Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chogg]

Do the people who think players shouldn't be allowed to resign any time they want feel the same way in other games? Chess? Magic? Tennis?

It's a really weird viewpoint to me.

To clarify: I don't think anyone here has advanced that position.  It's a question of manners, not rules.

But overall I think you make a good point.  I just think in each of those instances, there's some face-to-face interaction, some interpersonal communication first.  If someone's playing chess and they say they resign, fine.  If someone just walks away from a tennis game without saying a word, that is considered rude.

The online situation doesn't really have a perfect analogy to either case, which is why I think people here are divided in their opinions.

[WanderingWinder]

@the OP, here's some threads to read:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1318.0
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=485.0
This last one is from the decline of civility thread. I have it set to start on the 13th page, where this discussion gets going. It goes for... a while.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=64.300

[WanderingWinder]

Do the people who think players shouldn't be allowed to resign any time they want feel the same way in other games? Chess? Magic? Tennis?

It's a really weird viewpoint to me.

To clarify: I don't think anyone here has advanced that position.  It's a question of manners, not rules.

But overall I think you make a good point.  I just think in each of those instances, there's some face-to-face interaction, some interpersonal communication first.  If someone's playing chess and they say they resign, fine.  If someone just walks away from a tennis game without saying a word, that is considered rude.

The online situation doesn't really have a perfect analogy to either case, which is why I think people here are divided in their opinions.

People play thousands of chess games online each day. And they resign wordlessly all the time.

[Kirian]

I'm trying to imagine Bobby Fischer saying to Anatoly Karpov, "Hey, do you mind if I resign?"  And Karpov saying, "Well, I'm a rook and two bishops ahead, but I'd really like to play this out to a mate."

That just wouldn't happen.  Ever.  Either of those things.  If you're going to resign, you resign, shake hands, game over.

Also:

[ftl]

I don't know about Magic, I haven't played any competitive magic at all ever.

In chess, it's definitely acceptable to resign.

In tennis, it's definitely not.

Tennis is my main competitive venue (in fact, I have a practice in like an hour ), and there are a few big differences between tennis and many of these other situations that I think account for the differences in etiquette.

First is that in tennis, if you play better than your opponent starting from the next point, you can ALWAYS come back. Always. I've been up a set, 5-1, 40-15 and then had a match go to a third-set tiebreak. It's trivial to find examples in professional tennis of players being down and out and then coming back. So if you resign, it can't be interpreted as "okay, you've beaten me, game's all but over, so I don't want to go through the formality of finishing it off". It would be "I think you'll beat me, so I'll give up." It's a sign that you didn't give this game all you had, that you weren't really trying.

Second is that in tennis, you're typically playing just one match. When this one is over, you call it a day and go home. If your opponent resigns, then you got less tennis for the day. In Dominion, if one game ends, the next one begins. I never feel that by resigning, I make my opponent play less Dominion - there's more games waiting to be had. I would definitely feel bad about resigning if it was an in-person game and the last game of the day, but not online.

[DrHades]

I play chess my whole life and I can tell you one thing - not resign when you are losing badly is considered as rude. But that is because the game is really long, so you basicly want to play it only when it is interesting. Dominion is short and also you build your deck so you might wanna enjoy it even though you know that the game is over.

[Fabian]

I play chess my whole life and I can tell you one thing - not resign when you are losing badly is considered as rude. But that is because the game is really long, so you basicly want to play it only when it is interesting. Dominion is short and also you build your deck so you wanna enjoy it even though you know that the game is over.

I'm going to suggest that the you in the above quote is in a minority. I certainly wouldn't dream of passing it off as fact, anyway. Seems like your opinion, to me.

[chogg]

I'm a little bit of a snarky dude. Especially when people are being unreasonable.

I take it by "unreasonable" you mean that I disagree with your opinion.  It's an ironic word for you to use, given that I've shown evidence in this thread that I consider the arguments of others and modify my beliefs accordingly.

