forfeit

[tbhp]

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work. You say, "not everything" as though there was some sort of list, yet the only thing there was "conceding without penalty". There are plenty of resources out there that cover how basic conditional statements like "if, then" statements work.

It's language, not a line of code. What would be redundant information in code is often used in language to convey a point. In this case, I was emphasizing that if the answer is yes, they can ethically concede and on top of that they won't get a penalty too, which is good for them.

[Ceaseless]

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work. You say, "not everything" as though there was some sort of list, yet the only thing there was "conceding without penalty". There are plenty of resources out there that cover how basic conditional statements like "if, then" statements work.

It's language, not a line of code. What would be redundant information in code is often used in language to convey a point. In this case, I was emphasizing that if the answer is yes, they can ethically concede and on top of that they won't get a penalty too, which is good for them.

Yes, it's language, probably where code got it from in the first place, it didn't exactly make any wild changes. And the next bit was already covered not so long ago.

Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty

[tbhp]

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work. You say, "not everything" as though there was some sort of list, yet the only thing there was "conceding without penalty". There are plenty of resources out there that cover how basic conditional statements like "if, then" statements work.

It's language, not a line of code. What would be redundant information in code is often used in language to convey a point. In this case, I was emphasizing that if the answer is yes, they can ethically concede and on top of that they won't get a penalty too, which is good for them.

Yes, it's language, probably where code got it from in the first place, it didn't exactly make any wild changes. And the next bit was already covered not so long ago.

Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty

Again, you seem to be under the impression that the without penalty part is included in the "if, then" statement. I think it's clear to most people reading my post that what I was saying is "if they say yes, then you can concede, if they say no, then don't concede".

I think most people would understand the without penalty was added as part of my overall point that following my advice is beneficial to OP in both cases. Which is in large part because everyone realizes that whether the other person agrees or not has nothing to do with whether you will receive a penalty, so it's just common sense to not interpret it as part of the "if, then" statement.

[Jellby]

You're forgetting that conceding is the worst crime against humanity that has ever existed. That's why you have to ask first. It's not about whether it has any effect on getting a penalty.

Hmm... Is it OK to murder your noisy neighbor if you ask first? (I wish)

When you say "then" not everything that follows is necessarily included in the logical continuation. That's not how language works.

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work.

Actually, the problem here is that "if x, then y", does not mean "if not x, then not y". Not in logic, not in code. That's one of the common pitfalls

So, in full, the situation is (assuming 2-player, after 50% progression, no bugs):
If you ask and they say yes, you can concede without penalty.
If you ask and they say no, you can concede without penalty.
If you do not ask, you can concede without penalty.

[tbhp]

You're forgetting that conceding is the worst crime against humanity that has ever existed. That's why you have to ask first. It's not about whether it has any effect on getting a penalty.

Hmm... Is it OK to murder your noisy neighbor if you ask first? (I wish)

A lot of things in life become okay if the other person gives their agreement, though maybe not murder...

On a more serious note, lots of people apparently seem to think something is okay just because it's allowed to do by the site (or by the law in the real world). That's just lazy thinking, people should put more thought into whether they think what they are doing is good, and it should be more normalized to ask people before doing something that can be potentially harmful for them.

The real reason in my opinion is that people generally don't ask because they wouldn't like it if the answer was "no".

[Ceaseless]

It's language, not a line of code. What would be redundant information in code is often used in language to convey a point. In this case, I was emphasizing that if the answer is yes, they can ethically concede and on top of that they won't get a penalty too, which is good for them.

Yes, it's language, probably where code got it from in the first place, it didn't exactly make any wild changes. And the next bit was already covered not so long ago.

Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty

Again, you seem to be under the impression that the without penalty part is included in the "if, then" statement. I think it's clear to most people reading my post that what I was saying is "if they say yes, then you can concede, if they say no, then don't concede".

I think most people would understand the without penalty was added as part of my overall point that following my advice is beneficial to OP in both cases. Which is in large part because everyone realizes that whether the other person agrees or not has nothing to do with whether you will receive a penalty, so it's just common sense to not interpret it as part of the "if, then" statement.

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. They would assume you were actually here in good faith. They aren't expecting stuff like

I didn't mean to answer their question. I was just trying to push my agenda

where you're throwing the question out the window for a tangent. If the question is "can I concede without penalty" and you answer, "if you ask and they say yes, then you can concede without penalty", that's a pretty straightforward reading on what the answer's cause and effect is. It's wrong, but it's not ambiguous.

[tbhp]

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.

If the part I said after the "then" was something not obvious, then you would have had a point that my comment could have been misleading. But that's not the case. No one is naive enough to believe that what the other person replies has any bearing on what is possible to do on this site.

They would assume you were actually here in good faith. They aren't expecting stuff like

I didn't mean to answer their question. I was just trying to push my agenda

Except it should be obvious to everyone reading the post that the whole point of my reply was that they should ask before conceding. Not that I was giving any information on the specifics of when it becomes possible to concede without penalty.

where you're throwing the question out the window for a tangent. If the question is "can I concede without penalty" and you answer, "if you ask and they say yes, then you can concede without penalty", that's a pretty straightforward reading on what the answer's cause and effect is. It's wrong, but it's not ambiguous.

