Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[MarkSteere]

But agreeing that our experiences are subjective doesn't lead us anywhere. We still need to come to a conclusion as to whether conceding should be allowed or not.

Your position is to just let people do what they want, which makes no sense. It's as if someone said "If you want to shoot at people with a gun, that's okay. And if you want to run away when someone shoots at you with a gun, that's okay too".

Don't you see the problem here? The total freedom granted by the speaker here isn't the haven of morality that they seem to think it is.

No, we don't need to come to a conclusion. Not every problem has a solution. We're at an impasse. Nothing you have said in this long discussion has come close to persuading me to forfeit my right to concede, so you can use me to help you complete your "valuable work of art" by making me waste my time making random moves in an already lost game. It's absurd.

This has nothing to do with gun battles. There's no imaginary moral dilemma. The moral thing to do in case of an impasse is to simply follow the rules, which in this case, provide for me to concede past the halfway point. If this violates an absurd moral construct that you've manufactured, that's your problem.

[tbhp]

The example was to disprove MarkSteere's idea that "just let everyone do what they want" is a fine moral framework. If they can see the logic is ludicrous in this extreme example, then they should understand that they need to bring more arguments than just "letting people do what they want is okay".

You don't know if that's his moral framework on everything in life. He's only talking about in the context of board games. We aren't even talking about morality. This isn't a debate akin to whether the Christian moral framework is superior to a secular humanist one. This is simply whether or not conceding a board game is in poor taste or not. You are making this a moral issue where I, and I would guess MarkSteere, are saying this is merely a difference of opinion. I make no qualm that my position on conceding in a board game is entirely subjective. I believe your position is subjective too. The question we are asking is why should your opinion be seen as an objective statute that all must follow and ours just an opinion when you have just as much evidence on your side as we do. Actually, in fact, you have less evidence than we do. But we aren't trying to impose a rule onto everyone here.

The debate is not about poor taste, it's about who is being hurt more, between someone who can't concede a game they want to, and someone who gets conceded a game they didn't want to.

If someone doesn't care about figuring out the answer to that question, and prefers to fall back on "let's just follow the rules and do what we want", I'm inclined to think that this is how they approach life in general. If MarkSteere and you (as you are now including yourself in this ideology) don't care to do the moral work in this case, this tells me there must be other cases where to you it's "not a moral issue".

That belief is in itself pretty telling, because it means you are not recognizing that there are people who are being hurt on both sides of the equation (both the conceders and the anti-conceders). How can you say it's not a moral issue?

[Ceaseless]

I don't mean to repeat myself, but I do.

NOBODY is "forced" to do anything. Want to stop playing? NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU OR FORCE YOU TO CONTINUE.


In a 3+ player game, It is NOT possible to "concede". Why are the pro-conceders not upset about this ???????

Why in a 3+ player game are players "FORCED" to keep playing ?

??????????

The idea of playing with more than 2 players in an interactive game is usually an imbalanced mess. I don't see any good answers to that problem and don't take the idea of most games with more than 2 players seriously as a result. They can be enjoyed despite being a ridiculous mess, or because of it, but I can't hold them to the same standards as a 2-player game. I find BGA's anti-concede stance for more than 2 player games a bit unusual, but I also see what they're trying to go for. As far as I'm concerned, it's someone else's mess to figure out, I have other priorities.

[tbhp]

No, we don't need to come to a conclusion. Not every problem has a solution. We're at an impasse.

That's easy for you to say when the way things are regulated now aligns with what you want. It's not an impasse for you. It's exactly how you want things to be. You're not the one who has to worry about people conceding on you at the last minute of an important game, or who has to suffer if the situation were to happen.

The moral thing to do in case of an impasse is to simply follow the rules

And how do rules exist in the first place? They exist because there are people who took the time to discuss a moral issue and come to a conclusion.

It's a paradox to say "we should just follow the rules when we can't figure out a moral issue". The rules won't create themselves.

[Ceaseless]

The example was to disprove MarkSteere's idea that "just let everyone do what they want" is a fine moral framework. If they can see the logic is ludicrous in this extreme example, then they should understand that they need to bring more arguments than just "letting people do what they want is okay".

You don't know if that's his moral framework on everything in life. He's only talking about in the context of board games. We aren't even talking about morality. This isn't a debate akin to whether the Christian moral framework is superior to a secular humanist one. This is simply whether or not conceding a board game is in poor taste or not. You are making this a moral issue where I, and I would guess MarkSteere, are saying this is merely a difference of opinion. I make no qualm that my position on conceding in a board game is entirely subjective. I believe your position is subjective too. The question we are asking is why should your opinion be seen as an objective statute that all must follow and ours just an opinion when you have just as much evidence on your side as we do. Actually, in fact, you have less evidence than we do. But we aren't trying to impose a rule onto everyone here.

The debate is not about poor taste, it's about who is being hurt more, between someone who can't concede a game they want to, and someone who gets conceded a game they didn't want to.

If someone doesn't care about figuring out the answer to that question, and prefers to fall back on "let's just follow the rules and do what we want", I'm inclined to think that this is how they approach life in general. If MarkSteere and you (as you are now including yourself in this ideology) don't care to do the moral work in this case, this tells me there must be other cases where to you it's "not a moral issue".