It's not just this thread. This is an old argument which has been hashed and rehashed and rehashed. Let me know when you've read all of them. I have.

Thanks for the links (in your subsequent post).  I hadn't realized this discussion had already taken place on the boards.

I read all the ones you provided.  I don't get a different picture than I got from this thread.  Certainly if only "a smattering" of people agree with me, then only "a smattering" think that nobody should be the slightest offended by wordless resignations.  The numbers are just not that different -- and in any case, not nearly big enough to justify your condescending tone.

I see the same broad picture emerging in both threads.  To summarize:

• Unilateral resignation (in 2-player games, at least!) is always OK.
• It's good form to say something on your way out.

When I made the OP, I frowned more on resigning than I do now.  Then people explained themselves clearly (and I'd like to thank them for taking the time to do so), and I came to understand the other POV.

I still think if you do resign, the courteous thing to do (at least vs. us low-level types!) is to mention what you're doing, even if it's just a simple 'gg'.  As dondon151 said in the thread you linked, "both parties will walk off a little happier."

I don't think it will be fruitful to continue this discussion -- I foresee more heat than light.  Feel free to get the last word, if that suits you.

[^_^_^_^]

Sigh... threads like this being made repeated make me want to:
1) Smack my head against the wall.
2) Yell at theory to get working on some forum rules.
3) Yell for some posting guidelines.
4) make this post 
5) be glad that at least Mean Mr.Mustard and some others get it.   

[DrHades]

I play chess my whole life and I can tell you one thing - not resign when you are losing badly is considered as rude. But that is because the game is really long, so you basicly want to play it only when it is interesting. Dominion is short and also you build your deck so you wanna enjoy it even though you know that the game is over.

I'm going to suggest that the you in the above quote is in a minority. I certainly wouldn't dream of passing it off as fact, anyway. Seems like your opinion, to me.

I missed a word, corrected, thanks.

[michaeljb]

I'm just waiting for someone to resign from the discussion...but then, I guess that would cancel out the benefit others might get from the discussion going on until it's conclusion--but what if the thread gets locked before that? Should theory ask permission before he ends the discussion prematurely?

[Geronimoo]

Do a poll....

[olneyce]

Oh good, this conversation.

As the person who started one of the other conversations, and as someone who is not tllyod, it's pretty clear that this not a 'minority of one' situation. 

My take is that two different sets of people are arguing about two different sets of things.  Of COURSE it's silly to think people are obliged to finish games, in the sense that they can be judged to have committed some huge offense if they don't.  At the same time, of COURSE it's more courteous to a) acknowledge that you are resigning and give a quick 'thanks for the game' to communicate this or b) ask the other person if they mind you quitting.

You may disagree that it's more courteous in a way that matters.  But it's ridiculous to pretend that it's not.  Why?  Because a number of folks who you are currently talking to seem to prefer it.

It reminds me of situations where person A insists on calling person B by a nickname.  Person B has said multiple times that they would prefer to be called something else.  It's not a particularly horrific thing to continue to insist on it, but it clearly is a bit rude.  The analogy for Isotropic is, of course, a bit less specific.  Since you have no way of knowing if your opponent is one of those people who might appreciate a 'I'm way behind, no chance to catch up, gg' it's not like you are deliberately offending them.  You just have no idea. 

For me, the possibility that people might appreciate it is more than enough to justify saying something.  If you don't agree, that's fine.  But don't pretend that it's insane to think otherwise.   It's just a different perspective.

[WanderingWinder]

Oh good, this conversation.

As the person who started one of the other conversations, and as someone who is not tllyod, it's pretty clear that this not a 'minority of one' situation. 

My take is that two different sets of people are arguing about two different sets of things.  Of COURSE it's silly to think people are obliged to finish games, in the sense that they can be judged to have committed some huge offense if they don't.  At the same time, of COURSE it's more courteous to a) acknowledge that you are resigning and give a quick 'thanks for the game' to communicate this or b) ask the other person if they mind you quitting.

