Please Let Me Concede

[Archisian]

Let's use an analogy that I think is illustrative enough. Let's say you are invited to the marriage of your friends. It's not you who is getting married, so you aren't benefiting in that sense, but you are happy to see the couple getting married, the ceremony is beautiful and the party is a lot of fun, so you have a good time being present at that marriage.

So, that first version of the analogy is akin to finishing a game that you didn't win, but that you still find interesting in various aspects. Now, let's see the version where you still care about the people who invited you to their marriage, but you aren't having fun at the event because it's just not very well done and the people there are boring. Do you feel it's degrading that you feel you have to stay? No, you wouldn't see it like that I presume. You would still feel honored to be present at the marriage, and you would see it as your duty to make act of your presence. It's not something you would do reluctantly either, it's just that it fits within your values and you consider it normal that you'd stay for the full duration of your friends' marriage even if you don't personally find it very fun. At the end of the day, it's still a marriage. Its value is something much bigger than whether the particular event was well organized or not. It's about the meaning inherent to a marriage and that has to be respected in all cases.

Now apply that to games. Sometimes they are not about our own success, sometimes they are not very interesting, but they all deserve the same reverence from us. And most importantly, they involve someone else whose feelings matter. Your friends wouldn't like it if their marriage was ruined because everyone decided to leave. Similarly, you have to think of the state you're leaving your opponent in if you decide to just cancel the plans they had for the last moves of their game.

I don't believe your scenario is analogous to playing games. At a marriage of your friends, you are there with people you actually know and care about, not some random people whose wedding you showed up to. Secondly, at a wedding of your friends, there isn't any competitive aspect. You aren't gaining nor losing anything by attending a wedding of your friends (unless you were actually in love with one of the people who was getting married in some kind of romantic drama).

Saying this applies to games is very strange to me. First of all, most likely, I'm competing against a faceless and anonymous stranger whom I will probably never meet in my life. Why should I feel some sense of honor or owe some kind of duty to them? Just because they exist? Now, I'm not saying one needs to be overtly rude and unkind, but acting like I owe every single human being on this planet something merely because they exist is way too much, in my opinion. If this anonymous person tells me they are poor, should I give them money because, well, they are a human being and all human beings have thoughts and feelings too. What if they ask me to love them? Do I owe them that, too?
Second, in this game against an anonymous stranger, we are actively competing to best each other to increase our standing in something. In the case of BGA, it's to increase our ELO and World Ranking. This isn't some beautiful and celebratory event. This is more like a battle to determine who is better than the other. When it is clear who is better person in this competition, why should the losing player continue just so they get pummeled more and more? I think of it like boxing. In boxing, there is a point where one boxer is clearly better than the other and is going to win either by points, TKO, or KO. The losing boxer can decide to throw in the towel and not let the pummeling continue to the point of where they get knocked out. What many anti-conceders would say in that situation, based on the logic they provide, is that the losing boxer is disgraceful by not letting winning boxer land the final blow that gets them the KO. I believe that is pretty unfair to do, because I don't believe that the losing boxer needs to be pummeled more all so the winner can get the KO they feel they deserve, even though it was clear long before then that they won.

[Archisian]

People are being perfectly honest. They've told you many times how much they care about winning (a lot more than you apparently since you said you wouldn't care if the site stopped being competitive). In this thread you are talking to people who are fiercely competitive and have been Elo leaders in several games, and yet you are acting like you are the only one willing to admit winning is so important when in reality you don't even seem particularly interested in being competitive yourself.

As I said, if there are stakes involved, them I'm heavily invested in winning. If there aren't, then I have no reason to feel the stress of trying to win. Doesn't mean that I don't try my best, but I find this whole thing to be interesting. You give me a scenario about games being akin to attending a marriage. Mr. Jones gives me three friends hanging around a table, having snacks and drinks, playing board games and having a relaxing time. All of these scenarios are situations where you do not feel the pressure to win anything.

The difference is that for you the situation seems to be a binary "all or nothing" where if winning isn't achieved, then anything else that otherwise could have had value stops having value. As if the whole history and culture of a game revolves around what you've personally achieved in it. Well, most people who care about a particular game or sport care about all the things related to it, not just if they or their team won something.

