Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

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.

Covering their eyes impacts their ability to play correctly, so it has a direct impact on the game. The whole concept of cheating is that it's an action that disrupts the normal process of a game and the fairness of its result. Letting a game run doesn't do that, it leaves the game intact and gives the choice to the other player where to go from there. And if they decide to end the game and take the win, then that's the equivalent of getting a conceded win, which you defend.

You have yet to explain how stalling is nasty, especially when the alternative would be conceding, meaning the immediate termination of the game. You argue against cheating, but defend an action that destroys a game's state, while criticizing those who are trying to maintain the game's integrity, choosing not to end things immediately and keeping open the possibility to complete the game at a later point. Your view is incoherent.

I don't even know why you think the behavior is bad and why moderators have to take action about it. If someone's time runs down, no one is supposed to do anything about it, it just happens. Then when it's under zero, the other player may decide to kick them out. It's what the feature is for. There is nothing that needs moderation. Players moderate their own games by deciding what to do when time runs out. That's how things work on this website.

[Ceaseless]

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.

Covering their eyes impacts their ability to play correctly, so it has a direct impact on the game. The whole concept of cheating is that it's an action that disrupts the normal process of a game and the fairness of its result. Letting a game run doesn't do that, it leaves the game intact and gives the choice to the other player where to go from there. And if they decide to end the game and take the win, then that's the equivalent of getting a conceded win, which you defend.

You have yet to explain how stalling is nasty, especially when the alternative would be conceding, meaning the immediate termination of the game. You argue against cheating, but defend an action that destroys a game's state, while criticizing those who are trying to maintain the game's integrity, choosing not to end things immediately and keeping open the possibility to complete the game at a later point. Your view is incoherent.

I don't even know why you think the behavior is bad and why moderators have to take action about it. If someone's time runs down, no one is supposed to do anything about it, it just happens. Then when it's under zero, the other player may decide to kick them out. It's what the feature is for. There is nothing that needs moderation.

Not playing at all impacts the ability for the game to be played, well, at all, which would include correctly. Which then requires a system in place to end the game, whether it be the timer kicking the player, a moderator game lossing/banning them, etc. I'd this a rather direct impact on the game. This is obviously not identical to conceding, which is also one of the many reasons why players have gotten banned for the former and not for the latter. This material has been covered by my previous posts, so you can refer back to those too. Your concession rant was repeatedly debunked, that can be referred back to as well.

Stalling's nastiness is a well-known issue, covered not just by my own previous posts but also several others. So again, refer to previous posts on the subject. Those issues are how it got itself onto the ways players can get banned from gaming platforms.

[tbhp]

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.

Covering their eyes impacts their ability to play correctly, so it has a direct impact on the game. The whole concept of cheating is that it's an action that disrupts the normal process of a game and the fairness of its result. Letting a game run doesn't do that, it leaves the game intact and gives the choice to the other player where to go from there. And if they decide to end the game and take the win, then that's the equivalent of getting a conceded win, which you defend.

You have yet to explain how stalling is nasty, especially when the alternative would be conceding, meaning the immediate termination of the game. You argue against cheating, but defend an action that destroys a game's state, while criticizing those who are trying to maintain the game's integrity, choosing not to end things immediately and keeping open the possibility to complete the game at a later point. Your view is incoherent.

I don't even know why you think the behavior is bad and why moderators have to take action about it. If someone's time runs down, no one is supposed to do anything about it, it just happens. Then when it's under zero, the other player may decide to kick them out. It's what the feature is for. There is nothing that needs moderation.

Not playing at all impacts the ability for the game to be played, well, at all, which would include correctly. Which then requires a system in place to end the game, whether it be the timer kicking the player, a moderator game lossing/banning them, etc. I'd this a rather direct impact on the game. This is obviously not identical to conceding, which is also one of the many reasons why players have gotten banned for the former and not for the latter. This material has been covered by my previous posts, so you can refer back to those too. Your concession rant was repeatedly debunked, that can be referred back to as well.

Stalling's nastiness is a well-known issue, covered not just by my own previous posts but also several others. So again, refer to previous posts on the subject. Those issues are how it got itself onto the ways players can get banned from gaming platforms.

You agree that the timer already serves as a way for the other player to end the game. So the issue is already settled, there is no need to ban everyone who runs out of time, since most of those cases probably happen for innocent reasons.

I know very well that stalling can be nasty. I was a victim of it and wrote about it in another recent thread. Stalling is bad when it’s done out of spite, malice, or as a tactic to make your opponent lose on time (like in my case). Those are the reasons people get banned for stalling.

