Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

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.

It wouldn't be practical to just stay inside all the time on the basis that we may traumatize someone just by showing ourselves to them. By this logic, no one would do anything and there would be no civilization.

It's different when you are taking an action that you know can have a direct impact on someone. It's called basic decency and empathy, everyone does it, you just don't in this case because you don't truly respect the issue at hand because you can't relate to it (you say you don't like conceding, but if you truly hated it like I do, you would never be able to bring yourself to do it to a stranger).

It costs almost nothing to just not concede and wait a few minutes for the game to finish. If I can do it, you and everyone can do it. It is absolutely not comparable to expecting someone to stay in their house all the time.

Life is already full of imposed inconveniences that we don't even think about, we just accept them because it's understood that following those societal rules helps mitigate the risks of serious things happening. When you have to wait a minute at a red light, you don't complain that the experience is "excruciatingly boring", you just take it because you know it's the right thing to do.

People even follow social conventions that don't truly matter, basic rules of politeness that wouldn't actually hurt people if they weren't followed so strictly. People act like sheep a lot of the time, but when the topic is conceding and taking an action that we know can have a profound impact on someone, suddenly all notions of common courtesy fall out of the window and they just follow their basic impulse to do what they want and leave?

You know that it doesn't make sense and is a double standard. The only explanations for why it happens are: people act differently when they can hide behind the anonymity of the internet, or, they don't fully recognize and respect the issue at hand because to them conceding is not a big deal. It's probably a little bit of both those things in most cases.

[tbhp]

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.

Not necessarily. Conceding may be okay if it's an agreement between both players, during a random normal game that no one else is gonna watch or care about anyway. That would be like an amateur football game where the two teams agree to stop playing, no big deal.

If on the other hand conceding is done without one party's consent, or is done during a game of high importance, that's a problem. If it was the football world cup final, and 10 minutes from the end, the losing team declared that they don't want to play anymore, it would be considered a great taint on the victory, the event and the history of the sport. No one would consider that normal.

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.

If there is something I'm missing about the "profound loss" of having to wait a few minutes for a game to end, then someone should explain it to me. From what I've read so far in this thread, nothing suggests that other people are experiencing time wasting differently than I do. Their subjectivity is the same as mine. The difference is that they are unable to recognize that there are worse things in life than having your time wasted.

Now, if I were to tell them: "What if I were to break an object in your house that you deeply care about? Is time wasting also worse than that?", then maybe their tune would change and they would concede that, yes, maybe there are harms that are worse than just having your time wasted.

Funny how double standards work and how people will recognize an issue only when it's something that affects them personally.

[BarnardsStar]

It wouldn't be practical to just stay inside all the time on the basis that we may traumatize someone just by showing ourselves to them. By this logic, no one would do anything and there would be no civilization.

This is precisely what I’m saying, and you can’t seem to see the double standard you are imposing here.

Let’s look at this way: your argument is that, to you, conceding is the worst thing any of us could ever do on this site. And now that we know you exist, we shouldn’t do it because somebody else out there might find it equally devastating. Now, rest assured, if I ever find myself playing you I will be sure not to concede because I do in fact know how devastating you find it. But to extend this outwards and say nobody should ever concede because their opponent might be just like you?

I think the odds are greater that walking a dog down a city street, you’d pass by somebody traumatized by a dog attack, than the odds of devastating somebody via the concede button here. And yet you say we shouldn’t do one (because we just might devastate them) while the other is fine because it’s impractical to not do it. Nobody is forced to own a dog. Maybe we should ban walking them in public. Now that we all know how devastating that simple act can be.

Or does your argument only applies to this case and to you, and should not be applied anywhere else?

[tbhp]

It wouldn't be practical to just stay inside all the time on the basis that we may traumatize someone just by showing ourselves to them. By this logic, no one would do anything and there would be no civilization.

This is precisely what I’m saying, and you can’t seem to see the double standard you are imposing here.

Let’s look at this way: your argument is that, to you, conceding is the worst thing any of us could ever do on this site. And now that we know you exist, we shouldn’t do it because somebody else out there might find it equally devastating. Now, rest assured, if I ever find myself playing you I will be sure not to concede because I do in fact know how devastating you find it. But to extend this outwards and say nobody should ever concede because their opponent might be just like you?

I think the odds are greater that walking a dog down a city street, you’d pass by somebody traumatized by a dog attack, than the odds of devastating somebody via the concede button here. And yet you say we shouldn’t do one (because we just might devastate them) while the other is fine because it’s impractical to not do it. Nobody is forced to own a dog. Maybe we should ban walking them in public. Now that we all know how devastating that simple act can be.

Or does your argument only applies to this case and to you, and should not be applied anywhere else?

The difference like I explained is that it's impossible to not go outside. Humanity wouldn't even survive in that case.

Not conceding is far from impossible, it's even pretty easy. If you have no strong imperative to do something that might hurt someone, why do it? That's a thinking we apply to most things in life. You wouldn't go out of your way to do something you don't really need to do, when you know the consequences it can have.

