Finish the Game or Don’t Start It 🔥

[tbhp]

What solution are you proposing? You're saying you'd just keep conceding and doing what you like in any situation.

Right. But that's only half the solution. The other half is you just keep not concededing, and doing what you like in any situation.

I think you're confusing the concept of courtesy with the concept of "Me, me, me." If you were really as courteous as you pretend to be, you'd say, "Opponent, I don't like conceding, but if continuing to play after you've clearly lost is unpleasant for you, feel free to concede. I'll cherish the play we had before I essentially won, and I'll move on and start another game with someone else."

Courtesy doesn't mean being okay with bad treatment. Since you haven't shown that your inconvenience is greater than the harm you are causing when you concede, there is zero reason for me to accept such treatment.

People are only free to the extent that their actions are not hurting others to a higher degree than they would themselves be hurt if they were to not perform said action. Your logic is "it doesn't matter who is hurt more, everyone should just do what they want". That's not a solution, that's a refusal to think about morality and do the work to figure out what is right.

[Ze Monstah]

What solution are you proposing? You're saying you'd just keep conceding and doing what you like in any situation.

Right. But that's only half the solution. The other half is you just keep not concededing, and doing what you like in any situation.

I think you're confusing the concept of courtesy with the concept of "Me, me, me." If you were really as courteous as you pretend to be, you'd say, "Opponent, I don't like conceding, but if continuing to play after you've clearly lost is unpleasant for you, feel free to concede. I'll cherish the play we had before I essentially won, and I'll move on and start another game with someone else."

Courtesy doesn't mean being okay with bad treatment. Since you haven't shown that your inconvenience is greater than the harm you are causing when you concede, there is zero reason for me to accept such treatment.

People are only free to the extent that their actions are not hurting others to a higher degree than they would themselves be hurt if they were to not perform that action. Your logic is "it doesn't matter who is hurt more, everyone should just do what they want". That's not a solution, that's a refusal to think about morality and do the work to figure out what is right.

Look, a solution: since you are THE ONE insisting to change what (I am sure) most of us consider a decent normal current conceding system, invest some money for A PROJECT:
- you gather some players (both pro- and anti- current conceding system); I am willing to come to France to be a part of this experiment, if you pay me enough;
- you pay an unbiased Neuropsychiatrist to establish who suffers more... by Clinical Evaluation and Electroencephalography and Serotonin and Endorphin levels, BOTH PRE- AND POST- CONCEDING GAMES!!!!
- of course you'll pay a lot of money, but maybe you'll be clinically established to suffer so much that BGA will add these things that you ask for, just for you. THIS IS THE ONLY OBJECTIVE AND CLEAR WAY TO SHOW WHO SUFFERS MORE! AND OF COURSE, THE NUMBERS ALSO MATTER! (1000 PEOPLE WHO SUFFER A MID AMOUNT WHEN ARE FORCED TO PLAY UNTIL THE END ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN 1 PERSON WHO FEELS DESTROYED WHEN SOMEONE CONCEDES ON THEM)

You can't do this objective experiment? Than please accept the current conceding system and stop enforcing it on others!

[tbhp]

Right. But that's only half the solution. The other half is you just keep not concededing, and doing what you like in any situation.

I think you're confusing the concept of courtesy with the concept of "Me, me, me." If you were really as courteous as you pretend to be, you'd say, "Opponent, I don't like conceding, but if continuing to play after you've clearly lost is unpleasant for you, feel free to concede. I'll cherish the play we had before I essentially won, and I'll move on and start another game with someone else."

Courtesy doesn't mean being okay with bad treatment. Since you haven't shown that your inconvenience is greater than the harm you are causing when you concede, there is zero reason for me to accept such treatment.

People are only free to the extent that their actions are not hurting others to a higher degree than they would themselves be hurt if they were to not perform that action. Your logic is "it doesn't matter who is hurt more, everyone should just do what they want". That's not a solution, that's a refusal to think about morality and do the work to figure out what is right.

