I don't think it has to do with "being forced to wait" as that relates to turn order so much as "for the rest of the game in general".
Sure, but people seem to realize that they don't want to play "the rest of the game in general" pretty consistently at the end of their own turn. As the resigning player did in the game I keep referring to. (I would guess, on average, you get the highest concentration of new information about win expectations when your opponent plays his treasures. I could be wrong. I don't see how it's obvious.)
I agree that people prefer the opponent's turn in a fun game to their own turn in a dead game. But even in a dead game, people noticeably prefer playing their own turn,
I'm betting you have no evidence for this other than your own feelings. I'd be incredibly shocked if any significant number of people had actually said this to you - certainly it isn't getting widely expressed here.
and this is why the end of their own turn becomes the more natural point for realizing that the game is no longer fun. Again, in the example I referred to, something like this seems pretty clearly to be happening, and in my own experience, it happens pretty frequently this way.
You might be right that, even if players could resign at the beginning of their own turns,
They CAN resign at the beginning of their own turns. That's what doesn't make any sense about your argument. They can do that already. Naturally limiting the time of when you can resign to a subset of the current times just makes things worse, makes things take longer almost necessarily.
players like the one above would more often than not still take the superfluous final turn, thus forcing the opponent to play another dead turn. I admit that I don't really know which would happen; I only suspect it would be closer to 50/50 than the pure time-suck you think it would be. But probably Goko's permissiveness shortens the turn-length of games at least a little. You could compare the results on Isotropic and Goko to find out.
Such a comparison would show essentially nothing due to severely different playerbases playing with (more importantly) different cardsets.
I don't really get how it could be that "people aren't complaining except at the complaints." I mean clearly people have to be first complaining about the timing of resignation for other people to push back. Anyway, the original post was complaining about the timing of someone else's resignation, which is why I chimed in. I do get the sense that people frequently feel put off by resignation timing, not just me.
From what? What gives you that sense?
And that the result of people feeling frequently feeling put off is a less congenial gaming atmosphere. I don't think I get significantly more offended than other people. Actually, speaking for myself, I enjoy playing against extremely rude players; it gets my blood going. But, I do think that formalizing resignation timing, as Isotropic did, contributes to more respectful gameplay.
I also think that, though the waters have gotten muddy here, there is a pretty strong consensus that people enjoy playing their own cards more than they enjoy waiting for their opponent to play theirs,
Based on what? Again, you give no evidence to support this, only your own feeling, which I do not believe to be commonly held
pretty much in all types of games, including in games where the decision is basically decided.
This is incorrect. I don't know what games you're talking about actually. I can't think of any. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are some, but it's certainly not universal - in chess, people resign, they resign on their opponent's move ALL THE TIME, they resign whenever. It's considered the courteous thing to do once the game is hopeless. Games are almost NEVER played to checkmate, except in ultra-fast blitz where you're trying to flag a guy, or at the extreme low levels where people can reasonably be thought to not actually be able to convert their winning advantage even when it's incredibly easy to do. Indeed, playing on in chess is essentially saying to your opponent that you don't believe them to be capable of converting their position to a win with certainty, which depending on the situation is actually incredibly insulting. People get upset over this. So this is a game where earlier resigning is the norm. Another such game is Magic, where you typically concede as soon as you know you can't win. Most often, this is at the beginning of your own turn, as you're looking to top-deck a particular subset of cards to stay alive, you don't, and that's it. But it's also VERY often during your opponent's turn, they play a card, you have no way to beat it at this point, you immediately concede. It's considered (very mildly) impolite to make them actually go through the motions of a forced kill on board, particularly in situations where you couldn't be bluffing a way to survive (in which case, of course, it's not considered impolite at all, though people still often resign).
There is also pretty much a consensus that quitting a decided game favors the losing player more than the winning player, and that there is some fun to be had for the winner in playing out the victory to completion.
Again, you have given no evidence for this. But the bigger point is that the surrender of your opponent IS a completed victory... Seriously, you would like to play out another turn after the game has ended, if you win? Is it impolite to three-pile yourself to a loss?
I think that yours and Awaclus' position that playing out a victory is indistinguishable from pushing random buttons on a keyboard is, while sensible, not the way most people feel, and that the existence of resigning as an option is more the result of everyone averaging their own expected outcomes, reasoning that they will both win and lose games, and that they will suffer more by playing out losses than they will recoup in enjoyment from playing out wins. And I do think that, from this consensus,
There is no consensus. Even if you're right, and there are lots of people who feel the way you think they do, there are definitely people who feel the other way - that's not a consensus then.
derives the result that allowing your opponent the final turn is both generous and polite. That does, hypothetically, demand a certain accommodation from the WWs and Awacluses of the world, who don't derive any pleasure at all from playing out wins.
I'm certainly sorry you feel so verbally attacked by this discussion.
The "I think people should resign at a certain point rather than another" doesn't really make me feel verbally attacked. I disagree with it, but that's ok.
I do still feel that your position is best characterized as circumstantial mild indifference to politeness in favor of humans just obeying their own instincts; and that you think a system of politeness would be detrimental.
THIS makes me feel very attacked. You're being
incredibly rude in continuing to say this over my repeated and express objections. It's wrong, and by continuing to repeat it, not only are you impugning my reputation as someone who does care about such things, you're also essentially accusing me of either lying or being too stupid to know what I actually feel as well as some random guy on the internet who I've never met. I've continually asked you to stop saying this, and you continue to say it. It seems to me to be by far the least polite thing in the entire discussion.
I feel the same way about people who insist that there's no reason to say "gg." It's anti-politeness, rather than alt-politeness. I don't really have a problem with anti-politeness. I get that you would not use these words yourself to describe your own position. I get why you think that what you're advocating is an alternate take on what's polite. I just don't agree that that's actually the way to put it.
Even if this were correct, my continual asking you not to ought to be sufficient reason for you to not keep accusing me of this. You can argue for your position without claiming that I don't understand or am misrepresenting mine.
I don't really think the libertarian "everyone should do what they want"
This is both irrelevant, as no one here is advocating it, and quite impolite to libertarians, who generally don't believe this position which you have just attributed to them.
should be defined as a form of politeness, even allowing the possibility that it would make people happier while saving time. (Which I don't think it would.)
I would say that, attacked as you might feel by my having an interpretation of your position that you don't agree with, it doesn't really excuse the increasingly aggressive tone of your posts.
I'm becoming increasingly aggressive? I'm becoming increasingly blunt. I started with a very clean, simple statement of my position. You mischaracterized my reasoning, so I corrected that, but said I didn't think it was very important - I don't, and I was trying to get it to just drop. You repeated your mischaracterization, so I again rebutted, and became more blunt in explaining that I actually think you have it flipped around. In order to get my point across, as you continue to show that you are either unable or unwilling to accept my argument for what it is (which you can do without agreeing with it), I have had to tip-toe less and less around feelings, so that I can be plainer and plainer about what I mean. So, yeah, I'm being less cordial now than at the beginning - I have been forced to either do this or abandon the argument altogether. I haven't become aggressive - I'm certainly not making any threats or anything - though I certainly have become more exasperated, and I try to take great care to argue (perhaps fiercely) against the position rather than any person.
You're certainly becoming very comfortable characterizing my arguing for my own interpretation of what's polite as "whining."
I actually haven't done this at all. What I have claimed as whining is voicing a complaint about someone else resigning at the wrong time - to be particular, in the context of a specific instance, a certain game or person. This is whining. If you haven't done that, then I haven't said that you've whined. I certainly haven't claimed that your argument for your own position is "whining" - it's not whining, it's just wrong.