Please Let Me Concede

[Archisian]

Think of it like this. I'm an atheist. So when I hear Christians tell me that I should accept Jesus Christ because he died for my sins, well, I didn't ask for it. Why do I then owe eternal fealty?

Well, to use a perhaps ironic metaphor... you're preaching to the choir on this.

Haha, good one.

[Archisian]

"Decided to impose"?

The player decided to continue playing. Nothing was imposed upon you. This is absurd.

So you think the whole "I'm doing this for you", even though I didn't want nor desire something like that from, is unproblematic?

Yes, that's exactly how I view it.

Mmkay. Just have to disagree on that one.

[Archisian]

When you see a sand castle on the beach, do you trample it for the fun of it? Or do you refrain yourself because you know someone built it and would be saddened to see it destroyed? Not a crazy idea, I think. The idea that it's weird for someone to care about a stranger's well being is what is weird.

The analogy is more like this:

Opponent: "This sandcastle sucks."

Me: "I don't care if you break it down."

Opponent: "Nah, I'm not going to. I never do that and I'm keeping this up for you."

Me: "Okay... if you want to leave it up, that's fine. But I'm telling you, if you don't like it, you can just tear it down."

Opponent: "No! I'm keeping it for you!"

Me: "But I just said---"

Opponent: "FOR YOU!"

Me: "k."

None of what they said or did suggests that they don't care about winning or losing. Probably most people hate losing here. This doesn't mean that any basic decency they have for their opponent suddenly goes out of the window when they lose. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

I was just speaking generally. I was talking about that specific person. Maybe they do or maybe they don't. It was mostly to dismiss a point people usually bring up before someone said it.

[lefalaf]

This will probably fall on deaf ears, but it is also against the rules to leave a game in progress:

What is the code of conduct?
On Board Game Arena, you should not:
Leave a game in progress on purpose.

https://boardgamearena.com/faq?anchor=f ... sofconduct

[tbhp]

The analogy is more like this:

I mean, even if you told me I'm allowed to break your castle, it would still feel wrong for me to destroy something you built. You are free to destroy it yourself if you want, but I'm not gonna be the one doing it.

It's a similar thing here. Even though they may be playing against someone who doesn't care, people are still going to have their own ideas of what is the proper way to treat an opponent's game.

Also, you keep emphasizing "for you" in your dialogue, making the whole thing sound absurd when you put it like that, but I don't see where the other player said something to that effect. They said that they feel it diminishes your win, which is a personal opinion that remains true to them regardless of whether you see things the same way or not.

I was just speaking generally. I was talking about that specific person. Maybe they do or maybe they don't. It was mostly to dismiss a point people usually bring up before someone said it.

But in all the discussions on this topic, I don't remember anyone saying that they don't care about losing and winning. It's always you who brings it up and who acts as if you care about it whereas others supposedly don't. It seems as if you interpret the various reasons given not to concede as meaning that the person doesn't also care about whether they win or lose.

[Archisian]

But in all the discussions on this topic, I don't remember anyone saying that they don't care about losing and winning. It's always you who brings it up and who acts as if you care about it whereas others supposedly don't. It seems as if you interpret the various reasons given not to concede as meaning that the person doesn't also care about whether they win or lose.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49899
From Txamorris99: Trust me, I know it’s easy to mistake this for being a sore loser, but it’s really not about winning or losing. You win some, you lose some—that’s just how games work. I actually enjoy seeing when my opponent gets a lucky board and everything falls into place. It’s fun to watch.

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgamearena ... _annoying/
From Additional_Ad_6722: Wait really? Do you mean for tournaments or arena, or even just normal games - I always thought it was bad form, but I guess I don’t really always play to hone an optimal strategy — I’d definitely prefer if people finish not for an Instagram moment but because I enjoy the games for the sake of games!

https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgamearena ... tsmanship/
From TomRhodesMusic: Most folks don't just play boardgames to win them, they play them for the experience of playing a game with another person. In that experience one may win and others might lose, but that winning and losing is just a part of the full experience.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47007 (From my post)
From yodamus: Easy. Quit worrying about winning or losing. Have fun. Enjoy the game.

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... &start=180
From tbhp (you): The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

Do I need some more examples? Though I suspect the examples I gave probably aren't sufficient in some way.

But again, I didn't assume that this particular player didn't care about winning or losing. Actually I think that player did care because they told me how much the game sucked for them. The point is that some people might chime in to say "It's not about winning or losing." I interpret this as winning and losing doesn't really matter. Maybe I have the wrong understanding of this common phrasing. It's just something I have often come across on here, Reddit and other places like Facebook.

[Archisian]

I mean, even if you told me I'm allowed to break your castle, it would still feel wrong for me to destroy something you built. You are free to destroy it yourself if you want, but I'm not gonna be the one doing it.

It's a similar thing here. Even though they may be playing against someone who doesn't care, people are still going to have their own ideas of what is the proper way to treat an opponent's game.

