Conceding IS NOT quitting - unfair penalty

[All the gear no idea]

I just got a penalty for receiving "Red Thumbs" due to ...

"Apparently more than 10% of your opponents did not recommend playing with you
The main reason your opponents give is: Quitting games in progress
(This is why your reputation may have decreased)"

I sometime "concede" games when I obviously cannot win or the chance of me winning is VERY small. You know, like in snooker for instance.

Conceding IS NOT quitting ... It's accepting that the other player has won and there's no point in carrying on with the game. If it gets you red thumbs then remove it from the system OR allowing a player to appeal and get it revoked.

[sprockitz]

you are right conceding isn't quitting.

You are wrong, however, to convey that you are getting penalized for conceding, as your stats show a high percentage of quitting games. You've quit 10% of your recent games, this is almost certainly why you are getting so many red thumbs and why your karma has been reduced.

[steve5332]

Agreed, conceding is not quitting. I don't think conceding is one of the listed reasons for giving a red thumb, but quitting is, so your opponents are probably just selecting that as the nearest thing.

As for why they choose to give you a red thumb in the first place. It could be that most of them wanted to play out the game. Taking your example of snooker. If it is your turn, you are 89-0 down with only 30 points plus snookers available, it would be fine to concede. Even expected, in snooker. If I'm still at the table, 15 reds and 15 blacks into a break and heading for my first ever 147 (heh, I wish) and you concede by walking over to the table and racking up for the next game I'd be totally miffed. It would be unacceptable behaviour in snooker. So back to board games. If you concede to someone who is way ahead (through tremendous luck of the dice) they might be upset if you concede and prevent them the chance of making their best ever score in a game. Or, for most people on this site, just denying them the chance to play out the game. Best to just play it out, or ask if they would mind if you conceded. Note also that snooker is quite unusual. You don't get that in most sports. Footballers don't walk off after 70 mins when 5-0 down. Nor do tennis players when two sets and 5-0 games down.

In some games it seems to be acceptable to concede though, Chess being an example. Personally I don't think conceding is wrong and I don't red thumb my opponents for doing it, but I don't concede games myself as I know many people don't like it.

[Tulivuori]

Are you conceding, or just leaving? Also, conceding/leaving multiplayer games is just rude.

[sprockitz]

you can't concede a multi-player game.

There stats clearly show they have quit 10% of there last 100 games. QUIT, not conceded.

[Jest Phulin]

Remember that there are three ways of having a game finish other than the normal end-game condition. All are available from the drop-down menu in the (upper right?) corner of the game table.

1. Abandon the game collectively. This requires ALL active players to agree. The system treats the game as if it never happened -- no karma penalties, no ELO adjustment.

2. Conceding. This is only available for 2-player games, and only once 50% of the game has progressed. In some communities, like chess, this is expected behavior. The system treats the game as if it had been played, with no karma penalties and full ELO adjustment.

3. Quitting. As sprokitz has pointed out, this appears to be what the original poster has done. After agreeing to play the game to its conclusion in order to start the game, they chose to quit. Of the games listed in their reputation with quit penalties, all are multiplayer games. 10 games out of the last 112, with at least 2 opponents per game is an easy way to rack up red thumbs.

These penalties last 60 days:

17 days ago, Whist 22 #196392685 -20☯
17 days ago, Whist 22 #196346547 -20☯
23 days ago, Whist 22 #194890546 -10☯
35 days ago, Whist 22 #192180640 -10☯
44 days ago, Whist 22 #190162674 -20☯
48 days ago, Whist 22 #189228145 -20☯
49 days ago, Whist 22 #189066128 -20☯
52 days ago, Whist 22 #188271208 -20☯
59 days ago, Can't Stop #186666546 -20☯
59 days ago, Whist 22 #186594955 -10☯

(As a side note, in 8 of the games it doesn't look like they even bothered to let the others know they were quitting --- they just left the table and timed out.)


I agree with the original poster in that conceding is not quitting. I do not agree with them that they have been unfairly treated because others do not believe this. There is plenty of evidence that they have earned at least 10% red thumbs through quitting.

[Jellby]

1. Abandon the game collectively.

2. Conceding.

3. Quitting.

And just to make it explicit, being expelled by others due to time out is the same as quitting. But if you use the quit button you get a big warning that you have to confirm, while if you just close the browser and walk away... you get nothing until it's done.

[unclesamb]

Another data point is that by conceding via quitting, the conceder/quitter impacts the other players' ELO rankings--they don't get their full marks if the game doesn't finish properly.

I absolutely give red thumbs to people who leave games before they are finished--as one of the previous posters stated, entering a game is agreeing to finish the game unless there is an actual in-game option for conceding. If you can't bring yourself to finish a game that you're losing, that just makes you a super poor sport, and I don't want to play with you again.

I recently had a player "concede" a game of Lost Ruins of Arnak by passing at the beginning of the last round of the game instead of taking his minimum final 3-5 actions, which threw the game to the person who was in the lead. I consider this almost as much of a "quit" as just leaving the game, and I don't ever want to play with that person again, so I gave them a red thumb. Being a poor loser is something that should give you negative karma points.

[Jest Phulin]

Another data point is that by conceding via quitting, the conceder/quitter impacts the other players' ELO rankings--they don't get their full marks if the game doesn't finish properly.

Please distinguish between quitting and conceding.
Quitting treats the quitter as the single loser of the game, and all other players tied as winners. ELO adjustment is based on the percentage of the game that has been completed.

Conceding treats the conceder as the loser of the game, and the single other player as the winner. The system treats the game as if it had finished completely, with full ELO adjustment to both players. There is absolutely no difference between conceding the game and playing it out to its end in terms of ranking and ELO.

[unclesamb]

Another data point is that by conceding via quitting, the conceder/quitter impacts the other players' ELO rankings--they don't get their full marks if the game doesn't finish properly.

Please distinguish between quitting and conceding.

My point was that the player who started this thread, and many other players, will concede their games BY quitting the game, not by using the in-game "concede" option.

I agree that in a 2-player game, conceding is fine if it's an option, but if a player "concedes" by leaving the game (and/or, in my example, by throwing a multiplayer game), that messes with everybody's ELO scores and is just generally bad sportsmanship. That is the sort of behavior that is worth a red thumb.