Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Ceaseless]

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.

The golden rule. In other words, as I know how annoying wasting someone's time is, I know not to do it. As I know how precious conceding it, I would never ask someone to give up their general right to concede. I would refrain from doing such nasty things to people.

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 theirs differ from yours?

Naturally conceding is the only ethical choice. The stallers can be cleaned out, the more effective a site is at removing such rot, the better off it tends to be. This thread exists because users wished to discuss the usage of the right to concede. That's why the subject is just regarding how to handle concession on the last turn. While we naturally have the right to concede, there's still discussion to be had about the usage of that right. In this case the way of dealing with the last portions of the game. I respect the differing opinion members have had with regards to this main discussion.

Some threads have distasteful derailments, but members can engage in some damage control to minimize the contamination. Plenty of unethical subjects have had things said about them before, that's nothing new.

[Ceaseless]

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.

If a player was unable to continue but had hopes of trying to finish later, they would have just asked their opponent. If their opponent agreed, they'd continue later. If their opponent didn't, then the game is over.

[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.

The golden rule. In other words, as I know how annoying wasting someone's time is, I know not to do it. As I know how precious conceding it, I would never ask someone to give up their general right to concede. I would refrain from doing such nasty things to people.

Like you, I know how annoying it is to have your time wasted. But I also know that having a game conceded on you can be devastating. Devastation is a greater harm than annoyance, so the lesser of two evils applies.

The difference between you and me is that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of people for who concession is a greater harm than time wasting. The golden rule doesn’t mean everyone is affected by the same things you are. It’s an empathy exercise to make you realize other people have feelings just like you. You should take those feelings into account even when they are not relatable to you.

[tbhp]

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.

If a player was unable to continue but had hopes of trying to finish later, they would have just asked their opponent. If their opponent agreed, they'd continue later. If their opponent didn't, then the game is over.

It is clear that the person in the example would like to finish the game if that’s possible. I mean, why would they not? Unless they are retiring from bga altogether, there’s no reason they wouldn’t come back to play.

Maybe they didn’t have the time to formulate things to their opponent before they had to go. I certainly agree that it’d be better if they did, but that’s not always possible.

I’ve had a couple of instances where someone vanished from a real time game for 15 minutes, then came back to finish it. I was grateful that they didn’t just concede on me when they had to leave.

Then in tournament games, there’s regularly players who run out of time and disappear for a long time between their moves. It would suck if these players decided to concede because they see the game as over, when it’s still possible to finish the game before the deadline.

[Andrei3009]

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.

the presence of an imaginary third option only makes everything worse. After all, you know that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, more honourable people who decide to wait for you will suffer the most.

if you knew that there was a high probability of you going back to play, then there would be some point in stalling instead of concession

[tbhp]

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.

the presence of an imaginary third option only makes everything worse. After all, you know that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, more honourable people who decide to wait for you will suffer the most.

if you knew that there was a high probability of you going back to play, then there would be some point in stalling instead of concession

The probability is high. You are having an emergency, you aren’t retiring from the website. Most people who have emergencies can probably manage to log back on the same day, either to keep playing or to communicate that they have things going on in their life.

Where the probability is lower is that your opponent won’t kick you out before you come back. But if they do, at least that would be their decision to end the game, not something you imposed on them.

I can’t see a reason to ever concede in such a situation. If it’s real time, they only have a few minutes to wait before the decision falls in their hands. And if it’s turn based, that’s a totally different way to play games, so they aren’t really waiting for you.

[Andrei3009]

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?

You're absolutely right. I do a lot of things in my life based on this principle, and the decision to give up is no exception. But you need to remember to take into account the negative consequences for yourself. Here's what I mean: I can't say that I always enjoy when an opponent gives up. In most cases, I don't care, sometimes I want to play to the end, and sometimes I even want the opponent to give up quickly. But I also

If I give up, it may be unpleasant for me in the future when another person does the same. Therefore, I look at how difficult and unpleasant it is for me to finish playing my current game. If it's easier than bear concession from an opponent, then i'll keep playing, otherwise I'll give up.

With this post I wanted to say that people value different things in different ways and many don’t care about giving up, so applying your main principle can lead to the opposite decision

[Andrei3009]

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.

the presence of an imaginary third option only makes everything worse. After all, you know that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, more honourable people who decide to wait for you will suffer the most.

if you knew that there was a high probability of you going back to play, then there would be some point in stalling instead of concession

The probability is high. You are having an emergency, you aren’t retiring from the website. Most people who have emergencies can probably manage to log back on the same day, either to keep playing or to communicate that they have things going on in their life.

Where the probability is lower is that your opponent won’t kick you out before you come back. But if they do, at least that would be their decision to end the game, not something you imposed on them.

I can’t see a reason to ever concede in such a situation. If it’s real time, they only have a few minutes to wait before the decision falls in their hands. And if it’s turn based, that’s a totally different way to play games, so they aren’t really waiting for you.

I'm talking mainly about real-time games.

