End game quitting - bad form.

[Archisian]

Conceding is the same as quitting. It’s just quitting while admitting defeat.

So, the player MUST continue to play in an inevitable defeat?

How selfish of you.

[Archisian]

Of course you have every right to concede the game at the last move. I wouldn't go as far as the OP in saying that this is "bad form". But you shouldn't assume that there is something wrong with players like the OP who prefer that a game be played to its natural finish.

It's fine to have a preference. The problem is when people with this preference want to start forcing it onto everyone. Games should err on being casual and convenient for the baseline player. Forcing EVERYONE to play to a natural finish, even when you know the game was lost in the first third of the game, is pure selfishness. And even at the end of the game, does it really matter? The winner wins. So, now everyone has to accommodate them and let them have the win that they want?

Again, pure selfishness.

[BrookeLynn95]

Completely agree that these quitters are bad mannered/ bad form; I suggest you use your thumbs down and report to help our community improve. Best wishes.

Interesting, because what I consider bad form is when people block other people

[RandomUN]

Completely agree that these quitters are bad mannered/ bad form; I suggest you use your thumbs down and report to help our community improve. Best wishes.

Reporting players for conceding a game is against the moderation rules of BGA. If you attempt to report a player for quitting a game (not conceding), you receive this message:

"The first player to quit a game in progress receives a leave penalty and an ELO penalty corresponding to a game loss. Thus, there is no need to report this player (although you may want to give the player a red thumb if they quit intentionally)."

Conceding ≠ quitting. This player has acknowledged their loss, given their opponent the win, and gave themselves and their opponent more time for another game.

You may not like that they conceded, but it is a built-in and accepted option here on BGA. Reporting players that opt to concede to moderators wastes the time of moderators and can lead to your ability to report being revoked.

You can certainly choose to give them a red thumb. A red thumb can be given for any reason. Do not pretend, however, that doing so is "helping our community."

Every red thumb given makes it so two players cannot play in the same game on any table of any game. Every red thumb you give reduces the number of players that can be matched at a table, causing matchmaking to take longer.

Giving a player a red thumb because they said "you win" seems to me to be much more bad mannered. You're ascribing intent to the player you cannot possibly know and judging them by your own standards, which they neither agreed to nor are the accepted standards of BGA.

Review the numerous bug reports and forum posts on conceding where the practice has been upheld every time. Then please reconsider what it is that actually helps our community.

[Archisian]

Reporting players for conceding a game is against the moderation rules of BGA. If you attempt to report a player for quitting a game (not conceding), you receive this message:

"The first player to quit a game in progress receives a leave penalty and an ELO penalty corresponding to a game loss. Thus, there is no need to report this player (although you may want to give the player a red thumb if they quit intentionally)."

Conceding ≠ quitting. This player has acknowledged their loss, given their opponent the win, and gave themselves and their opponent more time for another game.

You may not like that they conceded, but it is a built-in and accepted option here on BGA. Reporting players that opt to concede to moderators wastes the time of moderators and can lead to your ability to report being revoked.

You can certainly choose to give them a red thumb. A red thumb can be given for any reason. Do not pretend, however, that doing so is "helping our community."

Every red thumb given makes it so two players cannot play in the same game on any table of any game. Every red thumb you give reduces the number of players that can be matched at a table, causing matchmaking to take longer.

Giving a player a red thumb because they said "you win" seems to me to be much more bad mannered. You're ascribing intent to the player you cannot possibly know and judging them by your own standards, which they neither agreed to nor are the accepted standards of BGA.

Review the numerous bug reports and forum posts on conceding where the practice has been upheld every time. Then please reconsider what it is that actually helps our community.

I also think the red thumb system needs to be tweaked a bit, too. Since people can red thumb someone for any reason, people who want to be petty or have some other arbitrary reason can red thumb without needing to provide any evidence of wrongdoing. They can even do it if they just don't like the person's username or color of it if they wanted to. And all it does is, as you said, make matchmaking take longer.

[BrookeLynn95]

I hate when people concede once the last turn is announced, it would take 5 seconds to pick a route to claim and let the game finish and be scored. I wish that if people do this the game would reveal what their routes were and score the game rather than having to sit through a game replay to find out.

I sort of understand it if they know they have lost but I take too long to pick the optimum last turn (I don't know their routes aren't finished) So I understand that. But I feel it's a bit like being a bad loser otherwise.

Why is quitting penalised with bad karma, but conceding at this point is fine. What is the difference between quitting and conceding a two player game anyway?

Why is it bad form? I concede all the time. I know when I've lost. I'm not going to continue to waste my time. You receive your full points and I get to move on to something else. It's simple. It's not quitting, it is saying "uncle" lol

[ampfaff]

I also think the red thumb system needs to be tweaked a bit, too. Since people can red thumb someone for any reason, people who want to be petty or have some other arbitrary reason can red thumb without needing to provide any evidence of wrongdoing. They can even do it if they just don't like the person's username or color of it if they wanted to. And all it does is, as you said, make matchmaking take longer.

I completely disagree. That's part of the point of the system is that you don't have to have a valid reason. There need not be any official wrongdoing. Most of the people I have given a red thumb to didn't do anything officially wrong. Most of my red thumbs have been to people that play too slow, even if they managed not to get a time penalty. Or people who play with the sole intention of blocking, without trying to build their own routes. Neither of those things are "wrong" according to the rules but I don't like to play with those people and I'm glad I have the option not to.

Now, not liking someone's user name or color does seem like a petty reason to red thumb, but I doubt the majority of people are doing it for those types of reasons.

[Wistama]

In general, I agree with the comments that see nothing wrong with an opponent’s conceding. Get the Elo points, save time, etc.

Recently, though, I’ve had a few games in which the opponent conceded when the final turn was announced. In that specific case, conceding is unfair/bad sportsmanship/deplorable/whatever. It saves almost no time, but it deprives me of my opportunity to learn more about TTR by seeing what my opponent’s tickets were.

I’m still a novice compared to many people here. I often look at the map and reflect on how the game developed, now that I know his or her tickets. For example, I don’t block much, but I like getting the feedback – did I err by throwing that block? Did I err by not throwing a block I was considering? I like to be able to do this without replaying the whole game.

[robozgirl]

I concede when I'm big time losing. Who cares. You won. Take your victory and play another game. I have conceded that you won, I'm done. I want to go play another game. I don't want to wait to play out my loss. My time is just as limited to play as yours and I want to play as much as I can. I concede when I'm blocked from getting my big tickets or when someone plays really fast and I have a ton of trains left and incomplete tickets. It's not worth my time to let you see everything "play" out. You won. PERIOD.PERIOD. PERIOD.

[Wistama]

I concede when I'm big time losing. Who cares. You won. Take your victory and play another game. I have conceded that you won, I'm done. I want to go play another game. I don't want to wait to play out my loss. My time is just as limited to play as yours and I want to play as much as I can. I concede when I'm blocked from getting my big tickets or when someone plays really fast and I have a ton of trains left and incomplete tickets. It's not worth my time to let you see everything "play" out. You won. PERIOD.PERIOD. PERIOD.

What do you think about the situation I mentioned -- conceding when the final turn is announced? Instead of conceding, you could just click twice to draw cards. The time you save by conceding is minimal to nonexistent.

In other situations, I agree with you.