Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[tbhp]

None of this has any effect on society at large.

Society at large is nothing but the sum of individuals being hurt by specific things.

Also, just because a harm is minor doesn't mean it ceases to be a moral issue. What sort of logic is that? Harms of all intensities are real.

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.

Those are your feelings and opinions. I'd rather be physically or financially harmed than have an important game conceded on me.

You are basically declaring that because not being able to concede wouldn't be a big deal for you, my side of the issue is not a big deal either, which makes no logical sense.

You are all in all just proving my point that it's not as important for you as it is for me. In that case, why don't you agree with the side that it would be preferable to ban conceding, if losing the option to concede is such a non issue for you?

[Archisian]

I'd rather be physically or financially harmed than have an important game conceded on me.

Okay, at this point, I’m done discussing this because anyone who makes this kind of absolutely absurd statement is either trolling or is suffering from mental illness and needs some help.

[tbhp]

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?

There is nothing unstated about the end state of a game. This is the point that you implicitly agree to reach when you start a game. At least, that's how it is in real life, since board games exist. Just because this site decided to make that point the halfway point doesn't mean it is a logical decision we have to agree with.

[tbhp]

I'd rather be physically or financially harmed than have an important game conceded on me.

Okay, at this point, I’m done discussing this because anyone who makes this kind of absolutely absurd statement is either trolling or is suffering from mental illness and needs some help.

That makes me wonder how you treat people in real life who are different from you.

[MarkSteere]

There is nothing unstated about the end state of a game. This is the point that you implicitly agree to reach when you start a game. At least, that's how it is in real life, since board games exist. Just because this site decided to make that point the halfway point doesn't mean it is a logical decision we have to agree with.

Nope. There's no implicit agreement to play to the bitter end in real life. Not if Chess tournaments are part of real life.

The BGA 50% rule is even more than it has to be in real life. They do that to prevent ranking manipulation by sockpuppets. In real life, the implicit agreement is that you're free to concede at any time between the first turn and the last possible turn. Welcome to the real world.

[tbhp]

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.

I have no idea why you would think something like that. You are the most elusive poster on this site to me, because you regularly say things I can't make sense of.

If that wasn't clear, I suffer from conceding because it means the loss of a game I deeply care about. That shouldn't be a hard concept to understand.

[tbhp]

There is nothing unstated about the end state of a game. This is the point that you implicitly agree to reach when you start a game. At least, that's how it is in real life, since board games exist. Just because this site decided to make that point the halfway point doesn't mean it is a logical decision we have to agree with.

Nope. There's no implicit agreement to play to the bitter end in real life. Not if Chess tournaments are part of real life.

The BGA 50% rule is even more than it has to be in real life. They do that to prevent ranking manipulation by sockpuppets. In real life, the implicit agreement is that you're free to concede at any time between the first turn and the last possible turn. Welcome to the real world.

The chess example has been debunked many times as not being analogous to most games. I'm fine myself with concession in chess. If my way to victory is obvious and means having to wipe out most of my opponent's board, it's probably more enjoyable for both players to avoid that.

Most games would be unnatural to concede before the end, and your denial of that is just trying to make yourself feel better about your desire to concede.

[Archisian]

I'd rather be physically or financially harmed than have an important game conceded on me.

Okay, at this point, I’m done discussing this because anyone who makes this kind of absolutely absurd statement is either trolling or is suffering from mental illness and needs some help.

That makes me wonder how you treat people in real life who are different from you.

Says the person who just said they are okay with putting their physical and financial safety at risk all to make sure someone doesn’t concede a board game.

Yeah. Totally normal opinion to have.

[MarkSteere]

Let me ask you this. In real life play, why would you even want to manipulate someone who clearly wants to concede to keep playing? This is fun for you? Sitting across from someone looking at the ceiling, looking at their watch, glum expression, bored out of their mind... And you have to keep reminding them, "Your turn." " Your turn..." so they can focus just long enough to push a piece somewhere. I just can't imagine how empty a person's life would have to be to find something like that entertaining. Maybe there's a sadistic component. Like you're amusing yourself by tormenting your opponent and rubbing their loss in their face. "See? I win." "See? I still win."

[Meeplelowda]

I'd rather be physically or financially harmed than have an important game conceded on me.

Okay, at this point, I’m done discussing this because anyone who makes this kind of absolutely absurd statement is either trolling or is suffering from mental illness and needs some help.

This is a quite useful tool when things reach this point: https://boardgamearena.com/forum/ucp.ph ... &mode=foes