can't concede, I'm against conceding in all situations, and I know the harm it can cause. So there is no choice but to just log out and go do what I have to do.

Cheating has no requirement that a player is trying to win. If someone is playing a game of Chess and chooses to take a random piece away from the player that moves every turn, that is cheating. It doesn't matter if they took better pieces from themselves or their opponent. If someone decides to take a piece away from a player every time they fart, that is also cheating. It doesn't matter if they did just because they're morally opposed to farting and wanted to punish those that farted, rather than any desire to win the game, it would still be cheating.

You can say you're opposed to conceding in all circumstances all you want, but poor sportsmanship is not an excuse for cheating. At most you'll get a laugh from the moderator, or maybe just a sigh. Sure, obviously your actions were underhanded, but I doubt they'll be enough to be memorable. Just another easy ban and they move on.

You're right, cheating is any instance of making an illegal move, whether that's for trying to win or some other reason. But that still has nothing to do with what I'm defending, because letting a game run is not an illegal move, it's an action that is taken outside of the context of the game. You may disagree with the behavior, but the term cheating doesn't fit.

Now, instead of explaining yourself and why you disagree with the behavior, you essentially ignored all the points from my previous post, by simply accusing me of defending cheating even though you can't explain that either.

Also, I don't know if you know what underhanded means, but it certainly doesn't mean trying to do what is right even though it might not benefit your own interests. That's closer to the opposite of what the term means.

[Ceaseless]

What does cheating have to do with this discussion? Cheating means trying to win by unfair means, which is the opposite of what the player is doing in both those alternatives. They are giving up on the game (albeit forced to).

You're the one defending cheating because the suggestion that people should just concede when they have no time to play means you are giving a way out to people who are in losing situations, who may now end up winning because their opponent followed your idea and conceded. When you don't concede, you leave open a possibility that the game will resume and that the fair result will be achieved.

That's also why I don't kick people when they are out of time. I hope they'll come back eventually, so that we can keep playing and reach the fair outcome. And now I'm the one who is being accused of defending cheating?

I'm not saying letting a game running is not a bad situation. You should be penalized for not being able to finish the game on time (even if it's not by a fault of your own). I'm saying the alternative of conceding would be much worse. It's not underhanded to have to pick the lesser of two evils. What else would you expect me to do in this situation? I can't concede, I'm against conceding in all situations, and I know the harm it can cause. So there is no choice but to just log out and go do what I have to do.

Cheating has no requirement that a player is trying to win. If someone is playing a game of Chess and chooses to take a random piece away from the player that moves every turn, that is cheating. It doesn't matter if they took better pieces from themselves or their opponent. If someone decides to take a piece away from a player every time they fart, that is also cheating. It doesn't matter if they did just because they're morally opposed to farting and wanted to punish those that farted, rather than any desire to win the game, it would still be cheating.

You can say you're opposed to conceding in all circumstances all you want, but poor sportsmanship is not an excuse for cheating. At most you'll get a laugh from the moderator, or maybe just a sigh. Sure, obviously your actions were underhanded, but I doubt they'll be enough to be memorable. Just another easy ban and they move on.

You're right, cheating is any instance of making an illegal move, whether that's for trying to win or some other reason. But that still has nothing to do with what I'm defending, because letting a game run is not an illegal move, it's an action that is taken outside of the context of the game. You may disagree with the behavior, but the term cheating doesn't fit.

Now, instead of explaining yourself and why you disagree with the behavior, you essentially ignored all the points from my previous post, by simply accusing me of defending cheating even though you can't explain that either.

Taken outside of the context of the game? It's quite possible to cheat without making a move on the board. If I try to cover my opponent's eyes so that they can't see the board when they're playing, that is cheating. Saying "haha, I'm not cheating because I didn't make an illegal move" is ludicrous.

Stalling is a rather nasty form of cheating, and while you may be trying work hard to rename it, it won't change that people get banned for it. Your points have been covered repeatedly, you can try and ignore that all you like, but it won't change that fact. At this point I'm just doing my best to minimize the damage to other players. Having players cheat isn't fun for their opponents, for the moderators that have to clean up the issue, and frankly I doubt it's fun for many of those players themselves.