BGA ettiquette and chat

[FrankJones]

I'm sure the replies are going to be fun, lol.

Everything you said is reasonable.

After a game, if I lost, I will usually give acknowledgement to my opponent on a game well played. If I don't always choose the best wording, well, I need more practice because I rarely lose. (Heh. I couldn't resist throwing in a flex there. )

If I win, I say nothing and wait for the other person to say something. If the opponent takes the time to write something specific praising my play, I'll say something like, "Thank you for the kind words and thank you for the game, see you around". I tend to run into the same opponents fairly regularly because of my games having smaller player pools.

If the person says something short and simple like "gg" or "ty for the game" I'll just say "likewise", or something like that.

[tbhp]

I'm someone who despises what I call "fake politeness". What I mean by that is I extremely dislike when people do actions disingenuously, either because they are lazy or because it's something they "have to do" despite what the other person feels. Why would anyone waste their time saying or doing something they don't mean? I don't see much difference between this kind of fake politeness and simply lying. I prefer real interactions with real people who actually mean what they say. There are people who are the opposite of me who prefer having people put on a front and say things they don't really mean. I don't understand it at all.

It seems the issue here is that you don't really understand or believe what people mean when they say "gg", because I'm someone who despises "fake politeness" too, and yet I have no issue with the term.

Is it fake politeness when a player gives a handshake to another player at the end of a game? Is it fake politeness when a team acknowledges that the other team won fair and square? I see it as more of a chivalrous act, quite removed from usual pleasantries and social conventions.

If the people saying it didn't mean it, then obviously it would be pointless and undesirable even. But I don't believe that's the case. You may think it's a unnecessary and redundant action, since the game is over and a winner has been declared already, which is a fine perspective. But often times I see the people criticizing it coming from a place where they just don't like "bowing" to the winner or something like that. They perceive it as something degrading, when it's not supposed to be that, in which case the dislike of the convention says something about them, not about the convention.

I've heard the arguments that "gg" is just shorthand for all the long things that they want to actually say. Well, that signals to me that they simply can't overcome their laziness to say what they want, which makes their "gg" worthless at best and insulting at worst. I'm not worth being told what you actually think? Well, that would just make me think poorly of you in my eyes.

You probably don't take issue with other expressions and gestures that have commonly understood meanings. I mean, part of the point of language is that it allows us to convey what we mean and what we feel in a concise manner.

Of course, that's not always the case. When we want to be poetic, we probably won't be too interested in conciseness. But in the context of acknowledging the result and your opponent at the end of a game, a brief statement seems to fit the situation, and people have a common understanding of what sort of message and emotion is conveyed through those two letters. You are the only who sounds confused and seems to project interpretations of fake pleasantry that are not normally part of its meaning.

And if people have something more specific they want to say, nothing is stopping them from saying "gg" along with some other sentence. I do it all the time. But if you don't have anything to say that seems like it would be interesting enough to warrant starting an exchange, there's no reason to force yourself to say something. Now that would be fake.

When it comes to saying "gg" first when you have won the game, this is further not taking into account the opponent and what they might think or feel. Games are about competition. Winning and losing matters. There is no benefit to losing other than "Well, I can't do that again." The winner receives all the benefit, especially if it's in a tournament or there is a championship on the line. So the loser has to deal with failing to achieve the goal of winning the game (whatever the stakes) and now further has to deal with the winner telling them a lazy "gg", all while the loser has to just grin and accept it like it's no big deal, lest they incur social consequences for not reciprocating a meaningless gesture.

This is part of the point of saying "gg". Like I said, it acknowledges the result of the game, so if you win and say "gg", this is also a way to say you are fully conscious of the effect the loss must have of them, of the disappointment they must feel. That even though the fair outcome of the game was reached, you understand what it's like to be in their position.

You say saying "gg" is like telling the loser it's not a big deal. I say it's the opposite, it's a solemn gesture that acknowledges the game and its stakes and therefore gives importance to what just occurred. If people say nothing, you might be left wondering if the game even meant something to them (I mean, it probably does, but I don't see how saying nothing conveys the idea better than saying something).