And for those who wish to concede, in situations where they have the time, they can easily ask to the other person if that's okay. So they don't even have the excuse of "I couldn't know how the other person is like". They had zero reason not to ask. The real reason they conceded is not what you say. It's that they just couldn't be bothered, as many users in this thread have admitted.

At least you can recognize that conceding against me wouldn't be right, which is more than can be said of some people here.

[tbhp]

Also note that it is dangerous to go down the rabbit hole of "certain people shouldn't be allowed to show themselves in public because people might be traumatized by their mere presence". This is how people justify discrimination. We allow dogs because we consider that their right to exist is more important than the concern of someone being traumatized by them.

When I ask people not to concede, no one is being discriminated. The attack is not to a person's integrity, it's to an action that can cause harm. Asking people to be considerate in their actions is something we already do in all aspects of life. Why should conceding be any different?

[MarkSteere]

Asking people to be considerate in their actions is something we already do in all aspects of life. Why should conceding be any different?

1. You're asking for more than consideration. You're asking people to inconvenience themselves in order to accommodate your extreme, irrational aversion, which is an unreasonable request. You are the only participant in this discussion, so far, who is "devastated" by conceding. That in itself is odd. Better if you come to grips with the fact that sometimes people concede, and try not to be so "devastated" when it happens.

2. Your "artist" analogy doesn't withstand the cold light of day. You're not an artist. You're a competitor. The objective is to win. Not to create something. When your opponent concedes, you win. Mission accomplished.

3. You're the one pushing this fake-objective agenda that conceding is more burdensome than enduring the boredom of continuing to play in an already decided game. I think the onus is on you to prove it. It's not up to anyone else to disprove it.

4. Let's say most people never concede, but don't mind if their opponent concedes. I've played enough games every day for enough years, that that would be my guess. Then what? I have to be like most people? I'm here to play and enjoy myself. I can't do that if I have to make meaningless moves in a game I've already lost. Conceding is a universally acceptable, reasonable option, as evidenced by the fact that BGA (and pretty much every other game site) provides this option. If conceding was unfair, unethical, unduly burdensome, or "discriminatory," game sites wouldn't provide the option to do so. They're trying to accommodate their customers. Not scare them away.

5. What's your point? BGA should eliminate the option to concede? I don't understand what complaining in a forum about "oh the devastation of conceding" is supposed to accomplish.

6. Not everything is "discrimination". Sometimes discrimination is called for. Dogs are not allowed in restaurants because they have bad manners, they're unclean, and they would infringe on people's right to enjoy their meal. Some people can't stand the sound of gum being chewed. Should everyone stop chewing gum to keep from "discriminating" against them? By your logic, no one should ever do anything.

7. Conceding is a part of life. It happens all the time, including in Chess tournaments, and all manner of situations outside of board gaming. Deal with it. Accept your victory with dignity. Not with a temper tantrum because you weren't allowed to win the "right" way. This is like winning a boxing match by TKO and complaining because you were denied the satisfaction of seriously injuring your opponent.

[FrankJones]

5. What's your point? BGA should eliminate the option to concede? I don't understand what complaining in a forum about "oh the devastation of conceding" is supposed to accomplish.

I do wish BGA had a table-creation setting that would allow the game creator to check a box that says, "no conceding allowed after ____% progression".

Then, players could seek games against players with similar compatibility levels with regard to this topic.

[Ze Monstah]

41 pages of exhaustive talk about conceding?
There are novels shorter than this absurd thread... this is bananazzz!!!!
Just accept that people can concede in games of 2, after 50% progression, and move on!
Why should I care about your precious stats in a game that's already 100% lost for me, when I can politely give you the win and go outside and jog? And why would I want to stay close to you in a lost game, just to feed your precious ego, when I can get far away from you, doing other stuff?
I rarely look at stats anyway; when I see a player concedes on me, I take it as a compliment, not as an insult; I don't need stats to know how good I am; why do you anti-conceders, feel like you need them, when you win?

Now let's take this thread to 1000 pages of arguments and counter-arguments, because throwing in the towel in online games with strangers is one of the world's biggest issues right now...

[FrankJones]

41 pages of exhaustive talk about conceding?
There are novels shorter than this absurd thread... this is bananazzz!!!!
Just accept that people can concede in games of 2, after 50% progression, and move on!
Why should I care about your precious stats in a game that's already 100% lost for me, when I can politely give you the win and go outside and jog? And why would I want to stay close to you in a lost game, just to feed your precious ego, when I can get far away from you, doing other stuff?
I rarely look at stats anyway; when I see a player concedes on me, I take it as a compliment, not as an insult; I don't need stats to know how good I am; why do you anti-conceders, feel like you need them, when you win?

Now let's take this thread to 1000 pages of arguments and counter-arguments, because throwing in the towel in online games with strangers is one of the world's biggest issues right now...

So, your contribution to a thread you say is already too long is to come in at page 41 and regurgitate verbatim things that have already been said?

[tbhp]

It's a bit paradoxical, isn't it? People complaining about the discussion being pages long when they are the ones expressing resistance to the idea and therefore driving the discussion.

If we could come to a solution that satisfies everyone, the discussion would end, but since we can't, obviously the thread will drag much longer than topics where everyone already agrees.