Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[BarnardsStar]

I am, like most everyone, negatively affected by time wasting. I also happen to be affected to a much greater degree by conceding. Therefore, I’m in a position to say in an objective manner that the worst instances of conceding are worse than the worst instances of time wasting.

This isn’t how “objectivity” works. If you are affected by it much more than other people (and you keep using the word “devastated” where I think most anti-conceders would say “annoyed”, so you clearly are) then that makes your POV subjective.

Objective would be attempting to find some metric by which we could measure such things, and doing so. And even then I suspect the actual choice of that metric would not be objective.

[BarnardsStar]

FrankJones, I’m not saying not conceding is okay because the person may not have had the time to click concede. I’m saying it’s the only moral choice because you have no way to know how deeply affected your opponent will be if you concede.

If I take my dog out for a walk, I have no idea whether I will encounter a person who has been deeply traumatized by a dog attack in the past. Clearly, the only moral choice is not to walk my dog.

I’m not a fan of conceding, but your logic leads to a world that is devoid of pretty much anything worthwhile because you can bet there is somebody out there who would be devastated by it. This isn’t an argument that holds any water with me.

[tbhp]

I am, like most everyone, negatively affected by time wasting. I also happen to be affected to a much greater degree by conceding. Therefore, I’m in a position to say in an objective manner that the worst instances of conceding are worse than the worst instances of time wasting.

This isn’t how “objectivity” works. If you are affected by it much more than other people (and you keep using the word “devastated” where I think most anti-conceders would say “annoyed”, so you clearly are) then that makes your POV subjective.

Objective would be attempting to find some metric by which we could measure such things, and doing so. And even then I suspect the actual choice of that metric would not be objective.

I’m not saying my experience is not subjective. I’m saying an objective moral framework is reached by taking into account the subjectivities of all living beings. Otherwise, it’s biased towards certain individuals and certain ideologies, so it’s not objective.

Your second point is disingenuous. We don’t generally need measurements to tell whether a harm is greater than another. Humans tend to understand those things, and communication helps. When someone describes their experience as devastating, in a vacuum any human would recognize that this describes a harm of a higher intensity than suffering a minor inconvenience. The only reason you are resistant to the comparison is because the greater harm in question is something that you can’t personally relate to.

The problem is that people on your side just don’t want to fully recognize the existence of people like me. Taking my experience into account would disrupt your personal comfort and your ability to concede whenever you want, so you just discard the idea. This is a common phenomenon when people can’t handle the reality of a harm that clashes with their habits and what they believed. Their brain blocks it out and tries to rationalize the issue as not real.

[tbhp]

FrankJones, I’m not saying not conceding is okay because the person may not have had the time to click concede. I’m saying it’s the only moral choice because you have no way to know how deeply affected your opponent will be if you concede.

If I take my dog out for a walk, I have no idea whether I will encounter a person who has been deeply traumatized by a dog attack in the past. Clearly, the only moral choice is not to walk my dog.

I’m not a fan of conceding, but your logic leads to a world that is devoid of pretty much anything worthwhile because you can bet there is somebody out there who would be devastated by it. This isn’t an argument that holds any water with me.

That also seems disingenuous because we usually have some idea of what things may affect people. We don’t have to live in a state of paranoia where anything can happen. The best we can do is take into account the harms that we know exist. And thanks to this thread, the people who weren’t already aware that conceding can deeply affect someone, now are aware of it. So they won’t have an excuse anymore if they keep conceding after reading my posts.

[tbhp]

What about the harm caused to me by the excruciatingly boring process of mindlessly making moves in a non-game that's already been won essentially? For me, this is psychological torture. Amid all this emphasis on harm, somehow you've totally overlooked my harm.

You seem to be assuming there's some implied moral obligation to play a game to the bitter end. There isn't. There's an option to concede, which implies that players have the moral option to concede.

The artist is presumably working alone and not imposing an onerous burden on anyone to complete their work.

A better analogy would be a baby in a highchair pushing his sippy cup off his food tray onto the floor. An adult picks it up and puts it back on the tray, whereupon the baby immediately pushes it off again. After a few rounds of this, the adult walks away, and the baby starts screaming and crying. Is the adult "harming" the baby?

Well, babies are not usually assumed to have as complex and profound experiences as adults do. That’s why we usually dismiss their tantrums as silly. Maybe we are wrong and they are actually misunderstood geniuses whose experiences hold great value, but it wouldn’t be very rational to believe that.

To me, you are the baby in the analogy. That’s how it feels like to me. There are people who are trying to appreciate masterpieces, or games that are akin to masterpieces, and here you are ruining the completion of them because it was torture for you to wait a few minutes for them to finish their thing. The baby in your example may feel like being tortured too, but that doesn’t mean we take his demands seriously.