There's no 'of COURSE' about it....

You may disagree that it's more courteous in a way that matters.  But it's ridiculous to pretend that it's not.  Why?  Because a number of folks who you are currently talking to seem to prefer it.

1.If it doesn't matter, why does the conversation exist? 2.'it's ridiculous to pretend that it's not' - your pronouns are somewhat ambiguous - do you mean in a way that matters, or more courteous at all by 'it's not'? I mean, I suppose it's more courteous of me to ask your permission to go play a game of chess with my friends, but it would be ridiculous to try to say that that's remotely better than not asking. But the big point here is that just because X number of people are arguing both sides doesn't mean they're both reasonable. You could *all* be arguing that using expletive-laden diatribes is the best way to solve problems, but that wouldn't make it correct or even reasonable.

It reminds me of situations where person A insists on calling person B by a nickname.  Person B has said multiple times that they would prefer to be called something else.  It's not a particularly horrific thing to continue to insist on it, but it clearly is a bit rude.  The analogy for Isotropic is, of course, a bit less specific.  Since you have no way of knowing if your opponent is one of those people who might appreciate a 'I'm way behind, no chance to catch up, gg' it's not like you are deliberately offending them.  You just have no idea.

It's a poor analogy. The name thing... it's person B's name, so there's an unequal set of obligations and duties. It's more like person A and B are playing chess, and person A keeps playing 1.e4 even though person B really wants him to play 1.g4 instead. There's really no reason person A should have to switch.

For me, the possibility that people might appreciate it is more than enough to justify saying something.  If you don't agree, that's fine.  But don't pretend that it's insane to think otherwise.   It's just a different perspective.

Oh, I don't think it's insane. Just wrong. And I don't mean that to be insulting - I know I'm wrong about all kinds of things.

[olneyce]

1.If it doesn't matter, why does the conversation exist? 2.'it's ridiculous to pretend that it's not' - your pronouns are somewhat ambiguous - do you mean in a way that matters, or more courteous at all by 'it's not'? I mean, I suppose it's more courteous of me to ask your permission to go play a game of chess with my friends, but it would be ridiculous to try to say that that's remotely better than not asking. But the big point here is that just because X number of people are arguing both sides doesn't mean they're both reasonable. You could *all* be arguing that using expletive-laden diatribes is the best way to solve problems, but that wouldn't make it correct or even reasonable.

I think this bit gets at the heart of it.

There is a courtesy issue at stake.  This is the part that's obvious.  Courtesy is at stake ANY time one person thinks it is.  That's the nature of the concept.

There are, of course, plenty of things in the world where to be perfectly courteous would obligate you to do X, but you do not do X because you have a good reason not to do so.  We all balance these things in our lives all the time.  Can we agree about that?  Surely you change your behavior in some ways in your life because you don't want to annoy other people, cause them hassle, etc. 

So the only question is whether in an individual case the gain from being courteous is worth the cost it imposes on us.  You appear (and feel free to correct me if I've read these two threads wrong) to believe that the work required to type a few keystrokes is not worth the effort because it's basically meaningless.  Is that correct?

All I've tried to say here is that while you may perceive the social niceties to be utterly meaningless, other people do not.  If you're willing to accept that you are being (very very mildly) discourteous, then we have no argument.  And frankly, from your perspective, I'm sure it seems reasonable because you would gain zero value from such niceties.  But other people DO gain value from them, so to deny them that value is certainly real.

In the case of people wanting to use expletives, you certainly would be (very very mildly) discourteous to not join them in that game, but it would clearly be outweighed by the fact that the use of expletives is not helpful and/or bad.

I think that squares the circle, no?  When you say there is no obligation, what you mean is that it would be silly for people to intuit an obligation because it's an irrelevant social nicety.  When we say there is an obligation, what we mean is that it would be silly to not make the effort because it's such a small one.

