Print

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

[chogg]

Recently I had a dream opening: a 5/2 split on a Chapel/Vault/Grand Market/Highway board:
http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20120108-210325-373d8cd6.html

I had a 17-card deck with 8 Grand Markets and 5 Highways after 12 turns.  My opponent then said gg and promptly left.

Two more turns and I would have been virtually guaranteed the coveted MegaTurn achievement on CouncilRoom (with Colonies, no less).  I can understand leaving early in a KC-Masq-Goons pin game, or any unwinnable drawn-out slugfest.  But this board was lightning-fast.  Was it really that important for him to get to the next game?

What do you think are good etiquette guidelines for leaving games early?

[buggibum]

I wouldn't put 99 extra rules to the game.

Once you allow people to resign, there is no 2 kinds of resigning.

Ppl resign after seeing your opponent has 5/2 opening on a mountebank/chapel board, others resign when they see they are going to loose. Those achievements are only little goodies and not really achievable goals for the games. Most of them reached are faked, so it doesn't really mean so much.

If there are no punishments for ppl to stay in the game to end it no matter what like flagging, resigning is an option for people who sees they are on the loosing street.

[Kahryl]

Personally I will not resign a game unless I think the other is purposefully dragging it out for dickish reasons (this has not happened yet).  I think it's poor form.

[theory]

I think anyone can resign at any time they wish.  They take a loss, you get the win, but don't get to keep playing.  Which is sad, but they have their reasons for resigning.  No one begrudges a chess player because his resignation prevented his opponent from going through the motions of the mate in 5.

Maybe the way to resolve this is to allow you to keep playing solitaire after everyone else resigns.

[Brando Commando]

Whatevs. People resign on me, I resign on people. I mean, if I ask you if I can resign, what are you going to say, "no"? So why bother asking? I don't feel offended when people resign on me, either.

It's kind of a waste to not even get to a point where you are sure the other person is going to win, but if you feel like resigning against  a 5/2 opening on a Mountebank/Chapel board, I don't see the big deal.

[barsooma]

Sometimes I'll resign before any plays are made, when I realize the board is more boring than I thought or I don't really feel like playing more Dominion ATM.
It's a free win, enjoy it.

[Anon79]

Well, I assume you at least got to see "who needs green cards" pop up on isotropic.

[mrdirt73]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

[barsooma]

A nice addition to isotropic would be the ability to plug one of the simulator bots into your place if you are sick of getting beat down (or just stuck in a mutual quagmire from cursing etc.)
There are many times when I still have a shot at winning but I don't particularly want to go through the motions and even a very sub-optimal bot would be better than resigning.

[tlloyd]

We've had this discussion before, but I generally agree with the OP, Kahryl and MrDirt. The question is not "can people resign at any time for any reason?" (Obviously they can). The question is whether etiquette or courtesy has anything to say about whether and how you should. I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign. But most appear to disagree with my view that the response to this request could ever be anything other than "of course." I generally don't resign just because I am sure to lose, and would be willing to request my opponent wait 60 seconds so we can finish a game. But I recognize that both of those actions might appear rude to some people. The fact that people feel differently is itself a support for the view that at minimum courtesy requires more communication than "gg" and a unilateral resignation.

[Epoch]

I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign.

I do!

There is no natural right to see your mega-turn play out or whatever else you're hoping for.  All your opponent owes you is the win and, you know, not wasting your time by letting the clock time out or anything.

(Also, separately, I think it's kind of strange to get super-invested in wanting to play turns in a game that's a foregone conclusion.  If I have a complaint about people's resigning behavior, it's that I wish they'd resign faster a lot of the time.  I don't particularly enjoy playing turns while an inevitable loss plays out in slow motion.)

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Ugh, this again?  We've settled this.  Those on our side are right, the rest of you are assholes.

[tlloyd]

I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign.

I do!