When it comes to a loser saying "gg" first, this is just a sign of submission. They accept their defeat. Okay, great? I can clearly see the score sheet that tells me I won, why do I need your acknowledgement of this reality? By not saying "gg". you can't acknowledge you lost or something? Are you worried I'm going to look down on you personally?

This is what I was talking about in regards to people not liking the phrase because they interpret it as bowing to the winner. If you perceive it like that, that's on you, it's how you feel about it and it doesn't come from a good place in my opinion. Acknowledging a loss is not something that should make you feel degraded, and if it does then it sounds like you carry some toxic ideas you should probably reflect on.

You see, most people who say "gg" don't mean it whatsoever. They have zero intentions of having a genuine interaction with their opponent. They do it because they feel they have to, even if they don't want to. How does this make a better community? I've seen some people say that getting mad at "gg" is like getting mad at "Good morning". No, they aren't remotely comparable. A "Good morning" can actually be genuine and heartfelt. "gg" can never be this. Even in person, "gg" is still disingenuous and can never have real meaning.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, it seems the issue is that you don't believe that people are being genuine when they say "gg", and that is even more clear now. It's like the phrase holds no meaning to you, and therefore you can't conceive that other people mean something of value when they say it. But if it holds no meaning for you, that says something about you and your values, it doesn't say something about the phrase. You are just revealing that if you were to say it, it would not be genuine coming from you.

It's kinda like if a person who is never cheerful and never wished good on other people said they don't like conventions like "good morning" because they can't conceive that other people genuinely wish others to have a good day, so when they say it that must be fake. In saying that, they'd just be revealing that they are someone who doesn't feel good feelings towards others.

You say you don't feel that way about "good morning", which I can believe, but you issue with "gg" comes off the same way. It's like the sort of values and emotions and mindsets that are expressed when someone says "gg" are things that are alien to you, they are not parts of your personality, so you project and criticize others for being performative when they say it, because that's what it would be for you if you were forced to say it.

[Archisian]

I'm sure the replies are going to be fun, lol.

Everything you said is reasonable.

After a game, if I lost, I will usually give acknowledgement to my opponent on a game well played. If I don't always choose the best wording, well, I need more practice because I rarely lose. (Heh. I couldn't resist throwing in a flex there. )

If I win, I say nothing and wait for the other person to say something. If the opponent takes the time to write something specific praising my play, I'll say something like, "Thank you for the kind words and thank you for the game, see you around". I tend to run into the same opponents fairly regularly because of my games having smaller player pools.

If the person says something short and simple like "gg" or "ty for the game" I'll just say "likewise", or something like that.

Well... I didn't expect that. Thanks for the nice reply, Mr. Jones. We are often on opposite ends, but I always enjoy my discussions with you.

[Archisian]

It seems the issue here is that you don't really understand or believe what people mean when they say "gg", because I'm someone who despises "fake politeness" too, and yet I have no issue with the term.

I'm not a psychologist nor am I going to say what's in your head, but saying I think I clearly understand when people openly say they do "gg" because they can't be bothered to say what they really think because "it takes too long".

Is it fake politeness when a player gives a handshake to another player at the end of a game? Is it fake politeness when a team acknowledges that the other team won fair and square? I see it as more of a chivalrous act, quite removed from usual pleasantries and social conventions.

Yes, it is, especially when it is enforced by rules, often times with consequences if you don't do it. If you watch actual handshakes after a game, they are quick and are done limply and eye contact is rarely made. This is because for most people, it's just something they have to do and they want to get it over with. If they really meant it, why the extreme brevity? Also, why does a losing team need to outwardly acknowledge that they lost? It's obvious to everyone observing the game/match.

If the people saying it didn't mean it, then obviously it would be pointless and undesirable even. But I don't believe that's the case. You may think it's a unnecessary and redundant action, since the game is over and a winner has been declared already, which is a fine perspective. But often times I see the people criticizing it coming from a place where they just don't like "bowing" to the winner or something like that. They perceive it as something degrading, when it's not supposed to be that, in which case the dislike of the convention says something about them, not about the convention.