You don't seem to understand what I said, so I'll try to rephrase it.

If you have an emergency, you probably won't be back until the other player stops waiting for you. Practically no one will sit for half an hour waiting for a miracle when their opponent hasn't even said anything. As a result, the person still finishes the game and losing extra time, and the more decent and kind the person is, the more he loses

[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?

You're absolutely right. I do a lot of things in my life based on this principle, and the decision to give up is no exception. But you need to remember to take into account the negative consequences for yourself. Here's what I mean: I can't say that I always enjoy when an opponent gives up. In most cases, I don't care, sometimes I want to play to the end, and sometimes I even want the opponent to give up quickly. But I also

If I give up, it may be unpleasant for me in the future when another person does the same. Therefore, I look at how difficult and unpleasant it is for me to finish playing my current game. If it's easier than bear concession from an opponent, then i'll keep playing, otherwise I'll give up.

With this post I wanted to say that people value different things in different ways and many don’t care about giving up, so applying your main principle can lead to the opposite decision

Yes, I’ve acknowledged many times that the right thing to do totally depends on the other player’s values. You can’t know what this is unless you ask them. That’s why I said before that it’s always better to ask.

The debate was about which course of action is better in the cases where the player couldn’t or didn’t think of asking. My logic here is simple: what is the worst thing that can potentially happen to a player in that scenario? The answer is: having the game conceded on them when they really didn’t want it to. Therefore, it’s the harm I try to avoid above all other potential harms.

[Ceaseless]

The posters likely don't appreciate just seeing pages of me correcting posts about cheating to say why said cheating is bad. If they hadn't already known before, they definitely got the idea a while back. I may as well reply to whatever's still lying around while I'm here, but there's not much point in my continued babysitting. There are posters that have legitimate things to discuss that might still want to post and would prefer the flood of spam in this thread to cease.

I'm happy to engage with any of the discussions that might spark up again if I find them interesting enough. Hopefully the thread's derailemt wasn't too severe to keep that from happening.

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.

The golden rule. In other words, as I know how annoying wasting someone's time is, I know not to do it. As I know how precious conceding it, I would never ask someone to give up their general right to concede. I would refrain from doing such nasty things to people.

Like you, I know how annoying it is to have your time wasted. But I also know that having a game conceded on you can be devastating. Devastation is a greater harm than annoyance, so the lesser of two evils applies.

The difference between you and me is that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of people for who concession is a greater harm than time wasting. The golden rule doesn’t mean everyone is affected by the same things you are. It’s an empathy exercise to make you realize other people have feelings just like you. You should take those feelings into account even when they are not relatable to you.

You may not realize this, but people do not all think/feel the same way that you do. It's strange, since you tried saying this earlier, yet completely disregard it. There are people who find it devastating to have their time wasted. More devastating than your talk about concession.

As it happens, there are also people who are glad when their opponent concedes, able to complete their game and move to the next one. It's a great time for them.

You disregard other people and just plow on with whatever you want. That's not how things work. Choosing to cheat because things aren't going the way you want them to is not the answer, and advocating for other people to cheat is similarly not a good thing to do either.

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.

If a player was unable to continue but had hopes of trying to finish later, they would have just asked their opponent. If their opponent agreed, they'd continue later. If their opponent didn't, then the game is over.

It is clear that the person in the example would like to finish the game if that’s possible. I mean, why would they not? Unless they are retiring from bga altogether, there’s no reason they wouldn’t come back to play.

Maybe they didn’t have the time to formulate things to their opponent before they had to go. I certainly agree that it’d be better if they did, but that’s not always possible.

I’ve had a couple of instances where someone vanished from a real time game for 15 minutes, then came back to finish it. I was grateful that they didn’t just concede on me when they had to leave.

Then in tournament games, there’s regularly players who run out of time and disappear for a long time between their moves. It would suck if these players decided to concede because they see the game as over, when it’s still possible to finish the game before the deadline.

This is an example of what I'm referring to. People do not just magically think whatever way is convenient for you, and cheating is not the answer to that problem. Communication is, as well as the willingness to accept when things aren't going your way and resigning when appropriate. Refusing to resign because you don't like it and running a campaign for cheating is not the way. If you can't play and your opponent doesn't want to wait for you, you resign, you don't just pretend they'll magically agree with whatever and leave the situation hanging.

Yes, I’ve acknowledged many times that the right thing to do totally depends on the other player’s values. You can’t know what this is unless you ask them. That’s why I said before that it’s always better to ask.

The debate was about which course of action is better in the cases where the player couldn’t or didn’t think of asking. My logic here is simple: what is the worst thing that can potentially happen to a player in that scenario? The answer is: having the game conceded on them when they really didn’t want it to. Therefore, it’s the harm I try to avoid above all other potential harms.

Another example of ignoring other people's values, trying to pretend that somehow your distaste for conceding is greater than what anyone else in the world could possibly feel about having their time wasted. As well as your distaste for conceding somehow giving you the right to choose to ignore everyone else. That's not an excuse for choosing to cheat.