Since you brought up sports, I'll give an example. My favorite American Football team is the Las Vegas Raider. They were in L.A. when I was a kid, then moved back to Oakland where they were originally from, then moved to Vegas 6 years ago. The last time they were any good was from 1999-2002. In the 2002 season, they were in the Super Bowl (Super Bowl XXXVII) and got absolutely curb-stomped by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Since that time, they have one of the worst records in the NFL and having only made the playoffs twice, losing both games. 2 playoff games in almost 25 seasons and they have been terrible for the vast majority of that time. That small window they had to try and win the Super Bowl was immediately closed shut by getting beat in one of the most lopsided Super Bowl losses in NFL history.

Think about all those players who did their absolute best, maybe had only one shot or one last shot to win it all and failed, and to lose that game in such an embarrassing way. Why would I, as a fan of this team, feel any sense of happiness and joy at see my team lose the biggest game of the year and in such a fashion? Why would I feel any happiness for the opposing team being the one hoisting the Lombardi trophy while my team doesn't? If I was a player on that team, why would I feel happy at a loss like that at all?

In sports, championships and being in the best statistically are the things that matter more than anything other than the money made. Sure, there are some players that only cared about money, but most are there because they want to be the best at the game they love. There had been many great players who played in the NFL, but will probably never be in the Hall of Fame either because they don't have the championships or enough stats to outweigh the lack of championships. They will always be placed someone below who achieved those things. That's why winning is the utmost priority in competitive sports and games. I mean, do you not care about being the best at the game you love? If you do, being the best means wins come more than losses, right? That's what these words mean and what can be read from things like ELO and World Ranking.

Mr. Jones, for example, said I was stagnant. How could he glean this? By simply looking at my ELO and World Ranking. Without even knowing, he can exactly the kind of player I am and can make a judgment on that. That's why, in the context of BGA, that matters to me. I love Wingspan and want to be the best I can be at it. It would be really sad to me if I could never progress more than 300-400 ELO. That says I will forever not be good at the game. All of that is determined by winning.

Normally, the amount you care about winning should correspond to the amount you care in general and subsequently how much you care about your losses and the other games you didn't take part in. Caring about your achievements is inconsistent with not caring about the fate of every game, because your achievements are part of the overall game culture you exist in. If you don't respect your opponents and their games then how can you respect yours?

Again, we are talking about in the context of stakes in a competitive atmosphere. By removing those aspects, by its very nature, the drive and stress of winning is decreased. Think of a game where there are no winners or losers. Would you agree that there is no stress in those games, where you worry about the potential consequences of any move you make that could leave you being bested?

[tbhp]

I don't believe your scenario is analogous to playing games. At a marriage of your friends, you are there with people you actually know and care about, not some random people whose wedding you showed up to.

That's true, but the reason you want to pay respect to the wedding is not just because you know those people. I mean, you wouldn't want anybody's marriage to be ruined, I hope. But realistically, it's impossible for you to attend every marriage on Earth. So the convention is that we usually attend the marriages of the people we know.

It's similar with games. You can't ensure that every game on the website gets finished properly. That's not within your control. But you can control what you do in the games you are participating in. That's where the personal part comes in. The fact that this is your game, and that therefore the responsibility falls upon you to treat it and your opponent correctly. Because if you don't do it, then no one else will be able to do it in your place. Just like if the people who know the married couple don't show up at their wedding, no one else will.

Secondly, at a wedding of your friends, there isn't any competitive aspect. You aren't gaining nor losing anything by attending a wedding of your friends (unless you were actually in love with one of the people who was getting married in some kind of romantic drama).

Yes, but that was my point. If you understand that a marriage has value even though you aren't "winning" anything personally, then why do you not understand that a game still has value even if it's not you winning it? Just like you can be happy for the married couple, you should be able to be happy for your opponent. Just like you can appreciate their ceremony, you should be able to appreciate your opponent's board. And just like you think the concept of love is something that deserves paying respect to, you should also be able to do the same with the game you are playing and what your opponent is trying to build, rather than throw it away like it's nothing.