There is no natural right to see your mega-turn play out or whatever else you're hoping for.  All your opponent owes you is the win and, you know, not wasting your time by letting the clock time out or anything.

(Also, separately, I think it's kind of strange to get super-invested in wanting to play turns in a game that's a foregone conclusion.  If I have a complaint about people's resigning behavior, it's that I wish they'd resign faster a lot of the time.  I don't particularly enjoy playing turns while an inevitable loss plays out in slow motion.)

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

[WanderingWinder]

I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign.

I do!

There is no natural right to see your mega-turn play out or whatever else you're hoping for.  All your opponent owes you is the win and, you know, not wasting your time by letting the clock time out or anything.

(Also, separately, I think it's kind of strange to get super-invested in wanting to play turns in a game that's a foregone conclusion.  If I have a complaint about people's resigning behavior, it's that I wish they'd resign faster a lot of the time.  I don't particularly enjoy playing turns while an inevitable loss plays out in slow motion.)

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

It's equally possible to make the same argument in the other direction.

[chogg]

Well, I assume you at least got to see "who needs green cards" pop up on isotropic.

Yep, that was my consolation prize.

[tlloyd]

I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign.

I do!

There is no natural right to see your mega-turn play out or whatever else you're hoping for.  All your opponent owes you is the win and, you know, not wasting your time by letting the clock time out or anything.

(Also, separately, I think it's kind of strange to get super-invested in wanting to play turns in a game that's a foregone conclusion.  If I have a complaint about people's resigning behavior, it's that I wish they'd resign faster a lot of the time.  I don't particularly enjoy playing turns while an inevitable loss plays out in slow motion.)

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

It's equally possible to make the same argument in the other direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mind spelling it out? Does my requesting permission to resign offend someone who feels that such a request is unnecessary? That can't be what you mean...

[Epoch]

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

My opponent doesn't get to impinge their opinion on whether I choose one of these two possibilities:

1.  Congratulate them on a game well-played and resign.
2.  Continue to play until the end of the game (unless I've mathematically lost)*, and, assuming I do lose, congratulate them on a game well-played.

To the extent that they do have a feeling about it, courtesy demands that they hide such a feeling from me.  To the extent that they do express such an opinion, they're being rude, and I feel entirely entitled to ignore their rude imposition.  I certainly don't want to solicit rudeness from them.

The notion that your opponent can demand that you spend the next five minutes playing out a game that is already over is madness, and is certainly not courteous on the part of your opponent.

This kind of reservation of areas that one is allowed to express an opinion on is a fundamental aspect of courtesy in tons of areas of life.  You also don't get to demand that I forgo eating meat at my house or in a non-vegetarian restaurant, even if you have a moral horror of eating meat.  You don't get to tell me my girlfriend is ugly, even if you honestly think she is.  You don't get to ask me what my salary is, even if you think that it would generally lead to a better world if people were open about their compensation levels.  Similarly, how and when I choose to acknowledge my losses in a game is my business, not yours, and it is irrelevant what your feelings are.  Courtesy, in those cases, are about prioritizing my feelings over yours.

* I'm conflicted about scenarios in which the game is mathematically over, but not technically finished (ie, games without vp chips or variable-point victory cards in which one player has accumulated a majority of all available vp in the game).  I think in my ideal world, isotropic would just end those games right there, but I'm not comfortable with asking people to resign in that circumstance when I'm the winning player.  If I'm the losing player, and I recognize the circumstance, I invariably resign.

[tlloyd]

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

My opponent doesn't get to impinge their opinion on whether I choose one of these two possibilities:

1.  Congratulate them on a game well-played and resign.
2.  Continue to play until the end of the game (unless I've mathematically lost)*, and, assuming I do lose, congratulate them on a game well-played.

To the extent that they do have a feeling about it, courtesy demands that they hide such a feeling from me.  To the extent that they do express such an opinion, they're being rude, and I feel entirely entitled to ignore their rude imposition.  I certainly don't want to solicit rudeness from them.

