Board Game Arena

tbhp wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 04:55 It's not about what is gained, it's about what is lost. When something that you cherish is destroyed, the fact that you won is not much consolation.

But what are you losing that isn't related to winning? I'm going to give you a hypothetical. If you were losing badly in a game, a game you know is already lost, and for some inexplicable reason, your opponent who is winning concedes or leaves the game, do you still like something is lost? If so, what are you losing when you are losing in a game and the winning player leaves?

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 Except the ability to concede precisely means the ability to impose a game termination on someone. So you are imposing something too.

I'm not making a rule that says if you are losing, you must concede. I'm saying it's an option. You are advocating for a rule that restricts people's freedom.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 My logic is that no one is all that affected by not being able to concede. They aren't gonna lose sleep over it, the memory isn't gonna haunt them for the rest of their life, so why should I rate the concern very high?

And how do you know that?

And seriously... are you suggesting you are, in fact, haunted by those who concede in your online board games for the rest of your life?

I could make the same argument that you truly not really affected by a concession. If you do lose sleep over one, I think that says it's more of a you problem that it is some kind of moral injustice.

tbhp wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:00 At least anti-conceders are trying to protect something that has value beyond their own experience, something of cultural importance. Your feelings of not wanting to be bothered when you want to concede are purely your feelings. They exist only in your head, so they are the further from objective reality.

You keep bringing up this cultural importance point, but you have done nothing to show how a board game is culturally important. All you have done is say "Well, I think it is." Great, your opinion. But what evidence do you have that an instance of a board game played has any cultural importance?

I linked one of my games in another comment to you asking you about what you think was artistic and beautiful about my game. How was my game against jaqkEquips culturally important?

MarkSteere wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 04:47

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38
All I'm seeing is just opinion and nothing of actual substance.

You noticed that too

Some of these guys have trouble distinguishing between subjective experience and objective reality. I tried to help them with that, but I don't think I got very far.

No, you're not literally "forced" to keep playing, but you are subjected to whining, nagging, sniveling, insults, and falacious arguments about how you have some kind of ridiculous moral obligation to keep playing.

My "harm" caused by continuing in a game I've already lost? I'd rather gauge my eyes out and barbeque them. But don't worry about me. Let's just keep chipping away at your statue of David until I completely lose my mind.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=800047198

I'm waiting to hear their artistic and cultural analysis of your game against GoliathsBane and how a concession would have been an unbelievable tragedy, lol.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:19 But what are you losing that isn't related to winning? I'm going to give you a hypothetical. If you were losing badly in a game, a game you know is already lost, and for some inexplicable reason, your opponent who is winning concedes or leaves the game, do you still like something is lost? If so, what are you losing when you are losing in a game and the winning player leaves?

A game feels different when you lose it. We want our victories to be grandiose, memorable, and obtained in the fairest of manners. When you lose, it doesn't matter as much, although you would still care to wrap things up in a nice way, especially if it's a game of high importance, and you would want to appreciate how your opponent finishes their board. But in this case, it's more like appreciating someone's else art. The loss, if it were, wouldn't feel as personal as when it's your own art that gets destroyed.

With that said, I have a few losses that I consider with the same reverence as my wins.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 I'm not making a rule that says if you are losing, you must concede. I'm saying it's an option. You are advocating for a rule that restricts people's freedom.

The option is the problem, because it happening once is already one time too many.

It restricts people's freedom, but so do a multitude of things that you accept and don't even think about when you are playing a game, or when you are functioning in a civilized society.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 And seriously... are you suggesting you are, in fact, haunted by those who concede in your online board games for the rest of your life?

If it happened in an important game, yes. And you just essentially conveyed to me that people who don't like not being able to concede wouldn't be affected to the same level, so you are proving to me that I'm right to see their issue as less important.

tbhp wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:31 A game feels different when you lose it. We want our victories to be grandiose, memorable, and obtained in the fairest of manners. When you lose, it doesn't matter as much, although you would still care to wrap things up in a nice way, especially if it's a game of high importance, and you would want to appreciate how your opponent finishes their board. But in this case, it's more like appreciating someone's else art. The loss, if it were, wouldn't feel as personal as when it's your own art that gets destroyed.