Saying this applies to games is very strange to me. First of all, most likely, I'm competing against a faceless and anonymous stranger whom I will probably never meet in my life. Why should I feel some sense of honor or owe some kind of duty to them? Just because they exist? Now, I'm not saying one needs to be overtly rude and unkind, but acting like I owe every single human being on this planet something merely because they exist is way too much, in my opinion.

But like I said, I'm not asking you to invest yourself in every single game on this website. Just in the ones you are playing. That doesn't seem like a very high requirement. It's kind of the general convention as far as life goes in general, that while it's impossible for us to bear the suffering of the whole world, we should at least treat with consideration the people we run into in our everyday life.

Second, in this game against an anonymous stranger, we are actively competing to best each other to increase our standing in something. In the case of BGA, it's to increase our ELO and World Ranking. This isn't some beautiful and celebratory event. This is more like a battle to determine who is better than the other. When it is clear who is better person in this competition, why should the losing player continue just so they get pummeled more and more?

Finishing a game normally in no way takes away from the rivalry there can be between two players. Rivalry doesn't mean disrespect and shitting over your opponent's board though. Sure, there may be in-game actions that can serve to send a message to your opponent, but what does leaving the game achieve? It would be like the equivalent of leaving the ring to go have a fight in a bar instead. At this point, you aren't really respecting the game or your opponent anymore, you are turning a game into real physical violence. When someone concedes a board game in order to escape it, they are hurting their opponent outside of the parameters that have been fixed by the rules of the game. Making jerky moves within a game is fine, games are supposed to be competitive. But the antagonism shouldn't continue outside of the context of the game.

[tbhp]

As I said, if there are stakes involved, them I'm heavily invested in winning. If there aren't, then I have no reason to feel the stress of trying to win. Doesn't mean that I don't try my best, but I find this whole thing to be interesting. You give me a scenario about games being akin to attending a marriage. Mr. Jones gives me three friends hanging around a table, having snacks and drinks, playing board games and having a relaxing time. All of these scenarios are situations where you do not feel the pressure to win anything.

In sports, championships and being in the best statistically are the things that matter more than anything other than the money made. Sure, there are some players that only cared about money, but most are there because they want to be the best at the game they love.

Again, we are talking about in the context of stakes in a competitive atmosphere. By removing those aspects, by its very nature, the drive and stress of winning is decreased. Think of a game where there are no winners or losers. Would you agree that there is no stress in those games, where you worry about the potential consequences of any move you make that could leave you being bested?

Again, it feels like you are preaching to the choir because you are talking to people who are very invested in being the best in the games they play. We are all too familiar with the stress you are talking about, the problem is that you don't seem to understand that just because the competitive aspect exists, it doesn't mean that there is zero consideration for anything else. It's not one or the other.

Like I explained, the two things are complementary, not contradictory. It would make zero sense to attach a great importance to the games on here and your achievements in them, and at the same time trample on your opponents' boards the moment things don't go your way. A great champion is someone who has great competitive values, and if you highly respect a game and your achievements how can you at the same time think so little of the games and achievements of the people you are competing against? It seems totally contradictory to me.

[FrankJones]

Mr. Jones, for example, said I was stagnant. How could he glean this? By simply looking at my ELO and World Ranking. Without even knowing, he can exactly the kind of player I am and can make a judgment on that. That's why, in the context of BGA, that matters to me. I love Wingspan and want to be the best I can be at it. It would be really sad to me if I could never progress more than 300-400 ELO. That says I will forever not be good at the game. All of that is determined by winning.

For clarity, I was looking not at your Elo and world ranking, but at your graph trend over time. A player could have a 350 Elo, but if the graph were consistently trending upward I would not describe that player as "stagnant."

But if the graph seems "stuck", I would use the word stagnant. My Terraforming Mars graph is Stagnant. My own Wingspan graph is stagnant, in the 450-ish neighborhood.

My Earth graph is stagnant (Granted, at a high level, but stagnant nevertheless).

When it comes to Wingspan and Terraforming Mars, if top players talk, I listen and try to learn. And I do not concede, because it would be absurd for me to claim that my end-game needs no improvement. I'm obviously lacking in some areas, and if I knew what those areas were, I wouldn't be making those mistakes.