When a social convention forces someone to do a performative ritual, lest they want to face consequences, then yeah, that is the definition of being degrading. Expecting a loser to outwardly acknowledge their loss is putting them in a humiliating position, where social convention says that by them doing that, they are doing "the right thing". Why loser wants to go and bow and the victor, or some other equivalent form? Now, if the loser flips out and says that they didn't really lose, then I'd think you'd have a point that it says something about them. Otherwise, the convention itself is the problem.

You probably don't take issue with other expressions and gestures that have commonly understood meanings. I mean, part of the point of language is that it allows us to convey what we mean and what we feel in a concise manner.

Such as?

Of course, that's not always the case. When we want to be poetic, we probably won't be too interested in conciseness. But in the context of acknowledging the result and your opponent at the end of a game, a brief statement seems to fit the situation, and people have a common understanding of what sort of message and emotion is conveyed through those two letters. You are the only who sounds confused and seems to project interpretations of fake pleasantry that are not normally part of its meaning.

Conciseness doesn't equal politeness. "gg" isn't a concise statement. It doesn't convey what actually transpired in the game and the actual feelings of the players involved. How do you tell the difference between someone using it rudely, genuinely, or with no meaning at all? There is no shared common understanding amongst all people. It's only common understanding by those who accept the rules of the ritual . It's something that has to be taught and enforced. A genuinely good and kind person doesn't need to be taught how to be good and kind. They just are. Those who need to do something so that they don't harm their reputation in the eyes of the people around them are not good and kind people.

And if people have something more specific they want to say, nothing is stopping them from saying "gg" along with some other sentence. I do it all the time. But if you don't have anything to say that seems like it would be interesting enough to warrant starting an exchange, there's no reason to force yourself to say something. Now that would be fake.

Then why say anything at all? I'm saying that if someone wants to say something, they should actually say what they think than lazily typing "gg" if they are being genuine. I agree people shouldn't be fake, but if they feel like they want to say something to the other player to commend them, they should put forth more effort into it.

This is part of the point of saying "gg". Like I said, it acknowledges the result of the game, so if you win and say "gg", this is also a way to say you are fully conscious of the effect the loss must have of them, of the disappointment they must feel. That even though the fair outcome of the game was reached, you understand what it's like to be in their position.

You say saying "gg" is like telling the loser it's not a big deal. I say it's the opposite, it's a solemn gesture that acknowledges the game and its stakes and therefore gives importance to what just occurred. If people say nothing, you might be left wondering if the game even meant something to them (I mean, it probably does, but I don't see how saying nothing conveys the idea better than saying something).

No, it absolutely does not, as I pointed out earlier. "gg" conveys none of this. "Good game" doesn't even come close to being conscious of effect a loss has. If it did, again, you'd put a lot more effort than that. Time shouldn't be a factor if you truly want to convey how you feel their disappointment. You are just further demonstrating that "gg" is nothing more than a performative signal, which I reiterate, something that those who have accepted the ritual have convinced themselves of. As for the loser wondering if the game meant something to the winner, I think that's an odd point to bring up. The winner won. Of course it meant something to them. They move up the ladder. They won the championship. Why would a loser think the winner didn't see the game as meaningful?

I also find it really weird to first see "gg" being labeled as nothing more than a simple greeting/farewell/introduction or whatever to now being described as some solemn gesture. Also, you said that "gg" was "cold and neutral". So, which is it? It can't be all these things at the same time. If you do say that it can encompass any and all meanings, then that tells me you and others think that "gg" just means whatever you feel like, which means nothing at all and doesn't accurately convey anything.

This is what I was talking about in regards to people not liking the phrase because they interpret it as bowing to the winner. If you perceive it like that, that's on you, it's how you feel about it and it doesn't come from a good place in my opinion. Acknowledging a loss is not something that should make you feel degraded, and if it does then it sounds like you carry some toxic ideas you should probably reflect on.

Because bowing to the winner is degrading. It is meant to show submission to the other person, regardless whether you like them or not. In East Asian cultures, bowing isn't always meant they genuinely respect the person. They do it because they have to, for if they don't, they will receive consequences from the social hierarchy. They have to bow to their bosses or people older than them, even if they hate the other individual. Bowing is a sign of a subordinate showing their place to the superior. The same applies here.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, it seems the issue is that you don't believe that people are being genuine when they say "gg", and that is even more clear now. It's like the phrase holds no meaning to you, and therefore you can't conceive that other people mean something of value when they say it. But if it holds no meaning for you, that says something about you and your values, it doesn't say something about the phrase. You are just revealing that if you were to say it, it would not be genuine coming from you.

