forfeit

[FrankJones]

I would just say to the opponent, "Hey, I have a situation coming up, I am travelling unexpectedly, and I might run out of time. It's too early to concede. What are your thoughts?"

If the answer is not helpful.. well, we do get 4 time jokers per year.

[nik592]

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.

Why? Abandoning a game requires all player's agreement. Why not conceding? And apparently you think it should, so perhaps others think it might too.

Was going to post further clarification of why your statement is misleading, but:

Let’s go to the VAR … OP asked:

does a perfect job of summing it up.

Tell yourself whatever story you like - you were trying to mislead the OP into doing things your way. You weren't (only) trying to be helpful, you've admitted, you were trying to push your agenda. Advocating for what you think is right is one thing. Trying to convince people they have no other choice is another. I will certainly not respect you for doing so (if I didn't already not respect you for your general intolerance for the opinions of others), but you can do as you like. I'll still call you out for it though, and correct the misinformation.

If the answer is not helpful.. well, we do get 4 time jokers per year.

But they can't be applied to tournaments. We're not sure what the status of the game in question was, but that could also have been an issue.

[tbhp]

Why? Abandoning a game requires all player's agreement. Why not conceding? And apparently you think it should, so perhaps others think it might too.

But my post made no mention of a built in feature where the players in the game can vote yes or no. In that case, yes that would have been a reasonable thing to believe.

I simply told OP to verbally ask the other player. It's obvious that what a person says in chat can't be used to regulate what can be done on the website. There needs an actual system in place.

Tell yourself whatever story you like - you were trying to mislead the OP into doing things your way. You weren't (only) trying to be helpful, you've admitted, you were trying to push your agenda.

Obviously, I think it's wrong to concede without asking, so that was my priority when replying to their comment. Before concerning myself with telling them how and when they can concede, I wanted to make sure they don't do it without asking, and my post was focused on explaining why this is the right course of action.

I however never intended to imply that not receiving a penalty was dependent on them asking first. My logic was: if you ask and they say yes, you'll be able to concede without penalty. If they say no, then you should be able to finish the game normally. So in both cases, you'll both be happy. So there's no need to take a course of action that might hurt someone.

This doesn't imply that bypassing their no has an effect on them not getting a penalty. It's just that it's irrelevant. If the other player says no, the fact that OP can still choose to concede and receive no penalty for it doesn't matter for anything. They should respect the no either way.

[tbhp]

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.

Exactly. Ceaseless believes that when I say "if they say yes, then you can concede without penalty" must imply "if they don't say yes, then you can't concede without penalty", which is incorrect.

I just didn't list the case of "if you ask and they say no, then you can concede without penalty" because it's irrelevant. If we are in the situation where other player says no, then that's already one player being hurt by the situation, so it doesn't matter whether OP is hurt or not by the situation. We already are in a situation that is not desirable.

[Jellby]

If someone asks if they can concede, you should always say yes. If they ask it's because they want to concede and would be harmed if they could not, so your saying no would harm the other player.

[tbhp]

If someone asks if they can concede, you should always say yes. If they ask it's because they want to concede and would be harmed if they could not, so your saying no would harm the other player.

That argument is debatable, but it doesn't even apply to OP's case. The only reason OP was considering conceding, from the looks of their post, is because they were worried that the other player would kick them out while they are away. It doesn't seem like they are against continuing the game at a later date (I could be wrong, but nothing in their post suggests that).