The notion that your opponent can demand that you spend the next five minutes playing out a game that is already over is madness, and is certainly not courteous on the part of your opponent.

This kind of reservation of areas that one is allowed to express an opinion on is a fundamental aspect of courtesy in tons of areas of life.  You also don't get to demand that I forgo eating meat at my house or in a non-vegetarian restaurant, even if you have a moral horror of eating meat.  You don't get to tell me my girlfriend is ugly, even if you honestly think she is.  You don't get to ask me what my salary is, even if you think that it would generally lead to a better world if people were open about their compensation levels.  Similarly, how and when I choose to acknowledge my losses in a game is my business, not yours, and it is irrelevant what your feelings are.  Courtesy, in those cases, are about prioritizing my feelings over yours.

* I'm conflicted about scenarios in which the game is mathematically over, but not technically finished (ie, games without vp chips or variable-point victory cards in which one player has accumulated a majority of all available vp in the game).  I think in my ideal world, isotropic would just end those games right there, but I'm not comfortable with asking people to resign in that circumstance when I'm the winning player.  If I'm the losing player, and I recognize the circumstance, I invariably resign.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I feel it is flawed for two reasons. First, your examples deal with bounds of privacy between strangers, whereas by entering into a game you accept some minimal set of mutual expectations. What those expectations are we are trying to decide, but it's nothing like my telling you your girlfriend is ugly.

Second, it is not illegitimate for a player to expect the game to be played to its conclusion -- while it's also not unreasonable for a different player to prefer the game end as soon as the outcome is probable. Since both views are defensible, you simply can't avoid the imperative to communicate about your expectations/preferences.

I have admitted elsewhere that demanding the other player keep playing would itself be rude, but requesting that they wait briefly would probably not be in most circumstances. Regardless, you cannot unilaterally resign without regard for the expectations of your opponent and still be considered courteous. 

[WanderingWinder]

I think few players disagree with the minimal gesture of asking to resign.

I do!

There is no natural right to see your mega-turn play out or whatever else you're hoping for.  All your opponent owes you is the win and, you know, not wasting your time by letting the clock time out or anything.

(Also, separately, I think it's kind of strange to get super-invested in wanting to play turns in a game that's a foregone conclusion.  If I have a complaint about people's resigning behavior, it's that I wish they'd resign faster a lot of the time.  I don't particularly enjoy playing turns while an inevitable loss plays out in slow motion.)

Fine. But if you know that a non-trivial number of people feel differently, how can it possibly be courteous to resign without even finding out how your opponent feels? Courtesy is, after all, not about what you are allowed to do but how other people will feel about it.

It's equally possible to make the same argument in the other direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mind spelling it out? Does my requesting permission to resign offend someone who feels that such a request is unnecessary? That can't be what you mean...

Well, while what you seem to think as absurd is actually quite possible, if somewhat unreasonable, basically my issue is this: you thinking that you have any right over whether or not I choose to resign is wrong. So I shouldn't ask you to resign, because that creates the expectation that I'll abide by your answer, an expectation you otherwise should have no right to.

[WanderingWinder]

Second, it is not illegitimate for a player to expect the game to be played to its conclusion

Resignation is a conclusion.

-- while it's also not unreasonable for a different player to prefer the game end as soon as the outcome is probable. Since both views are defensible, you simply can't avoid the imperative to communicate about your expectations/preferences.

But you are assuming an inherent imbalance such that when there is disagreement, the player who wants to keep playing gets his/her way. With no reason for that.

I have admitted elsewhere that demanding the other player keep playing would itself be rude, but requesting that they wait briefly would probably not be in most circumstances.

A)Define the difference here. B)Why is the second thing not rude?

Regardless, you cannot unilaterally resign without regard for the expectations of your opponent and still be considered courteous.

