people who concede when losing

[FrankJones]

The other point, especially when players are not as familiar with a game, is that it's not always obvious to all players who has won a game at a given point. For games that are not fully scored until the end, I don't tend to sit and look at the board and calculate up everyone's final scores (this is part of why I enjoy playing on BGA, because I don't have to), and there have been plenty of times when my gut feel says that Player A will surely win, only to see Player B scrape a victory. Or to think I'm fully out of the game, only to find the margins were quite tight (and yes, I still lost, but not by as much as I thought). I like to see those things play out.

I also agree that when learning a game, it is useful to see what the decisions you made through the game led to - even beyond things like farmer placement in Carcassonne, but something like, did I stop building my engine at the right point and pivot to gaining victory points (in a game that has that kind of mechanic)? And honestly, I'm still "learning" a lot of games. I like to play a diverse range, I don't seek expert knowledge in anything really (at least, not the kind that comes by playing 1000 games of one thing and very little of anything else). But that's my subjective opinion.

I don't think a Person can reasonably expect their opponent to concede or not concede based on that Person's own opinion on the matter. I don't like it when people concede (mostly) but if my reasons for that don't resonate with someone else and they want to concede? Well, ok. In some cases, I might red thumb that person because clearly our play styles are not compatible. But I do accept that there's a wide range of opinions out there about when conceding is appropriate, and mine is not the one true way. Much like opinions on greetings, good game wishes, chatting, etc. Many perspectives. If they're not insulting you directly, they're probably not meaning offense, they're probably just doing their own thing.

Understandable.

Still - the games in which my opponents have conceded literally just before the end-game, where it would have taken another minute of their time, were obviously done for petty reasons. I explained why in my previous posts.

Yes, maybe occasionally a player is unaware of the situation. But sometimes, thins are exactly what they appear to be. Spite and pettiness.

When drivers drive in a manner that is obviously rude (but not a definite violation of any driving rule), or any other situation in which someone is rude or inconsiderate, we could go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to invent reason why the person may have felt personally justified in such an action, but most of the time, the simple and obvious explanation is the correct one - the person is just rude and inconsiderate.

It's incredibly lame to say, "Well, you spent an hour playing this game, but I think you're selfish for expecting me to spend one more minute finishing the game just because you might want to study the end-game position or see if your scoring categories aligned with what you expected".

In some cases, I keep detailed spreadsheets for specific games to write highly detailed strategy posts that can be a great help to the gaming community.

It's preposterous to assume, without reason, that a player who wishes to finish the game is "ego-stroking".

Not to beat a dead horse, but any rude action can be justified in this way, which makes it not a good justification. "My negligible quantity of time is more important than anything going on with your life" is pretty much the literal definition of selfishness, and would be a terribly way for society to operate.

[nik592]

Still - the games in which my opponents have conceded literally just before the end-game, where it would have taken another minute of their time, were obviously done for petty reasons. I explained why in my previous posts.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think it's fair enough to concede when there's a reasonable portion of the game remaining. I do agree with you that conceding during the absolute last couple of moves because you can't take seeing the result is a jerk move, especially where a game has taken some time (eg. an hour or more) and those last moves are a matter of minutes.

[FrankJones]

Still - the games in which my opponents have conceded literally just before the end-game, where it would have taken another minute of their time, were obviously done for petty reasons. I explained why in my previous posts.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think it's fair enough to concede when there's a reasonable portion of the game remaining. I do agree with you that conceding during the absolute last couple of moves because you can't take seeing the result is a jerk move, especially where a game has taken some time (eg. an hour or more) and those last moves are a matter of minutes.

Exactly, and it somewhat defeats the whole argument of "My one minute of time is previous".
Playing out the entire last generation of a Game of terraforming Mars, only to concede while there is 30 seconds left? Because "my 30 seconds are precious"?

Yeah, that's nonsense.

I mentioned it earlier, but in one of the games, not Terraforming Mars, my opponent was explicitly rude in the chat while doing this nonsense of conceding with 30 seconds left in the game. It had nothing to do with "precious time", and I find it hilarious that I was accused of wanting to "stroke my ego" when in fact it was the opponent whose fragile ego couldn't bear to see the end-game sequence after losing a game he felt was because of bad luck (actually it was bad play).

If a player actually concedes early, but after 50% (obviously; it has to be for concede to be an option), then I can buy the argument of "No point in wasting time on a lost game".

Playing the game to 99% and then conceding doesn't save anyone time. It ends up making the entire situation a waste of time.

I mean, would that be socially appropriate with a physical board game? "Wahhhhh, I didn't win, so now I am going to refuse to finish the game, because I want to start a new one RIGHT NOW". Most parents probably wouldn't tolerate that from a 6-year-old.

To me it's just sad to excusing or justify that same behavior, as had bene done by others in this thread.

To each his own, as the saying goes, right? I mean, subjectify itself is subjective. One person might say, "Your statement is objectively rude and inappropriate," and the speaker of the statement might reply,. "In your subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion, my statement was perfectly acceptable."

It can go around in circles all day once people start justifying everything by saying, "It's subjective". There are usually generally accepted or agreed-upon standards of appropriate social behavior, and people who ignore such social expectations are generally considered rude, even though such people will say whatever they need to in justifying their behavior.