That belief is in itself pretty telling, because it means you are not recognizing that there are people who are being hurt on both sides of the equation (both the conceders and the anti-conceders). How can you say it's not a moral issue?

If you want to make this about morality, sure, I've realized your position to be a very immoral one for a while. If you're really suffering as much about concession as much as you claim you are, consider it a message from your conscience to change. You've been inflicting this on yourself.

[tbhp]

You don't know if that's his moral framework on everything in life. He's only talking about in the context of board games. We aren't even talking about morality. This isn't a debate akin to whether the Christian moral framework is superior to a secular humanist one. This is simply whether or not conceding a board game is in poor taste or not. You are making this a moral issue where I, and I would guess MarkSteere, are saying this is merely a difference of opinion. I make no qualm that my position on conceding in a board game is entirely subjective. I believe your position is subjective too. The question we are asking is why should your opinion be seen as an objective statute that all must follow and ours just an opinion when you have just as much evidence on your side as we do. Actually, in fact, you have less evidence than we do. But we aren't trying to impose a rule onto everyone here.

The debate is not about poor taste, it's about who is being hurt more, between someone who can't concede a game they want to, and someone who gets conceded a game they didn't want to.

If someone doesn't care about figuring out the answer to that question, and prefers to fall back on "let's just follow the rules and do what we want", I'm inclined to think that this is how they approach life in general. If MarkSteere and you (as you are now including yourself in this ideology) don't care to do the moral work in this case, this tells me there must be other cases where to you it's "not a moral issue".

That belief is in itself pretty telling, because it means you are not recognizing that there are people who are being hurt on both sides of the equation (both the conceders and the anti-conceders). How can you say it's not a moral issue?

If you want to make this about morality, sure, I've realized your position to be a very immoral one for a while. If you're really suffering as much about concession as much as you claim you are, consider it a message from your conscience to change. You've been inflicting this on yourself.

The feeling of loss of something is proportional to the value of that thing. It's as if you said that romantic heartbreak is immoral because it's something that people are inflicting on themselves. It's not immoral, it's reacting to the loss of something that is experienced as highly valuable.

If it didn't hurt, it would mean nothing special was lost.

[Archisian]

How can you say it's not a moral issue?

None of this has any effect on society at large. It seems you don't have any notion that people can compartmentalize situations differently from each other. No one is actually being hurt. I am not being physically nor financially harmed by playing a game I don't want to keep playing. Conversely, you aren't physically or financially harmed by having a game conceded on you. The "harm" we are talking about is nothing more than an inconvenience.

Now, what BGA has to consider is whose inconvenience is worth avoiding. If BGA were to implement a ban on conceding at any point in a game, I would cancel my Premium Membership and not give them any more of my money. I see you aren't a Premium Member. So I don't see why BGA would be incentivized to listen to your opinion over mine.

[tbhp]

I find BGA's anti-concede stance for more than 2 player games a bit unusual, but I also see what they're trying to go for. As far as I'm concerned, it's someone else's mess to figure out, I have other priorities.

It's not a mess. People just can't concede in those games, and no one seems to have a big issue with it. Which just proves that if they were to choose to ban conceding in 2 player games too, there probably wouldn't be much of a reaction to that either.

[MarkSteere]

Ok, you really want to discuss morality? How about this? When you join a game, you're agreeing to play up to the halfway point. That's the agreement. There's no implicit or implied agreement to do more than that.

But then, along comes you. "Oh, no. You thought you were finished ?? LOL No, no, no. Not by a long shot. Now you have to work for me for free. You have to help me achieve my unstated, pointless objective. See, I'm creating a valuable work of art here, and I need you to endure an excruciatingly boring process of making a series of meaningless, random moves so I can complete it. If not, you'll violate my self-serving moral construct."

Do you see how ridiculous this is?

[Ceaseless]

The debate is not about poor taste, it's about who is being hurt more, between someone who can't concede a game they want to, and someone who gets conceded a game they didn't want to.

If someone doesn't care about figuring out the answer to that question, and prefers to fall back on "let's just follow the rules and do what we want", I'm inclined to think that this is how they approach life in general. If MarkSteere and you (as you are now including yourself in this ideology) don't care to do the moral work in this case, this tells me there must be other cases where to you it's "not a moral issue".

That belief is in itself pretty telling, because it means you are not recognizing that there are people who are being hurt on both sides of the equation (both the conceders and the anti-conceders). How can you say it's not a moral issue?

If you want to make this about morality, sure, I've realized your position to be a very immoral one for a while. If you're really suffering as much about concession as much as you claim you are, consider it a message from your conscience to change. You've been inflicting this on yourself.

The feeling of loss of something is proportional to the value of that thing. It's as if you said that romantic heartbreak is immoral because it's something that people are inflicting on themselves. It's not immoral, it's reacting to the loss of something that is experienced as highly valuable.

If it didn't hurt, it would mean nothing special was lost.

You have the cause and effect of my statement backwards. I'm not saying that your suffering is the reason you should believe your position to be immoral, people suffer for many different reasons. I'm saying that your suffering could be caused by your awareness of the moral issues of your position. Many people feel bad for things they know are wrong.