If my comment had stopped here, that would have been the natural interpretation. But you keep ignoring the rest of my comment, which makes it clear that I'm listing the advantages OP gets in both alternatives. It doesn't mean the advantage listed in the first alternative stops existing if the other person says no. It's just to emphasize that no matter what happens, they'll get a positive outcome from asking.

[Ceaseless]

You're forgetting that conceding is the worst crime against humanity that has ever existed. That's why you have to ask first. It's not about whether it has any effect on getting a penalty.

Hmm... Is it OK to murder your noisy neighbor if you ask first? (I wish)

Psh, "cherry-picking"! We can't have ourselves supporting the "status quo" now, could we?

When you say "then" not everything that follows is necessarily included in the logical continuation. That's not how language works.

As it happens, that's exactly how "if x, then y" is meant to work.

Actually, the problem here is that "if x, then y", does not mean "if not x, then not y". Not in logic, not in code. That's one of the common pitfalls

So, in full, the situation is (assuming 2-player, after 50% progression, no bugs):
If you ask and they say yes, you can concede without penalty.
If you ask and they say no, you can concede without penalty.
If you do not ask, you can concede without penalty.

Your note about equating the statement with its inverse isn't the problem. I'm not worried about "if not x, then not y". Your statements requires multiple assumptions, as you've noted. Assumptions I can't guarantee you. No bugs is a reasonable ask, the OP's phrasing offers a decent interpretation for 2-player, even if not forced, but 50% progression can easily swing either way. "If you ask and they say yes, you cannot concede without penalty." is also still on the table as a result.

Them saying yes has no impact on whether or not it's possible to concede without penalty

Hence this part of my initial answer.

[tbhp]

Maybe you would have preferred I had assumed no one is able to think for themselves and laid out the whole argument like:

Situation A: OP asks the other player

Case A: Player says yes -> OP concedes and gets no penalty

Case B: Player says no -> OP waits and they finish the game and OP doesn't get kicked out

Conclusion of situation A: In both cases, everyone is happy

Situation B: OP doesn't ask the other player and concedes

Case A: Player doesn't like it and OP gets no penalty

Case B: Player is okay with it and OP gets no penalty

Conclusion of situation B: Maybe everyone will be happy, but maybe not

Overall conclusion: It's better to ask than not to ask.

Now, I think all that meaning is contained within the formulation of my original comment without having to lay it all out in such detail.

[Ceaseless]

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.

If the part I said after the "then" was something not obvious, then you would have had a point that my comment could have been misleading. But that's not the case. No one is naive enough to believe that what the other person replies has any bearing on what is possible to do on this site.

They would assume you were actually here in good faith. They aren't expecting stuff like

I didn't mean to answer their question. I was just trying to push my agenda

Except it should be obvious to everyone reading the post that the whole point of my reply was that they should ask before conceding. Not that I was giving any information on the specifics of when it becomes possible to concede without penalty.

where you're throwing the question out the window for a tangent. If the question is "can I concede without penalty" and you answer, "if you ask and they say yes, then you can concede without penalty", that's a pretty straightforward reading on what the answer's cause and effect is. It's wrong, but it's not ambiguous.

If my comment had stopped here, that would have been the natural interpretation. But you keep ignoring the rest of my comment, which makes it clear that I'm listing the advantages OP gets in both alternatives. It doesn't mean the advantage listed in the first alternative stops existing if the other person says no. It's just to emphasize that no matter what happens, they'll get a positive outcome from asking.

Some people can follow basic logic and even reasonably post. I can see when they're joking/trolling more or less. An even then everyone makes the occasional mistake even in that group, it happens, I've done it myself, and those can be corrected just fine. Others are not so reasonable and can end up posting and believe absolutely unhinged things. For that group I handle the unhinged posters in the hopes that it doesn't spread too much to the more gullible.

In any case I've pretty much handled all the relevant details of this interaction, so I doubt there's any need for me to bother replying to more repetition of things repeatedly covered. Though there have been a couple other fun chats ongoing here to keep my eyes on.

Maybe you would have preferred I had assumed no one is able to think for themselves and laid out the whole argument like:

Situation A: OP asks the other player

Case A: Player says yes -> OP concedes and gets no penalty

Case B: Player says no -> OP waits and they finish the game and OP doesn't get kicked out

I'll edit this one in as a bonus since the material predated my initial post here. For those wondering, there's case C, Player says yes -> OP leaves the game and gets hit with the penalty, (the question itself doesn't show knowledge the site had concede keyworded for this.)

And of course, case D -> OP waits and gets kicked. Can be surprised all you want, I can think of several reasons of various degrees of credibility as to how that could happen, and it doesn't really matter what the person being kicked thinks of them, just what the person doing the kicking believes.

Not saying we're necessarily limited to just those 4 cases either.