Absolutely, which why I would never just say "gg". I'd prefer to actually interact with the other person or say nothing at all. And no, I don't believe most people are genuine when they say "gg" because, as I have said throughout this discussion, if they were genuine, they would put more effort. Time shouldn't restrict someone from saying their genuine feelings.

It's kinda like if a person who is never cheerful and never wished good on other people said they don't like conventions like "good morning" because they can't conceive that other people genuinely wish others to have a good day, so when they say it that must be fake. In saying that, they'd just be revealing that they are someone who doesn't feel good feelings towards others.

You say you don't feel that way about "good morning", which I can believe, but you issue with "gg" comes off the same way. It's like the sort of values and emotions and mindsets that are expressed when someone says "gg" are things that are alien to you, they are not parts of your personality, so you project and criticize others for being performative when they say it, because that's what it would be for you if you were forced to say it.

As I said, "Good morning" is not comparable, because it's much easier to tell if "Good morning" is genuine or not. "Good morning" is usually followed by something else. For example, "Good morning! I hope you're having a great day! Would you like to have breakfast with me?" is much more likely to be genuine than "Good morning, you need to come into work early today to finish your tasks." Sure, the first one could be lying if they well wishes, but the possibility of that decreases based on:

1. Knowing the person.
2. Extra information they give after "Good morning".

If someone just stops at "Good morning", they are most likely doing it because it's a social convention and don't really mean it. That is entirely possible. We are able to differentiate who is or isn't genuine.

"gg" doesn't have that because two letters signifying two words, which can apparently mean anything and everything to the people who say it, cannot tell the entire story. How do you know if I was genuine, gloating in my victory, or just doing it because I feel I have to even though I don't want to? What you and others who accept the ritual are doing is being content with the letters themselves, and not the intention because intention really doesn't matter. Only the performance. I find that to be lazy thinking.

[tbhp]

duplicate

[tbhp]

Yes, it is, especially when it is enforced by rules, often times with consequences if you don't do it. If you watch actual handshakes after a game, they are quick and are done limply and eye contact is rarely made. This is because for most people, it's just something they have to do and they want to get it over with. If they really meant it, why the extreme brevity?

I don't see why wanting it to be quick must mean the person doesn't actually mean it. The point of a handshake is to convey a lot with very little. It's good that people aren't expected to make a long speech to express their feelings after a game. Most people would find it unneeded when the handshake, by convention, is already understood to contain all of that.

Also, why does a losing team need to outwardly acknowledge that they lost? It's obvious to everyone observing the game/match.

It's not something that is absolutely needed. But most people enjoy the convention, so why would they refrain from doing it? For most people, a game is like a narrative, where the handshake after the game is like the epilogue of a good story. It makes people feel good to do it, or see it being done from a spectator perspective. There is not a right or wrong answer to whether it should be done, it's very much a cultural or preference thing. What is wrong is to claim that people who do it are not being genuine, which is projecting how you feel about the gesture on everyone else.

When a social convention forces someone to do a performative ritual, lest they want to face consequences, then yeah, that is the definition of being degrading. Expecting a loser to outwardly acknowledge their loss is putting them in a humiliating position, where social convention says that by them doing that, they are doing "the right thing". Why loser wants to go and bow and the victor, or some other equivalent form? Now, if the loser flips out and says that they didn't really lose, then I'd think you'd have a point that it says something about them. Otherwise, the convention itself is the problem.

I agree that the expectation that everyone should do it is something that can be problematic, and a society should probably have discussions about that. I think things are fairly good on this site, since it's not like people are obligated to do it, although people may not take it well if the "gg" is not returned.

One thing though is that if it's not returned, that's going to draw suspicion. Maybe the person has a good personal reason for not liking it, but there is naturally going to be a suspicion that the reason in question is what I was talking about, that the person just has toxic ideas about what acknowledging a defeat means to them. In which case it would be logical to judge them, because their attitude is not good sportsmanship.

