forfeit

[nik592]

Considering the original question was if a player could concede without penalty in the first place, no, most people would not assume the "without penalty" was some unrelated segment.

Except everyone here knows that the opposite player saying yes or no has obviously zero bearing on whether it's possible to concede without penalty. You keep ignoring this point of common sense.

Possibly most people who are regulars on the forum and answer questions for others, but NOT the OP. Hence their asking about their options.

If you want to advocate for the courtesy of asking before conceding, you can phrase it like (italics used to indicate my changes to your original statement):

"You can concede without penalty, however, I think it is courteous to ask your opponent if they are ok with this. If they say no, then the game will go on after your travel and you hopefully won't have to worry about being kicked out."

Your statement implies the OP needs permission to concede or else there will be a penalty. It also assumes that just because a player says they don't want you to concede means they won't change their mind about kicking you out at some later point. Hopefully they wouldn't, but the OP should understand that leaving the game going puts them at risk of receiving a penalty if the other player decides to kick them. Conceding ensures no penalty. The OP can then decide what risk they prefer to endure.

To phrase it as you have done is more than advocating for your agenda - your statement misleads people into believing they need another player's permission to concede without penalty. Whether you agree with the moral side of concession does not justify you trying to force others to behave as you want by implying things that aren't true.

[Jellby]

I wonder if you also need permission from other 3rd parties not playing at the table.

Spectators may want to see the game played to the end, and not have it ruined by one player conceding.
Other players possibly competing for Arena or rankings may want to have the game last as long as possible, so you play fewer games and they can play more. Your conceding early ruins their chances.
Everyone else, even future players signing up years from now) will possibly want to be able to see the game completed to the end, so they can replay it and learn from all actions, and not have their learning experience ruined by one player conceding with no explanation (because chat is not visible in replays).

[tbhp]

Except everyone here knows that the opposite player saying yes or no has obviously zero bearing on whether it's possible to concede without penalty. You keep ignoring this point of common sense.

Possibly most people who are regulars on the forum and answer questions for others, but NOT the OP. Hence their asking about their options.

If OP were to believe that what the other player says has any bearing on their question, I'm sorry but that's just naive. And like I explained, a tiny bit of reading comprehension when reading my whole comment would point that this is not how how this particular bit is supposed to be interpreted.

OP was wondering about the technicalities of how to concede without penalty. I'm sure they never thought that what the other player might say would have anything to do with it. And like I said, I knew other people would answer their question. The goal of my post was to address the urgent matter at hand, which is that they shouldn't concede without asking first.

Also, you and Ceaseless are criticizing my comment even though you understood it perfectly, on behalf of OP who supposedly would be confused by it, but OP hasn't even replied anything to me. You are the only ones apparently taking issue with it. So it comes off like you are being willfully obtuse.

[tbhp]

I wonder if you also need permission from other 3rd parties not playing at the table.

Spectators may want to see the game played to the end, and not have it ruined by one player conceding.
Other players possibly competing for Arena or rankings may want to have the game last as long as possible, so you play fewer games and they can play more. Your conceding early ruins their chances.
Everyone else, even future players signing up years from now) will possibly want to be able to see the game completed to the end, so they can replay it and learn from all actions, and not have their learning experience ruined by one player conceding with no explanation (because chat is not visible in replays).

That's why I don't think it's ever right to concede, ideally speaking. But I have to prioritize my arguments. If I start telling people they should never concede even if everyone in the game is okay with it, that might not be very well received, and people would just end up listening to me even less.

Your point about Arena makes no sense though, because that person would be against the conceding for poor sportsmanship reasons, nothing to do with keeping the integrity of the game intact. So that would not be a valid reason to be against conceding.

[Jellby]

So that would not be a valid reason to be against conceding.

Sorry, I forgot that you are the judge of what is or is not a valid reason for conceding.

So I think we can agree on: Ask tbhp: if he says yes, then you can concede without penalty (if it's a 2-player game, with at least 50% progression).

[Meeplelowda]

So I think we can agree on: Ask tbhp: if he says yes, then you can concede without penalty (if it's a 2-player game, with at least 50% progression).

I am imaging a world in which BGA implements a framework change so that all clicks on the "Concede" button across the entire site cause a DM to be sent to tbhp for it to be approved. The decision must be accompanied by a written summary of the reason, after reviewing the replay (BGA would build a third-party replay function for in-progress games for this purpose). Of course, processing the approvals would preempt making any moves in a turn-based game or starting a new real-time game.

[BarnardsStar]

OP was wondering about the technicalities of how to concede without penalty. I'm sure they never thought that what the other player might say would have anything to do with it. And like I said, I knew other people would answer their question. The goal of my post was to address the urgent matter at hand, which is that they shouldn't concede without asking first.

Let’s go to the VAR … OP asked:

forgot i was travelling soon and the plane ride is going to be long. im afraid the time will run out when im in flight. is there a way to forfeit a game in-advance without getting penalty?

And you replied:

Ask your opponent if they are okay with you forfeiting. If yes, then you can concede without penalty. If no, then the game will go on after your travel and you won't have to worry about being kicked out. In both cases, everyone is happy.

(These are the entirety of both posts, FWIW.)

This was OP’s first ever post on these boards, and they’ve only a BGA member for less than three weeks. You have no way of knowing what they do and don’t know. They literally asked if there was “a way to forfeit a game in-advance without getting penalty”. Now, everybody’s been ignoring the “in-advance” part, and I’m not entirely sure what that means (are they in a tournament and need to forfeit games that haven’t happened yet?), but the fact remains that they were asking if there was a way.

You then basically told them (remember, they are a newbie) that the way to do it was to ask them. It was an extremely misleading post designed (as you admit) solely to pushing your agenda and not actually to help the new user. All it would have taken was a slight change in wording to be an actually helpful post. Something like “Yes, if it’s a 2-player game past the 50% point — but consider that, if you talk to your opponent and they’re ok with you going negative, you might not have to concede at all!” That would push your agenda and be helpful at the same time. It would be obvious it was not a direct answer to the question, even to a totally new user to the site.

This is all people are trying to tell you.

[Meeplelowda]

Now, everybody’s been ignoring the “in-advance” part

Maybe to a first order approximation of "everybody."

Has the game already started?

This is why I considered the case of whether this was a tournament situation where the game hasn't (hadn't?) actually started yet. We haven't heard back from the OP who never said when exactly this decision needed to be made (only that it was "soon"), so this may all be moot.

[BarnardsStar]

Now, everybody’s been ignoring the “in-advance” part

Maybe to a first order approximation of "everybody."

Apologies; I should stop making blanket statements like that or at least try to review the thread before doing so.

[Cile]

Also, you and Ceaseless are criticizing my comment even though you understood it perfectly, on behalf of OP who supposedly would be confused by it, but OP hasn't even replied anything to me. You are the only ones apparently taking issue with it. So it comes off like you are being willfully obtuse.

Ya guys, tbhp would never do something like argue on behalf of someone else (like a fictional third party that doesn't even exist and would just happen to be completely devistated
if you took an action tbhp doesn't personally approve of).