Totally unfounded claim. You have no right to consider someone uncourteous for doing something they have every right to do.

[Epoch]

I appreciate your thoughtful response, but I feel it is flawed for two reasons. First, your examples deal with bounds of privacy between strangers, whereas by entering into a game you accept some minimal set of mutual expectations. What those expectations are we are trying to decide, but it's nothing like my telling you your girlfriend is ugly.

While my salary level is a question of privacy, the attractiveness of my girlfriend is clearly not a private matter (I mean, she doesn't wear a veil), and neither is my eating meat.  They're just areas of my life that other people don't get to impinge upon without me inviting them to, and where there's no expectation for me to invite them to answer.  There are a LOT of such areas, those were just a couple of random examples.

The point is, the feelings of other people do not have primacy in terms of courtesy.

In terms of resigning, we're balancing two things:

1.  The feelings of the losing player who, apparently, does not want to wait for the game to play out.
2.  The feelings of the winning player who sometimes wants to see his engine play out.

The reason why #1 takes primacy in this circumstances are a few-fold:

The losing player is already dealing with the disappointment of losing, while the winning player is experiencing the satisfaction of having won.  Asking the player already more disappointed to deal with another minor irritant for the benefit of a player who is already winning seems ungracious at best.

The joy of seeing one's engine come together just seems like it has less value than the irritation of having to sit attentively and push the buttons for a game that is a foregone conclusion.

In general, the broad social rule is that players do not need to play games that they are not enjoying, unless there is a compelling reason why they should.  In the same way that it would not be polite for me to insist that my friends play Dominion with me even if they don't like it (just because I do like it), it is not polite to insist that someone else continue playing a game that they have lost just for your satisfaction.  The exceptions to this are when a player leaving the game has material consequences on the game, rather than just another player enjoying it.

I have admitted elsewhere that demanding the other player keep playing would itself be rude, but requesting that they wait briefly would probably not be in most circumstances. Regardless, you cannot unilaterally resign without regard for the expectations of your opponent and still be considered courteous.

Sure you can.  The expectations of that opponent are unreasonable.  There are plenty of things that my opponent might expect, but where I do not have any obligation to respect their expectations.  As someone's signature on this board notes, "Mountebanks are for jerks."  Some players really dislike cursing attacks.  Others may not appreciate my looking at a board with an interesting but slow engine, and opting instead to Doublejack the game into a quick, largely brainless finish.  Others may expect me to greet them with full sentences and come up with something original to say upon the finish of the game.

Those are all expectations that people have, and they relate to their feelings, but the truth is that courtesy deals with a small number of formal obligations.  "Being a super-great person" may involve a lot more consideration towards your opponent, but courtesy does not.

[tlloyd]

You have no right to consider someone uncourteous for doing something they have every right to do.

Of all the wrong things you said, this is the most obviously wrong.

I have every right to belch at the table, go through a door without holding it open for my wife, or refuse to say please and thank you. The fact that I have the right to do it does not prevent it from being discourteous. Nor is it rude of my mother/spouse/stranger to have expected me to act with consideration for their feelings.

From these discussions I estimate that if you unilaterally resign on Isotropic you will cause no offense the majority of the time, but a significant minority you may. Since it only takes three more seconds to type "mind if I resign?" instead of "gg," refusing to do so is at best inconsiderate and at worst prideful or selfish.

I would bet most conversations would go like this:
A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "no problem"
A: "good win"
B: "thanks for the game"

Or maybe this:

A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "is it okay if I take one more turn?"
A: "sure" or "I'd rather be done"

No matter what B says at this point, I think A can resign courteously.

Was that so hard?

[toaster]

Is it any less selfish to expect that others ask you before resigning?

[WanderingWinder]

You have no right to consider someone uncourteous for doing something they have every right to do.

Of all the wrong things you said, this is the most obviously wrong.