At least the baby may actually have something interesting going on in his mind. What you have is, what, some feeling of boredom and frustration? Those are basic human feelings that are in no way comparable to the appreciation of the great things about human civilization. This is like if someone used the Mona Lisa as an umbrella because they hate being wet, oblivious to the loss they are causing to those who care about art.

Sure, artists usually work alone, but if you were in the same room and you were forced to stay a few minutes until they complete their work, you wouldn’t try to ruin it, you would have the decency to watch them finish it. Or so I hope. But when things are happening on the internet, because of its anonymity, you feel free to do what you want with no regard for others and the cultures they engage in.

[BarnardsStar]

FrankJones, I’m not saying not conceding is okay because the person may not have had the time to click concede. I’m saying it’s the only moral choice because you have no way to know how deeply affected your opponent will be if you concede.

If I take my dog out for a walk, I have no idea whether I will encounter a person who has been deeply traumatized by a dog attack in the past. Clearly, the only moral choice is not to walk my dog.

I’m not a fan of conceding, but your logic leads to a world that is devoid of pretty much anything worthwhile because you can bet there is somebody out there who would be devastated by it. This isn’t an argument that holds any water with me.

That also seems disingenuous because we usually have some idea of what things may affect people. We don’t have to live in a state of paranoia where anything can happen. The best we can do is take into account the harms that we know exist. And thanks to this thread, the people who weren’t already aware that conceding can deeply affect someone, now are aware of it. So they won’t have an excuse anymore if they keep conceding after reading my posts.

Nonsense. You know there are people in this world who have been traumatized by dog bites, and who would be devastated to encounter a dog. The only moral thing to do is make sure they can never encounter a dog. There people with strong negative visceral reactions to a wide variety of things. I knew somebody who had been traumatized as a baby by a balloon popping and for the rest of her life couldn’t stand to be anywhere where there were balloons. Let’s get rid of all balloons, it’s the only moral thing to do.

This isn’t disingenuous, it’s your own argument: if you know there is somebody who would be significantly harmed by a given thing, the only moral thing to do is to get rid of it to ensure they will never encounter it.

The problem is that people on your side just don’t want to fully recognize the existence of people like me. Taking my experience into account would disrupt your personal comfort and your ability to concede whenever you want, so you just discard the idea.

Really? You think you know what “side” I’m on? You’re wrong. I have spoken up earlier in this very thread about not being a fan of the concede feature as implemented on this site. I have certainly never conceded a game here, nor am I looking for the “ability to concede whenever \[I\] want.” That doesn’t mean I’m incapable of calling out what I see as a ridiculous argument, especially as I do not wish to be lumped in with it.

[FrankJones]

Oh, heck. Those are some bad typos. I will fix them.
MY apologies to the forum for my terrible typing "skills" (meaning, lack of).

[FrankJones]

Typos aside, it's not and you did.

My bad. What exactly is he or she saying then?

My apologies for the typos and to tbhp for misrepresenting.

[FrankJones]

eading my posts.

Nonsense. You know there are people in this world who have been traumatized by dog bites, and who would be devastated to encounter a dog. The only moral thing to do is make sure they can never encounter a dog. There people with strong negative visceral reactions to a wide variety of things. I knew somebody who had been traumatized as a baby by a balloon popping and for the rest of her life couldn’t stand to be anywhere where there were balloons. Let’s get rid of all balloons, it’s the only moral thing to do.


[/quote]

Greetings

I think both you and thbp are making valid points.

With the balloon example, I would make sure not to needlessly put balloons near such a person, and I certainly would not pop them.

That said, although thbp and I are on the side of "not conceding", we clearly have different reasons for feeling this way.

Overall, I think it's a good discussion.

[Ceaseless]

Typos aside, it's not and you did.

My bad. What exactly is he or she saying then?

My apologies for the typos and to tbhp for misrepresenting.

tbhp is of the belief conceding is morally wrong and never to be done, in fact it would be better to leave the game running on your opponent than to concede. You'll find all sorts of weird chunks lying around in their post history on this thread.

I am, like most everyone, negatively affected by time wasting. I also happen to be affected to a much greater degree by conceding. Therefore, I’m in a position to say in an objective manner that the worst instances of conceding are worse than the worst instances of time wasting.

People like you can’t make that comparison, because you evidently don’t know what it’s like to be deeply affected by conceding. If you did, you would never suggest that time wasting is worse. So, it’s arguing about something you don’t know.

The only way my logic doesn’t work is if you can show that there exists people for who time wasting is worse than conceding is for me. But that’s a ludicrous notion that no one would be prepared to make.

This was one of my recent favorites. An objective manner for everyone in the world. Could other people feel differently? I'm afraid anyone with deep feelings may only feel tbhp's way. It seems tbhp believes that their feelings are greater than that of all the people in the world. Other people cannot feel as they do, and if they could, they would agree with tbhp.