But this seems to reinforce the idea that we should have a wider cultural discussion about it, so that when people don't take part in the handshake or "gg" thing, we don't immediately suspect that they have negative reasons for that.

Such as?

Well, when someone says "I love you" to their partner, do you criticize them for reducing to a single verb the myriad of emotions that they are feeling and that are contained within the meaning of the term?

If people want to be long and poetic about their love for their partner, they can do that. But people aren't always in the mood to do that. And some people just aren't the type to be expressive about their feelings like that. So, the phrase "I love you" serves to convey all those things that a person may not have the time or inclination to express in details. We have a common understanding of what being in love is like, and "love" is the word that encompasses those feelings. The same goes for the term "gg".

Conciseness doesn't equal politeness. "gg" isn't a concise statement. It doesn't convey what actually transpired in the game and the actual feelings of the players involved. There is no shared common understanding amongst all people. It's only common understanding by those who accept the rules of the ritual . It's something that has to be taught and enforced. A genuinely good and kind person doesn't need to be taught how to be good and kind. They just are. Those who need to do something so that they don't harm their reputation in the eyes of the people around them are not good and kind people.

While this is true, language offers us easy ways to reflect how we feel. If a person never uses a certain phrase, it's going to raise suspicion as to why. After all, they don't really have a reason not to. It's like with good morning. If someone never greets people you are gonna wonder what their problem is with the concept.

Your perspective seems very anti-communication, because while our feelings don't need to be put into words in order to exist for us, if you never successfully convey them to others, then they effectively only exist for you, and they won't have an impact on the people around you. We need to communicate in order to be understood, and in order to see if other people are on the same wavelength as we are.

And for all intents on purpose, this seems to be what is happening here. You say that the term "gg" holds no meaning for you. So the existence of the term is extremely useful. It allows me to know that the values and feelings expressed by the term are not a thing for you. It gives me insight into what kind of person you are. Whereas with the people who find the term meaningful, it tells me that we are on the same wavelength, that I can relate to these people and that we have similar perspectives on life and competition.

Then why say anything at all? I'm saying that if someone wants to say something, they should actually say what they think than lazily typing "gg" if they are being genuine. I agree people shouldn't be fake, but if they feel like they want to say something to the other player to commend them, they should put forth more effort into it.

But most of the time, they don't have something to say that is interesting enough to warrant potentially bothering the other person. "gg" is a very short term that is not intrusive because it doesn't expect anything other than maybe return a simple "gg". It's effective in conveying the idea that you're acknowledging the result while taking into account that the person probably isn't interested in starting an actual exchange with a stranger.

If there was more effort, if it was more like an actual sentence, it would create some pressure for the other person to reply something back. But most of the time we aren't looking to start a discussion with an opponent, so there's no need to bother them.

No, it absolutely does not, as I pointed out earlier. "gg" conveys none of this. "Good game" doesn't even come close to being conscious of effect a loss has. If it did, again, you'd put a lot more effort than that.

Then that's clearly an issue of you not understanding the sorts of things that are contained in the meaning of "gg". I tell you "this is what the term is meant for" and you say "no it's not, you need to come up with actual sentences". That's not much of an argument.

It's as if I said that the term "love" contains an implication of romantic feelings and you said "no it doesn't, you need to put more effort into that". At this point you are just denying for no reason what most people understand by the word.

Time shouldn't be a factor if you truly want to convey how you feel their disappointment. You are just further demonstrating that "gg" is nothing more than a performative signal, which I reiterate, something that those who have accepted the ritual have convinced themselves of.

So what would be better to say? When someone just lost, they probably won't be in the mood to hear a long tirade about how they missed a huge opportunity to win an important trophy, but their opponent is empathizing with their disappointment and wishes them to have more luck in the future. I mean, you have to read the room and realize that while those things are true, people don't want to be bothered with a speech like that when they just lost.

Saying "gg" is a way to succinctly convey those thoughts, without the bothering annoying part.

As for the loser wondering if the game meant something to the winner, I think that's an odd point to bring up. The winner won. Of course it meant something to them. They move up the ladder. They won the championship. Why would a loser think the winner didn't see the game as meaningful?