I have every right to belch at the table, go through a door without holding it open for my wife, or refuse to say please and thank you. The fact that I have the right to do it does not prevent it from being discourteous. Nor is it rude of my mother/spouse/stranger to have expected me to act with consideration for their feelings.

No, you have THE right to do those things. Not every right. As in, the strictures of polity, manners, what have you restrict this right from you. Of course, legally, go ahead.

From these discussions I estimate that if you unilaterally resign on Isotropic you will cause no offense the majority of the time, but a significant minority you may. Since it only takes three more seconds to type "mind if I resign?" instead of "gg," refusing to do so is at best inconsiderate and at worst prideful or selfish.

I would bet most conversations would go like this:
A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "no problem"
A: "good win"
B: "thanks for the game"

Or maybe this:

A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "is it okay if I take one more turn?"
A: "sure" or "I'd rather be done"

No matter what B says at this point, I think A can resign courteously.

Oh I disagree. I think it's EXTREMELY rude to ask someone 'Mind if I do X?" and then, upon their refusal, to ignore. The whole question is pointless if you're going to do the same thing regardless of the answer, which is the case here.
Mind you, I think you can much more reasonably argue that you should tell someone you're going to resign than you can that you have to ask them. There's a huge difference (though I still think you shouldn't have to tell them either).

[Epoch]

I have every right to belch at the table, go through a door without holding it open for my wife, or refuse to say please and thank you. The fact that I have the right to do it does not prevent it from being discourteous. Nor is it rude of my mother/spouse/stranger to have expected me to act with consideration for their feelings.

Parsing this a bit finely, you have the legal right to do these things, but perhaps not "every right."  You don't really have "every right" to be discourteous.

Note the important fact that one is expected to have different standards of respect for the feelings of your mother or spouse versus a stranger.  Perhaps to the extent that, if you're trying to understand the hows and wherefors of courtesy, that it does not do much good to lump both under the label "courtesy."

I would bet most conversations would go like this:
A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "no problem"
A: "good win"
B: "thanks for the game"

Or maybe this:

A: "mind if I resign?"
B: "is it okay if I take one more turn?"
A: "sure" or "I'd rather be done"

No matter what B says at this point, I think A can resign courteously.

Was that so hard?

While it is true that there are polite questions which one asks purely as a formality and does not expect the interlocuter to honestly reply ("How are you?" being the most obvious one), these are rather fraught aspects of courteous language, and I don't think it does much good to propagate them.  I'd prefer to leave the question of, "I think this game is over, but you've got an awesome engine going, would you like me to stay in it for your mega-turn?" to be an honest one, which my opponent understands to be one which does not limit their replies.  I would ask that question rarely, probably only in the case of a truly unique engine, certainly not for a routine KC-Bridge megaturn.

Particularly given the inherent friction of chat-based interaction, when asking the question and receiving the answer are a longer process than in face-to-face communication.

[dondon151]

Personally, I think that all that should be expected of a resigning opponent is that he doesn't force the winning player to timeout and gives a notification of his resignation ("gg," "i'm gonna resign," etc.).

The goal of Dominion is to win, not to grind your opponent to dust.

[tlloyd]

If we're going to parse THE right vs. EVERY right, then WW's assertion that resigning unilaterally is not discourteous because he has "every" right to do so is just begging the question. Which shows that the crux of his argument is "it's not discourteous if I have the legal right to do it."

[tlloyd]

The goal of Dominion is to win, not to grind your opponent to dust.

I have acknowledged that some people play only to win, and so the game loses interest once victory is either assured or impossible. Now please listen as I say (again) that some people play ... to play! That is a legitimate view, which leads to the equally legitimate expectation that the game will end when one of the ending conditions has been achieved. I am not going so far as to say that resigning is illegitimate -- but rather that it is more courteous to ask permission than to do so unilaterally. You may feel differently, but you cannot dispute that some of us feel this way. The question of courtesy is whether you will act with any consideration for the way that others feel.