So this is actually about winning. Case closed.

I think losing matters quite a lot. Why am I wrong?

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 The option is the problem, because it happening once is already one time too many.

It restricts people's freedom, but so do a multitude of things that you accept and don't even think about when you are playing a game, or functioning in a civilized society.

In terms of a game, provide an example.

In terms of the "functioning in a civilized society point": restricting someone's freedom from, I don't know, owning a gun, isn't equivalent to restricting someone from wanting to leave a game they don't want to play anymore. One actually has stakes and real world consequences, one doesn't.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 If it happened in an important game, yes. And you just essentially conveyed to me that people who don't like not being able to concede wouldn't be affected to the same level, so you are proving to me that I'm right to see their issue as less important.

No, I think you are demonstrating my point that your level of personal offense at someone conceding a game on you should be seen as silly and not something to take seriously when making rules for a game.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:46

tbhp wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:31 A game feels different when you lose it. We want our victories to be grandiose, memorable, and obtained in the fairest of manners. When you lose, it doesn't matter as much, although you would still care to wrap things up in a nice way, especially if it's a game of high importance, and you would want to appreciate how your opponent finishes their board. But in this case, it's more like appreciating someone's else art. The loss, if it were, wouldn't feel as personal as when it's your own art that gets destroyed.

So this is actually about winning. Case closed.

I think losing matters quite a lot. Why am I wrong?

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 The option is the problem, because it happening once is already one time too many.

It restricts people's freedom, but so do a multitude of things that you accept and don't even think about when you are playing a game, or functioning in a civilized society.

In terms of a game, provide an example.

In terms of the "functioning in a civilized society point": restricting someone's freedom from, I don't know, owning a gun, isn't equivalent to restricting someone from wanting to leave a game they don't want to play anymore. One actually has stakes and real world consequences, one doesn't.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 If it happened in an important game, yes. And you just essentially conveyed to me that people who don't like not being able to concede wouldn't be affected to the same level, so you are proving to me that I'm right to see their issue as less important.

No, I think you are demonstrating my point that your level of personal offense at someone conceding a game on you should be seen as silly and not something to take seriously when making rules for a game.

FYI: It looks super weird for you to have your own username in the quote when you're actually quoting someone else.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 04:13 I was talking to another person, not to you. How about you grow up and mind your own business?

You’re doing it in a public forum, so I don’t really care whom you were addressing. You weren’t a part of the thread for quite some time and yet felt the need to jump in and make it your business. But others can’t do the same?

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 04:13 Right, so I'm supposed to take that I'm literally harming someone, ruining art and I'm a selfish person for conceding in an online board game as NOT an insult? Lol. That's what the anti-conceders are saying.

I’m on record in this thread as saying that I think the whole “art” and “literally harming somebody” argument is off the wall, and that I have little desire to be lumped together with it. So I hear you. But I think it’s possible to counter-argue without maligning your opponent and putting words in their mouth. It’s called being the better person.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 04:13

BarnardsStar wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:45 Lest we forget, the original topic was conceding at the last minute. There’s conceding as good sportsmanship (as soon as it’s clear the game is won)m and there’s conceding as bad sportsmanship (just doing it to spite the other player). I draw a clear line between these two and have no problem with the former. But the latter is just poor, poor sportsmanship.

If you know it was to spite the other player, then I agree. But if you don't know that, I'm not going to take your assumptions as the gospel truth.

I don’t think you need to know the other person’s motives for a certainty to say that an action is bad sportsmanship. It’s usually pretty evident.

As for taking assumptions for the gospel truth, how about your assumption that everybody who disagrees with you must do so out of a desire to (metaphorically) stomp their opponent and go for the big win? Or is it just other people’s assumptions that warrant close examination?

Meeplelowda wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:50

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:46

tbhp wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:31 A game feels different when you lose it. We want our victories to be grandiose, memorable, and obtained in the fairest of manners. When you lose, it doesn't matter as much, although you would still care to wrap things up in a nice way, especially if it's a game of high importance, and you would want to appreciate how your opponent finishes their board. But in this case, it's more like appreciating someone's else art. The loss, if it were, wouldn't feel as personal as when it's your own art that gets destroyed.