Stalling is not bad at all when you let a game running because you currently have something to do and you want the decision to be in your opponent’s hands, knowing how devastating it can be to have a concession imposed on you. I very much doubt anyone has ever been banned for this specific reason, on any website.

[Ceaseless]

Covering their eyes impacts their ability to play correctly, so it has a direct impact on the game. The whole concept of cheating is that it's an action that disrupts the normal process of a game and the fairness of its result. Letting a game run doesn't do that, it leaves the game intact and gives the choice to the other player where to go from there. And if they decide to end the game and take the win, then that's the equivalent of getting a conceded win, which you defend.

You have yet to explain how stalling is nasty, especially when the alternative would be conceding, meaning the immediate termination of the game. You argue against cheating, but defend an action that destroys a game's state, while criticizing those who are trying to maintain the game's integrity, choosing not to end things immediately and keeping open the possibility to complete the game at a later point. Your view is incoherent.

I don't even know why you think the behavior is bad and why moderators have to take action about it. If someone's time runs down, no one is supposed to do anything about it, it just happens. Then when it's under zero, the other player may decide to kick them out. It's what the feature is for. There is nothing that needs moderation.

Not playing at all impacts the ability for the game to be played, well, at all, which would include correctly. Which then requires a system in place to end the game, whether it be the timer kicking the player, a moderator game lossing/banning them, etc. I'd this a rather direct impact on the game. This is obviously not identical to conceding, which is also one of the many reasons why players have gotten banned for the former and not for the latter. This material has been covered by my previous posts, so you can refer back to those too. Your concession rant was repeatedly debunked, that can be referred back to as well.

Stalling's nastiness is a well-known issue, covered not just by my own previous posts but also several others. So again, refer to previous posts on the subject. Those issues are how it got itself onto the ways players can get banned from gaming platforms.

You agree that the timer already serves as a way for the other player to end the game. So the issue is already settled, there is no need to ban everyone who runs out of time, since most of those cases probably happen for innocent reasons.

I know very well that stalling can be nasty. I was a victim of it and wrote about it in another recent thread. Stalling is bad when it’s done out of spite, malice, or as a tactic to make your opponent lose on time (like in my case). Those are the reasons people get banned for stalling.

Stalling is not bad at all when you let a game running because you currently have something to do and you want the decision to be in your opponent’s hands, knowing how devastating it can be to have a concession imposed on you. I very much doubt anyone has ever been banned for this specific reason, on any website.

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

[tbhp]

Not playing at all impacts the ability for the game to be played, well, at all, which would include correctly. Which then requires a system in place to end the game, whether it be the timer kicking the player, a moderator game lossing/banning them, etc. I'd this a rather direct impact on the game. This is obviously not identical to conceding, which is also one of the many reasons why players have gotten banned for the former and not for the latter. This material has been covered by my previous posts, so you can refer back to those too. Your concession rant was repeatedly debunked, that can be referred back to as well.

Stalling's nastiness is a well-known issue, covered not just by my own previous posts but also several others. So again, refer to previous posts on the subject. Those issues are how it got itself onto the ways players can get banned from gaming platforms.

You agree that the timer already serves as a way for the other player to end the game. So the issue is already settled, there is no need to ban everyone who runs out of time, since most of those cases probably happen for innocent reasons.

I know very well that stalling can be nasty. I was a victim of it and wrote about it in another recent thread. Stalling is bad when it’s done out of spite, malice, or as a tactic to make your opponent lose on time (like in my case). Those are the reasons people get banned for stalling.

Stalling is not bad at all when you let a game running because you currently have something to do and you want the decision to be in your opponent’s hands, knowing how devastating it can be to have a concession imposed on you. I very much doubt anyone has ever been banned for this specific reason, on any website.

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

If they hate conceding, they aren’t waiting to kick you, they are waiting for you to come back so you can finish the game normally. That’s the whole reason you shouldn’t concede. You have no way to know how your opponent is gonna feel about it.

While you are choosing to potentially waste someone’s time, the alternative of conceding is potentially much worse. Like I said, it’s picking the lesser of two evils.

Malice is when you do something to hurt someone. Not when you do something to avoid an even worse situation. Another word you don’t seem to know the meaning of.

[Andrei3009]

You agree that the timer already serves as a way for the other player to end the game. So the issue is already settled, there is no need to ban everyone who runs out of time, since most of those cases probably happen for innocent reasons.

I know very well that stalling can be nasty. I was a victim of it and wrote about it in another recent thread. Stalling is bad when it’s done out of spite, malice, or as a tactic to make your opponent lose on time (like in my case). Those are the reasons people get banned for stalling.

