Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[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?

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.

by default, when playing with strangers, I believe that all people treat surrender the same way I do, and if they really want me to know that this is not the case, then they can write about it themselves.

The more I know and/or respect a person, the more careful I will be with my conclusions about their attitude to surrender.

[tbhp]

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

That’s an argument that is dismissing the hopes of the few who would wait to resume playing, on the basis that most people wouldn’t and therefore would just be hurt by the time wasting. That’s not a good moral framework.

The people who aren’t willing to wait only have a few minutes to wait before they can kick their opponent. That’s a small price to pay, in exchange for keeping a game alive for the people who are willing to complete it.

This is also the site’s mantra, if you read the faq. The more games completed, the better.

[Andrei3009]

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.

I would correct you in your conclusion: "thing that somebody thinks is right completely depends of his perseption of his and other people values"

By default, when playing with strangers, I believe that all people treat surrender the same way I do, and if they really want me to know that this is not the case, then they can write about it themselves.

The more I know and/or respect a person, the more careful I will be with my conclusions about their attitude to surrender.

[tbhp]

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.

I would correct you in your conclusion: thing that somebody thinks is right completely depends of HIS perseption of his and other people values

By default, when playing with strangers, I believe that all people treat surrender the same way I do, and if they really want me to know that this is not the case, then they can write about it themselves.

The more I know and/or respect a person, the more careful I will be with my conclusions about their attitude to surrender.

How would a player know you are going to concede before you do? They have zero way to know. Therefore, it’s up to you to ask before you concede.

Or do you think I should state in every game I play that I don’t like conceding? That doesn’t seem very practical. Conceding is the exceptional, potentially harmful circumstance, so it’s the one that should be communicated. That’s how we go about most things in life. We ask before we do something that may hurt someone.

The truth, I feel like, is that people just can’t be bothered to ask, and they wouldn’t like it if « no » was the answer, so they don’t. The anonymity of the internet makes people treat others in ways they wouldn’t if they were face to face.

[Andrei3009]

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.

I would correct you in your conclusion: thing that somebody thinks is right completely depends of HIS perseption of his and other people values

By default, when playing with strangers, I believe that all people treat surrender the same way I do, and if they really want me to know that this is not the case, then they can write about it themselves.

The more I know and/or respect a person, the more careful I will be with my conclusions about their attitude to surrender.

How would a player know you are going to concede before you do? They have zero way to know. Therefore, it’s up to you to ask before you concede.

Or do you think I should state in every game I play that I don’t like conceding? That doesn’t seem very practical. Conceding is the exceptional, potentially harmful circumstance, so it’s the one that should be communicated. That’s how we go about most things in life. We ask before we do something that may hurt someone.

The truth, I feel like, is that people just can’t be bothered to ask, and they wouldn’t like it if « no » was the answer, so they don’t. The anonymity of the internet makes people treat others in ways they wouldn’t if they were face to face.

most people give up at predictable moments for both players. in my last games, there was not a single unexpected change for me, except for a couple at the last moment, from which asking wouldn't have saved anyway.

[tbhp]

I would correct you in your conclusion: thing that somebody thinks is right completely depends of HIS perseption of his and other people values

By default, when playing with strangers, I believe that all people treat surrender the same way I do, and if they really want me to know that this is not the case, then they can write about it themselves.

The more I know and/or respect a person, the more careful I will be with my conclusions about their attitude to surrender.

How would a player know you are going to concede before you do? They have zero way to know. Therefore, it’s up to you to ask before you concede.

Or do you think I should state in every game I play that I don’t like conceding? That doesn’t seem very practical. Conceding is the exceptional, potentially harmful circumstance, so it’s the one that should be communicated. That’s how we go about most things in life. We ask before we do something that may hurt someone.