Also, you keep emphasizing "for you" in your dialogue, making the whole thing sound absurd when you put it like that, but I don't see where the other player said something to that effect. They said that they feel it diminishes your win, which is a personal opinion that remains true to them regardless of whether you see things the same way or not.

Fair enough. It could be just the wording they used and it could have been phrased better. It was just jarring to me at that moment because it seemed like they were saying they were doing me a favor by staying in the game. If it is their principle to never concede even when the conclusion was essentially decided a third of the game in, then by all means, go for it. But wouldn't you also say that them complaining about game sucking because they had a crappy starting hand sort of negates that? Or exposes something more?

[tbhp]

I mean, even if you told me I'm allowed to break your castle, it would still feel wrong for me to destroy something you built. You are free to destroy it yourself if you want, but I'm not gonna be the one doing it.

It's a similar thing here. Even though they may be playing against someone who doesn't care, people are still going to have their own ideas of what is the proper way to treat an opponent's game.

Also, you keep emphasizing "for you" in your dialogue, making the whole thing sound absurd when you put it like that, but I don't see where the other player said something to that effect. They said that they feel it diminishes your win, which is a personal opinion that remains true to them regardless of whether you see things the same way or not.

Fair enough. It could be just the wording they used and it could have been phrased better. It was just jarring to me at that moment because it seemed like they were saying they were doing me a favor by staying in the game. If it is their principle to never concede even when the conclusion was essentially decided a third of the game in, then by all means, go for it. But wouldn't you also say that them complaining about game sucking because they had a crappy starting hand sort of negates that? Or exposes something more?

I agree that if they were making it sound like they were doing you a favor, that's wrong of them because it puts you in a position where you owe them even though you didn't ask for it and don't even agree with the whole ideology of it. In that case, I understand why you didn't like it.

Generally though, people who play to the end even though they are losing are just doing what they think is right, they probably don't care what you think of them. They are just doing their thing and that's what you should treat it as.

On the last question, I don't see your point. Them wanting to voice their frustration about how the game is going is a totally separate issue from their views on conceding. They can do that and also find it totally normal to keep playing to the end without it being a favor or something like that, because it's what is right and natural in their worldview.

[tbhp]

Do I need some more examples? Though I suspect the examples I gave probably aren't sufficient in some way.

Those were interesting reads. Some of those people seem to be viewing winning and losing as secondary to other elements of the game. I didn't deny that those players exist. I just don't understand why you bring up the topic when the discussion is about conceding. A person listing reasons for why they don't like conceding doesn't mean that they are someone who doesn't care about winning and who would agree with the people in those threads. I certainly don't agree with them (at least some of the examples, in the Reddit threads most of the users seem to be on the same line as me).

Regarding my own comment, you can see that I never said I don't care about winning and losing, I said the opposite, that I don't care about just that but about other things too. The difference seems to be that for you winning or losing is all you care about. Which is fine, but it seems like anytime someone criticizes conceding by arguing that games aren't just a matter of who wins and who loses, you seem to interpret that as meaning they don't care about if they win or they lose, which may be the furthest from the truth. The people who care most about those things are often among the most competitive.

The point is that some people might chime in to say "It's not about winning or losing." I interpret this as winning and losing doesn't really matter. Maybe I have the wrong understanding of this common phrasing.

That sentence could have very different meanings depending on the context. Maybe they mean that the reasons why conceding is bad relate to how games are not just about winning and losing (the "just" here is crucial). Or they could be saying that for them games are not really about winning or losing.

[Archisian]

Those were interesting reads. Some of those people seem to be viewing winning and losing as secondary to other elements of the game. I didn't deny that those players exist. I just don't understand why you bring up the topic when the discussion is about conceding. A person listing reasons for why they don't like conceding doesn't mean that they are someone who doesn't care about winning and who would agree with the people in those threads. I certainly don't agree with them (at least some of the examples, in the Reddit threads most of the users seem to be on the same line as me).

Regarding my own comment, you can see that I never said I don't care about winning and losing, I said the opposite, that I don't care about just that but about other things too. The difference seems to be that for you winning or losing is all you care about. Which is fine, but it seems like anytime someone criticizes conceding by arguing that games aren't just a matter of who wins and who loses, you seem to interpret that as meaning they don't care about if they win or they lose, which may be the furthest from the truth. The people who care most about those things are often among the most competitive.

You're probably right. Most of the time, I could be just misinterpreting based on my own view of how I play games. I can concede that.

However, the comment from yodaramus saying for me to not care about winning or losing seems to suggest that it's something they don't really value themselves. Otherwise, why try to give that to me as advice?

That sentence could have very different meanings depending on the context. Maybe they mean that the reasons why conceding is bad relate to how games are not just about winning and losing (the "just" here is crucial). Or they could be saying that for them games are not really about winning or losing.

That could be true as well. Context is often lost a lot of times when discussing matters based purely on text.