Stalling is not bad at all when you let a game running because you currently have something to do and you want the decision to be in your opponent’s hands, knowing how devastating it can be to have a concession imposed on you. I very much doubt anyone has ever been banned for this specific reason, on any website.

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

If they hate conceding, they aren’t waiting to kick you, they are waiting for you to come back so you can finish the game normally. That’s the whole reason you shouldn’t concede. You have no way to know how your opponent is gonna feel about it.

While you are choosing to potentially waste someone’s time, the alternative of conceding is potentially much worse. Like I said, it’s picking the lesser of two evils.

Malice is when you do something to hurt someone. Not when you do something to avoid an even worse situation. Another word you don’t seem to know the meaning of.

This is crazy. if you asked a random bga player whether they would rather their opponent give up or play for 15 minutes and the game still end at that moment, no one would answer that they are favouring second option

[tbhp]

I also want to add, the golden rule comes to mind in this discussion. You shouldn’t treat another person a way you wouldn’t want to be treated. I know how devastating conceding can be, for those who share my perspective, so why would I ever want to inflict that on someone?

Asking me to concede on someone is like asking me to stab them in the back. It feels like doing something terrible, I could never bring myself to do it. Having your time wasted, in comparison, is never all that bad, so between the two alternatives, the choice is easy to make.

[Ceaseless]

You agree that the timer already serves as a way for the other player to end the game. So the issue is already settled, there is no need to ban everyone who runs out of time, since most of those cases probably happen for innocent reasons.

I know very well that stalling can be nasty. I was a victim of it and wrote about it in another recent thread. Stalling is bad when it’s done out of spite, malice, or as a tactic to make your opponent lose on time (like in my case). Those are the reasons people get banned for stalling.

Stalling is not bad at all when you let a game running because you currently have something to do and you want the decision to be in your opponent’s hands, knowing how devastating it can be to have a concession imposed on you. I very much doubt anyone has ever been banned for this specific reason, on any website.

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

If they hate conceding, they aren’t waiting to kick you, they are waiting for you to come back so you can finish the game normally. That’s the whole reason you shouldn’t concede. You have no way to know how your opponent is gonna feel about it.

While you are choosing to potentially waste someone’s time, the alternative of conceding is potentially much worse. Like I said, it’s picking the lesser of two evils.

Malice is when you do something to hurt someone. Not when you do something to avoid an even worse situation. Another word you don’t seem to know the meaning of.

There isn't a worse of two evils system at all. You can concede, with an opponent now thankful you didn't drag a game out that you could no longer play. Or you can choose to waste their time, a malicious act that they'll not appreciate.

[tbhp]

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

If they hate conceding, they aren’t waiting to kick you, they are waiting for you to come back so you can finish the game normally. That’s the whole reason you shouldn’t concede. You have no way to know how your opponent is gonna feel about it.

While you are choosing to potentially waste someone’s time, the alternative of conceding is potentially much worse. Like I said, it’s picking the lesser of two evils.

Malice is when you do something to hurt someone. Not when you do something to avoid an even worse situation. Another word you don’t seem to know the meaning of.

There isn't a worse of two evils system at all. You can concede, with an opponent now thankful you didn't drag a game out that you could no longer play. Or you can choose to waste their time, a malicious act that they'll not appreciate.

Good job totally ignoring the existence of people who are negatively affected by conceding. If everyone was like you and didn’t care about it, then there would be no discussion and conceding would be the only ethical choice. But this is not the case, that’s the whole reason this thread exists.

Is this how you go through life? Do your moral equations usually disregard the experiences of others just because they differ from yours?

[tbhp]

Forcing your opponent to wait out a timer to kick you is not leaving the decision to their hands. It's you intentionally wasting their time. You chose to do that; it was a malicious decision on your part. It wasn't like you accidently left the game go on because something else happened. You decided that your opponent wasn't worth considering and left them.

If they hate conceding, they aren’t waiting to kick you, they are waiting for you to come back so you can finish the game normally. That’s the whole reason you shouldn’t concede. You have no way to know how your opponent is gonna feel about it.

While you are choosing to potentially waste someone’s time, the alternative of conceding is potentially much worse. Like I said, it’s picking the lesser of two evils.

Malice is when you do something to hurt someone. Not when you do something to avoid an even worse situation. Another word you don’t seem to know the meaning of.

This is crazy. if you asked a random bga player whether they would rather their opponent give up or play for 15 minutes and the game still end at that moment, no one would answer that they are favouring second option

But there is a third option: they don’t concede, the other player waits for them to come back instead of kicking them out, then after a while the game resumes and can be finished normally.

When you concede, you are killing your opponent’s hope of this happening. You are declaring the game over when maybe it could have been otherwise.