So this is actually about winning. Case closed.

I think losing matters quite a lot. Why am I wrong?

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 The option is the problem, because it happening once is already one time too many.

It restricts people's freedom, but so do a multitude of things that you accept and don't even think about when you are playing a game, or functioning in a civilized society.

In terms of a game, provide an example.

In terms of the "functioning in a civilized society point": restricting someone's freedom from, I don't know, owning a gun, isn't equivalent to restricting someone from wanting to leave a game they don't want to play anymore. One actually has stakes and real world consequences, one doesn't.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 If it happened in an important game, yes. And you just essentially conveyed to me that people who don't like not being able to concede wouldn't be affected to the same level, so you are proving to me that I'm right to see their issue as less important.

No, I think you are demonstrating my point that your level of personal offense at someone conceding a game on you should be seen as silly and not something to take seriously when making rules for a game.

FYI: It looks super weird for you to have your own username in the quote when you're actually quoting someone else.

I fixed it. I forgot to delete my username from the quote box.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:46 So this is actually about winning. Case closed.

I think losing matters quite a lot. Why am I wrong?

It is about a lot more than just winning though, otherwise we'd be fine with conceding.

I don't understand what you are asking me when you say losing matters quite a lot.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 In terms of a game, provide an example.

On this site, you aren't allowed to keep playing forever. At some point you'll get kicked out, or the game will automatically end. This is a limitation of freedom that I'm sure you understand why it exists.

Archisian wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 03:38 No, I think you are demonstrating my point that your level of personal offense at someone conceding a game on you should be seen as silly and not something to take seriously when making rules for a game.

Dismissing the perspectives you don't share as silly doesn't serve to advance any debate in society. By this logic everyone should just do the things you think they should do, so a dictatorship led by you. This is pretty much a troll argument.

When someone tells you they are affected by something more than you personally would have thought, the normal reaction should be "oh, I see, I'll take it into consideration then". It shouldn't be "oh, so that gives me all the more reason to disregard your feelings". That's totally backwards.

BarnardsStar wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:53 You’re doing it in a public forum, so I don’t really care whom you were addressing. You weren’t a part of the thread for quite some time and yet felt the need to jump in and make it your business. But others can’t do the same?

No, I didn't come to make it my business. I came to talk. Like what people on forums do. I was on vacation busy doing other things. So I came back to the thread when I had free time.

I don't mind to have a discussion, but you came on here out of nowhere as well saying that I unnecessarily revived a thread that didn't have any posts for a couple of days and then went to say I had nothing of substance to say when I wasn't even talking to you. Basically, you just bashed me out of nowhere. And you expect me to react positively?

BarnardsStar wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:53 I’m on record in this thread as saying that I think the whole “art” and “literally harming somebody” argument is off the wall, and that I have little desire to be lumped together with it. So I hear you. But I think it’s possible to counter-argue without maligning your opponent and putting words in their mouth. It’s called being the better person.

I'm not maligning you. I'm calling out the people who specifically argue the art and harm arguments. I'm not saying all anti-conceders are this way. If I did say that, then I apologize and meant it towards that subsection in particular. But looking back, to the post you quoted, I didn't say that. If I did in an earlier one, my apologies.

BarnardsStar wrote: ↑05 February 2026, 05:53 I don’t think you need to know the other person’s motives for a certainty to say that an action is bad sportsmanship. It’s usually pretty evident.

As for taking assumptions for the gospel truth, how about your assumption that everybody who disagrees with you must do so out of a desire to (metaphorically) stomp their opponent and go for the big win? Or is it just other people’s assumptions that warrant close examination?

Well, that's fine if you think it's bad sportsmanship. I don't really care about that sort of thing (in the sense of being offended by it), so I don't disagree with you.

I didn't say everybody who disagrees with me thinks that. But I do think those who say that they are against conceding for the "art", "to end harm" or the stats really don't believe that. When I asked tbhp what they are losing when they are losing a game they have no chance to win and then their opponent leaves, they said "A game feels different when you lose it." So, I think it's very clear that this is, indeed, about winning and they aren't really bothered if a winning player leaves or concedes the game for whatever reason.