Look, a solution: since you are the one insisting to change what (I am sure) most of us consider a decent normal current conceding system, invest some money for a project:
- you gather some players (both pro- and anti- current conceding system); I am willing to come to France to be a part of this experiment, if you pay me enough;
- you pay an unbiased Neuropsychiatrist to establish who suffers more... by Clinical Evaluation and Electroencephalography and Serotonin and Endorphin levels, both pre- and post- conceding!!!!
- of course you'll pay a lot of money, but maybe you'll be clinically established to suffer so much that BGA will add this things that you ask for, just for you.

You can't objectively do this experiment? Than please accept the current conceding system and stop enforcing it on others!

We don't need a medical study to know how much people are affected by not being able to concede. At worst, they'll be waiting a few minutes if it's real time, and if it's turn based, they don't even have to wait, they can just go do other things any time it's not their turn.

So, not being able to concede is never more than an inconvenience. Any trauma they may feel will be gone by the next week, if not the next day (if not the next hour).

No one describes the experience as devastating, at most "excruciatingly boring", which yes it can be, but when I'm bored out of my mind I don't think this gives me the right to do things that may profoundly affect other people.

[Ze Monstah]

Courtesy doesn't mean being okay with bad treatment. Since you haven't shown that your inconvenience is greater than the harm you are causing when you concede, there is zero reason for me to accept such treatment.

People are only free to the extent that their actions are not hurting others to a higher degree than they would themselves be hurt if they were to not perform that action. Your logic is "it doesn't matter who is hurt more, everyone should just do what they want". That's not a solution, that's a refusal to think about morality and do the work to figure out what is right.

Look, a solution: since you are the one insisting to change what (I am sure) most of us consider a decent normal current conceding system, invest some money for a project:
- you gather some players (both pro- and anti- current conceding system); I am willing to come to France to be a part of this experiment, if you pay me enough;
- you pay an unbiased Neuropsychiatrist to establish who suffers more... by Clinical Evaluation and Electroencephalography and Serotonin and Endorphin levels, both pre- and post- conceding!!!!
- of course you'll pay a lot of money, but maybe you'll be clinically established to suffer so much that BGA will add this things that you ask for, just for you.

You can't objectively do this experiment? Than please accept the current conceding system and stop enforcing it on others!

We don't need a medical study to know how much people are affected by not being able to concede. At worst, they'll be waiting a few minutes if it's real time, and if it's turn based, they don't even have to wait, they can just go do other things any time it's not their turn.

So, not being able to concede is never more than an inconvenience. Any trauma they may feel will be gone by the next week, if not the next day (if not the next hour).

No one describes the experience as devastating, at most "excruciatingly boring", which yes it can be, but when I'm bored out of my mind I don't think this gives me the right to do things that may profoundly affect other people.

I really think that we need - I AM CURIOUS OF THE MEDICAL OPINION ON YOU, THEN; otherwise you can't know the exact amount people feel in each situation; AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TRIES TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY IN A WAY THAT YOU CANNOT ACCEPT. You cannot know how much I suffer if i'm obliged to stay with you in a game... I don't know why you think you know... I may hate it so much that it could affect my health; YOU ARE IN NO MEASURE TO KNOW THAT!

If you force me to play a game with you (even if that would never happen), and if i cannot concede without losing KARMA, and if I am losing 100% and I find out a relative died, or I have to go to take my puppy out or whaaaatever other reason... you cause me more than just an inconvenience! But of course you don't care, cause you have your darn artsy game until the end, at my expense.

I think you cannot comprehend how things are in real life for other people, perhaps some deep selfish issues... I have no more to add to this thread, you do not seem to comprehend or to try to understand.

[MarkSteere]

Courtesy doesn't mean being okay with bad treatment. Since you haven't shown that your inconvenience is greater than the harm you are causing when you concede, there is zero reason for me to accept such treatment.

People are only free to the extent that their actions are not hurting others to a higher degree than they would themselves be hurt if they were to not perform said action. Your logic is "it doesn't matter who is hurt more, everyone should just do what they want". That's not a solution, that's a refusal to think about morality and do the work to figure out what is right.

I'm under no obligation to prove that my subjective inconvenience in greater that your subjective inconvenience. I don't know where that's coming from, but it's completely absurd.

There's no middle ground here. There's no room for compromise. Either I concede, or I don't concede . Black and white.

