No quit, only concede

[ollyfish2002]

hi,
I just think when someone quits a game for any reason, he/she concedes the victory to the others players. If there is a in-game reason, he/she can proposed the collective abandon.
No really needs for a quit button ?
No need to give penalties for quitters.
my2p

[sourisdudesert]

For 3+ players game you obviously cannot concede because it ruins the game of your opponents.

For 2 players game, you have to play a game until the end, or explicitly concede. Otherwise this is impolite.

[diamant]

I just think when someone quits a game for any reason, he/she concedes the victory to the others players.

I don't care this kind of victory, which is not the expected aim of a game.
If you are not sure to finish a game, don't join the table. I allways refuse collective abandon for personal reasons. More particularly, when somebody makes blackmail about thinking time.

[ollyfish2002]

Why conceding is different from quitting the game for the others players? Some losers quit without a word.

[Jest Phulin]

2 player game:
"I can see that no matter what I do, I am going to lose this game and you, my single opponent, are going to win. As ranking is determined solely by wins and losses (and not by score during the game) I will concede this game so as to not waste either my time nor yours. Congratulations on the win."
This is conceding, and is generally acceptable.

Some people want the definite victory, and will request the game be played out. This does waste the player's time, as it could be avoided. However, it only wastes future time, and players know the time will be wasted.

2+ player game:
"The table, as a whole, is not having fun. While we have some time invested in this game, the amount of time required to finish it is not worth the prestige nor ranking we as a group will gain. Let's cut our losses now."
This is proposing to abandon the game collectively, and depends on the group at the table. Again, generally acceptable, but sometimes isn't (especially when the purpose is "I can't win, so if I can get everyone to quit I'll not have a loss, and I'll threaten poor sportsmanship if you don't agree.").

3+ player game:
"I can see that no matter what I do, I am not going to win. Ranking is based on how all players finish, but since I can't be first, I don't care how I finish. I also don't care about the time others have already invested in this game, and how the game mechanics change if a player drops out. I'm leaving."
This is quitting a game in progress, unacceptable, and is penalized by lowering reputation automatically. Some people have this attitude and try to avoid the penalty by proposing to abandon the game. It still falls under unacceptable behavior.

Yes, all actions are ending the game before the game's end conditions are met. However, there are differences in intent and how it affects others, and those differences are important.

[Call me Ishmael]

Occasionally, an emergency will come up and I must leave a game in progress. I will propose to abandon the game collectively. I tell them in chat that I have no choice but to leave.

Usually the others are understanding and agree to abandon. Sometimes one player will decide that I need to be punished and refuse, knowing that the game is ruined anyway. I turn off my smartphone and deal with my emergency, leaving the remaining players there to patiently watch my clock run out. Later I give the hardnose a red thumb.

[ollyfish2002]

@jest phulin
You perfectly described the problems.
Asking to abandon game is one possibility if you have a out-of-the-game reason.
Quitting is not fair.
IRL, you don't go away from the table when you lose unless you are not playing with friends (like in western movies).
That is why I thought to remove "quit" option for only "concede" option.
You want to go away because you lose = give a win to the other"s" player"s".
You have a good reason : asked to abandon, most of the players will understand.
If not, concede the game and as said by Call me Ishmael, give a red thumb to the unfair.