It's less about what would be rational to believe and more about the emotional state of the person who just lost.

If the winner just says nothing and that's it, tournament is over, the person losing may feel they are being left all alone with their feelings and like none of what happened was acknowledged. Whereas if they say "gg", it shows that what happened mattered, a game of importance was played.

Like I said above, you may assume what people think in their heads, but communication serves to actually confirm what they think and feel. Hearing things as opposed to just assuming can help people come to terms with things and feel better.

I also find it really weird to first see "gg" being labeled as nothing more than a simple greeting/farewell/introduction or whatever to now being described as some solemn gesture. Also, you said that "gg" was "cold and neutral". So, which is it? It can't be all these things at the same time. If you do say that it can encompass any and all meanings, then that tells me you and others think that "gg" just means whatever you feel like, which means nothing at all and doesn't accurately convey anything.

I said it's simple in its form, not that the meaning conveyed is simple. It's very deep and complex, and it is solemn, I don't see how that adjective is contradictory.

It is formally cold and neutral, but that doesn't mean the feelings of the people in the situation are. I mean, a phrase like "rest in peace" is intended as cold and neutral, but that doesn't mean the associated feelings will be. It's similar with "gg". It puts an air of solemnity and gravity on something that is likely to have created strong negative feelings for the receiver, and it lets them deal with those feelings on their own terms. In a way, like said above, it would be insensitive to get into a speech about how they must feel and what not. The best thing to do is to be concise, not intrusive. Voice that you are here and understand their pain, and leave it at that.

Because bowing to the winner is degrading. It is meant to show submission to the other person, regardless whether you like them or not. In East Asian cultures, bowing isn't always meant they genuinely respect the person. They do it because they have to, for if they don't, they will receive consequences from the social hierarchy. They have to bow to their bosses or people older than them, even if they hate the other individual. Bowing is a sign of a subordinate showing their place to the superior. The same applies here.

I guess we fundamentally disagree here because I just don't see how acknowledging defeat puts you in a position of submission. I mean sure they won, they finished above you in that regard, but I don't see the idea of submission being present in a handshake or "gg".

If anything, it is something that one may feel during the game itself, when it is becoming clear you opponent is going to win and you may feel crushed by their domination. In this situation I think the term can fit. But after the game is over, I think all those things are left behind. When you are handshaking your opponent you aren't in a mindset of dominating or submitting, you are fully respecting them and acknowledging the result in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

I agree that in some cultures bowing has a meaning of submission, but this makes it all the more clear that we interpret the gesture in sports very differently: I don't see bowing to a superior in East Asian culture to be at all similar to the meaning of a handshake in western sports culture. They hold totally meanings, and in fact this just makes me realize that a handshake actually implies equality. This becomes apparent to me when I contrast it with what the gesture means in your example. In sports, we are all in it together. Even though on this particular day I may have won and you may have lost, we are all here to play a sports or a game that we love and that we want to see fairly reward the person who played the best on that particular day. The concept almost seems like the opposite of what bowing means in some other cultures, where it's all about fixed hierarchies, not merit and unity around a common cause.

"gg" doesn't have that because two letters signifying two words, which can apparently mean anything and everything to the people who say it, cannot tell the entire story. How do you know if I was genuine or gloating in my victory? What you and others who accept the ritual are doing is being content with the letters themselves, and not the intention because intention really doesn't matter. Only the performance. I find that to be lazy thinking.

I think it's clear I care about the meaning behind the gesture. Like I said, if you were forced to say it, it wouldn't be genuine coming from you, so it would hold no meaning for me either. I want the people who say it to be genuine about it. But just because there's no way to tell if they are, doesn't mean we should stop doing it. By this logic, there's a lot of things in life that we can't really be sure about.

In any case, this discussion proves that the term does have a lot of meaning, because it has revealed a lot in how we see things differently on those issues. Now, obviously if people are not genuine when they say it, then meaning is lost. But to the extent that they are, it's a term that allows people to bond over a similar perspective that they share on competition, and that as shown here, can't be automatically assumed to be shared by everyone.