Fortunately, there actually is a way to "figure out what is right." When two parties are at an impasse, you default to the "rules of the road," which rules were specifically formulated to resolve such impasses. When a sailboat on a starboard tack is on a collision course with a sailboat on a port tack, the port tack boat must yield. This rule doesn't "discriminate" against anyone. It's arbitrary.

In the case of conceding, BGA expressly allows me to concede anywhere past the halfway point. I don't have to provide a reason. I just have to click the concede item and be done with it.

After I concede, I don't need my opponent accusing me of being immoral, dishonorable, inconsiderate, discourteous, malicious, discriminatory, etc. I followed the rules. If their fragile ego got bruised by me not following THEIR irrelevant "rules," maybe they just need to cowboy up.

[tbhp]

I really think that we need; otherwise you can't know the exact amount people feel in each situation.

I mean, I'm a pretty impatient person myself (not really when in front of a game, but there are certain situations that can lead me to be extremely bored).

So, I'm in a position to tell which is worse, between having to wait and having a game conceded on you. People who don't care about conceding can't make that comparison, since they don't know what it's like to suffer from conceding, so it seems to me that they just dismiss my words and experiences, throw it under the rug so to speak because they can't relate to it and don't want their personal comfort to be disturbed.

What else am I supposed to think? What other explanation is there for why they won't recognize the issue?

If you force me to play a game with you (that would never happen), and if i cannot concede without losing KARMA, and if I am losing 100% and I find out a relative died, or I have to go to take my puppy out or whaaaatever other reason... you cause me more than just an inconvenience!

Not at all, because in those cases nothing is stopping you from just letting the game running. I'd gladly let you take the time you need to take care of your personal life, before you are ready to return and finish the game.

[MarkSteere]

I'm in a position to tell which is worse, between having to wait and having a game conceded on you.

Actually, no. You're not in that position. You're in the position of someone who can't distinguishing between subjective experience and objective reality.

[tbhp]

I'm in a position to tell which is worse, between having to wait and having a game conceded on you.

Actually, no. You're not in that position. You're in the position of someone who can't distinguishing between subjective experience and objective reality.

Subjective experience is the whole basis of determining morality. Otherwise, that's a way for you to say "I don't care how other people feel, I'll just declare what is objectively right for me to do".

[tbhp]

Fortunately, there actually is a way to "figure out what is right." When two parties are at an impasse, you default to the "rules of the road," which rules were specifically formulated to resolve such impasses. When a sailboat on a starboard tack is on a collision course with a sailboat on a port tack, the port tack boat must yield. This rule doesn't "discriminate" against anyone. It's arbitrary.

You know very well you are contradicting yourself here, because you call "arbitrary" the way to figure out what is right. That's like saying throwing the dice can tell us what is right, which obviously makes no sense.

You are essentially saying again that you can't be bothered to do the work of figuring out morality, so you'd rather it just be an arbitrary social convention.

There is actually a very simple way to figure it out: ask the other person in the chat before you concede. Then you will know if they are like you, fine to concede against, or if they are like me, in which case you would have to recognize that it's more considerate to wait.

In the case of conceding, BGA expressly allows me to concede anywhere past the halfway point. I don't have to provide a reason. I just have to click the concede item and be done with it.

There are things that are allowed to do on this website that we may not agree with. For example, the site allows us to kick out people, but I don't feel I have the right to do that, because it would end the game on them and also because it might lead to an unfair outcome. So I don't do it.

You don't seem interested in doing any of that work. It seems that your logic is just: if something benefits me and I'm allowed to do it, then I'll do it.

If their fragile ego got bruised by me not following THEIR irrelevant "rules," maybe they just need to cowboy up.

You clearly don't seem to understand the issue here. It's not about my ego, it's that seeing the game end in front of my eyes has a devastating effect on me. I don't care that you don't want to follow my rules. It's about the hurt that your action is causing, hurt that you are not acknowledging when you decide to just do what you want.

[MarkSteere]

There is actually a very simple way to figure it out: ask the other person in the chat before you concede. Then you will know if they are like you, fine to concede against, or if they are like me, in which case you would recognize that it's more considerate to wait.

It would be considerate of you to recognize that I'm not fine with not conceding. Do you see your selfishness here? It's pretty clear.