But hey, human beings are fundamentally silly animals, so it is what it is.

[toaster]

The problem is that your line of reasoning implies that any time anyone thinks there is a social obligation, that creates a social obligation.  I don't think that's true at all.  It's trivial to come up with situations where people have unrealistic expectations on the behavior of others, and I don't think courtesy demands that every such whim be met.

In other words, that fact that you believe people ought to engage in this particular behavior does not in and of itself mean that they should do so, nor does it automatically make them even a little discourteous by not doing so.

[WanderingWinder]

1.If it doesn't matter, why does the conversation exist? 2.'it's ridiculous to pretend that it's not' - your pronouns are somewhat ambiguous - do you mean in a way that matters, or more courteous at all by 'it's not'? I mean, I suppose it's more courteous of me to ask your permission to go play a game of chess with my friends, but it would be ridiculous to try to say that that's remotely better than not asking. But the big point here is that just because X number of people are arguing both sides doesn't mean they're both reasonable. You could *all* be arguing that using expletive-laden diatribes is the best way to solve problems, but that wouldn't make it correct or even reasonable.

I think this bit gets at the heart of it.

There is a courtesy issue at stake.  This is the part that's obvious.  Courtesy is at stake ANY time one person thinks it is.  That's the nature of the concept.

There are, of course, plenty of things in the world where to be perfectly courteous would obligate you to do X, but you do not do X because you have a good reason not to do so.  We all balance these things in our lives all the time.  Can we agree about that?  Surely you change your behavior in some ways in your life because you don't want to annoy other people, cause them hassle, etc. 

So the only question is whether in an individual case the gain from being courteous is worth the cost it imposes on us.  You appear (and feel free to correct me if I've read these two threads wrong) to believe that the work required to type a few keystrokes is not worth the effort because it's basically meaningless.  Is that correct?

All I've tried to say here is that while you may perceive the social niceties to be utterly meaningless, other people do not.  If you're willing to accept that you are being (very very mildly) discourteous, then we have no argument.  And frankly, from your perspective, I'm sure it seems reasonable because you would gain zero value from such niceties.  But other people DO gain value from them, so to deny them that value is certainly real.

In the case of people wanting to use expletives, you certainly would be (very very mildly) discourteous to not join them in that game, but it would clearly be outweighed by the fact that the use of expletives is not helpful and/or bad.

I think that squares the circle, no?  When you say there is no obligation, what you mean is that it would be silly for people to intuit an obligation because it's an irrelevant social nicety.  When we say there is an obligation, what we mean is that it would be silly to not make the effort because it's such a small one.

But hey, human beings are fundamentally silly animals, so it is what it is.

Well, you certainly slathered this in a lot of spin. But in principle, I agree with your broad characterization of things, and while just about every detail I think you have backwards, it's not worth it to hammer them all.
Your definition of courtesy is a consistent one, but not a useful one. If it is courteous to do so many things are so clearly wrong, then what does it matter whether or not things are courteous.
I do think that it's maybe a nice thing to say when you're leaving. But I don't think you should be offended if someone doesn't do it.
While you consider some efforts small, others do not. Just as apparently some people will make large deals out of what I consider nothing.

Here's the one thing that I really didn't like: "And frankly, from your perspective, I'm sure it seems reasonable because you would gain zero value from such niceties.  But other people DO gain value from them, so to deny them that value is certainly real."
I could respond in kind: "Frankly, from your perspective, I'm sure it seems reasonable because you would gain value from your perceived niceties. But other people have to go endure jumping through your hoops, and to deny that suffering is certainly real." Now, that's laying it on a bit thick, but so did you. More importantly, the point is not really that I'm gaining nothing. It's that when you (and I don't mean you specifically here) try to demand something like this from me, it actually degrades both of us. Now, this doesn't mean it isn't nice to do the thing, just that you shouldn't demand it.