The truth, I feel like, is that people just can’t be bothered to ask, and they wouldn’t like it if « no » was the answer, so they don’t. The anonymity of the internet makes people treat others in ways they wouldn’t if they were face to face.

most people give up at predictable moments for both players. in my last games, there was not a single unexpected change for me, except for a couple at the last moment, from which asking wouldn't have saved anyway.

I mean, I get being paranoid about the other player conceding, I often feel like that. But I don’t feel that it is my job to ask. It doesn’t seem to set a good moral precedent when it’s the people who are fearing a bad thing who have to speak out about it. It should be the people who are planning something potentially bad who should feel a responsibility to communicate.

Plus, if I were to tell someone not to concede, out of the blue, it would feel like I’m accusing them of something they didn’t do, which doesn’t sit right with me.

[MarkSteere]

One issue here is aesthetics. Some people like to see the game played out to the bitter end, just because. Like in Backgammon (without the doubling cube), you might want to see all of one player's men removed from the board and stacked neatly in the slot. And that's fine. No one has to justify their personal sense of aesthetics. Too much of this discussion is attempts to rationalize why "my way is the right way." It's really just "your way is your way." Nothing more.

Another issue is how reasonable it is to expect your opponent to accommodate your sense of aesthetics. It's not about the golden rule and common courtesy. There has to be consenus about what constitutes common courtesy, and clearly there isn't that.

The correct protocol is to discuss these issues with your opponent BEFORE the game gets going. Not to assail your opponent with angry messages after he concedes, or whine in the forum about how grievously you were wronged.

Proposition: "Hi opponent. I really hate conceding, especially on the last turn. That really irks me. Can we agree not to concede?"

Response 1: "Me too. We're all good. Carry on."

Response 2: "I have the exact opposite sentiment. I hate continuing to play after I've clearly lost. And I hope my opponents concede if they've clearly lost. I'm just here to play - not to participate in a mindless non-game that's already over. That bores me to death. Sorry, but I'm not willing to accommodate your sense of aesthetics. It's too onerous a burden for me. If it's literally the last turn, and it would be just as easy for me to make a move as to concede, sure, I'll play along with that.

Since we don't have common ground, why don't we both just play how we want? If I want to concede, I will. If you don't want to concede, you don't have to."

[tbhp]

MarkSteere, just saying let’s let everyone do what they want is not the answer to most moral equations. If it was, we would let discriminations happen, because after all, that’s what someone wants.

This is a lazy answer usually made by those who don’t want to do the work of weighing out the relative harms of things. My contention here is that conceding is too great a harm to just be allowed. Some people here seem to disagree, seemingly because they don’t want to acknowledge the intensity of that harm, or want to downplay it.

However, your point about aesthetics is pretty good and gets to much of the heart of what this is about. It is strange, then, that you go on to say that it’s okay to just ruin this passion that some people have, knowing that the concern of time wasting is a small thing in comparison.

You are right that there isn’t a clear consensus, but there should be. That’s what this thread is trying to change. In art, one wouldn’t just be allowed to ruin the Mona Lisa because of some personal discomfort. In sports, one wouldn’t be allowed to interrupt the World Cup final because they find it boring. We need to apply the same standards to board games, to elevate them to something that deserves to be preserved, protected, and respected.

[MarkSteere]

I haven't heard a rational explanation for how conceding actually "harms" you. Or why I should endure an onerous burden to spare you from this fake "harm."

[tbhp]

I haven't heard a rational explanation for how conceding actually "harms" you. Or why I should endure an onerous burden to spare you from this fake "harm."

You described how some people are about wanting to see games play out to the bitter hand, but you don’t understand the harm caused when you ruin that for them?

Some people compared the loss to an artist losing a valuable piece, or never managing to complete a work they cared deeply about. Do you not understand these things too?

Just because you are too literal to not understand the value and meaning of things that are more abstract and artistic in nature, doesn’t mean the care for them is faked.

This is the equivalent of a kid saying « why do we even have museums? The people who care about that must be fake, right? »