[WanderingWinder]

If we're going to parse THE right vs. EVERY right, then WW's assertion that resigning unilaterally is not discourteous because he has "every" right to do so is just begging the question. Which shows that the crux of his argument is "it's not discourteous if I have the legal right to do it."

Nah, I was, well, not quite begging the argument, but pretty close.

[barsooma]

Courtesy is a social construct.
I have never in these discussions seen anyone agree with your ridiculous idea that people are obligated to ask permission to resign.
You do not constitute a "significant minority"

Give it up already.

[WanderingWinder]

Basically, it's like this: the reason the game is going on is because both players want it. Once that's not true, game should stop.
If person A gets great pleasure out of torturing person B, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to do it, EVEN IF he agreed to be tortured a little bit at first.
Yes, I realize this is a much more extreme example than what we're talking about, but the principle is the same.

[tlloyd]

Courtesy is a social construct.
I have never in these discussions seen anyone agree with your ridiculous idea that people are obligated to ask permission to resign.
You do not constitute a "significant minority"

Give it up already.

You should read the discussion before you comment. Check out the OP as well as two or three others before I even joined the discussion.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Hey, do you guys realize that there is a first person advantage?  And <i>point counters?!?</i>

[barsooma]

Courtesy is a social construct.
I have never in these discussions seen anyone agree with your ridiculous idea that people are obligated to ask permission to resign.
You do not constitute a "significant minority"

Give it up already.

You should read the discussion before you comment. Check out the OP as well as two or three others before I even joined the discussion.

I'm familiar with the debate - if you recall the older discussion that beat this topic to death you might remember that I've had plenty to say about your idiocy before.

I stand by my assertion that no-one else believes your delusions. Show me a quote by someone else that implies "people are obligated to ask permission to resign"

[WanderingWinder]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

[barsooma]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

Is this in reply to me?
I'm not claiming that no-one will be willing to go along with this, but as someone else wrote, there is a difference between being a super-nice person and being courteous.

I'm looking for someone else willing to declare that they think opponents are required to ask permission before resigning.

[Deadlock39]

Hey, do you guys realize that there is a first person advantage?  And <i>point counters?!?</i>

What!!!! <b>Point Counters?!?</b> Where's my pitchfork!

[WanderingWinder]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

Is this in reply to me?
I'm not claiming that no-one will be willing to go along with this, but as someone else wrote, there is a difference between being a super-nice person and being courteous.

I'm looking for someone else willing to declare that they think opponents are required to ask permission before resigning.

Yes it is in response to you. And this certainly doesn't show what you asked for, but it does imply it, and you asked for a post that implies.
Mind you, I don't think it's that important, and I'm also totally against the position tlloyd is taking, too.

[barsooma]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

Is this in reply to me?
I'm not claiming that no-one will be willing to go along with this, but as someone else wrote, there is a difference between being a super-nice person and being courteous.

I'm looking for someone else willing to declare that they think opponents are required to ask permission before resigning.

Yes it is in response to you. And this certainly doesn't show what you asked for, but it does imply it, and you asked for a post that implies.
Mind you, I don't think it's that important, and I'm also totally against the position tlloyd is taking, too.

Your right, I could have worded my message better.
I completely understand that people would usually prefer to see their carefully honed engines deliver the killing blow.
I take exception to being called discourteous for unilateral resignation though (other reasons are fine), and I still think tlloyd is basically alone in the position he is espousing here.

[chogg]

Courtesy is a social construct.
I have never in these discussions seen anyone agree with your ridiculous idea that people are obligated to ask permission to resign.
You do not constitute a "significant minority"

Give it up already.

You should read the discussion before you comment. Check out the OP as well as two or three others before I even joined the discussion.

I'm familiar with the debate - if you recall the older discussion that beat this topic to death you might remember that I've had plenty to say about your idiocy before.

I stand by my assertion that no-one else believes your delusions. Show me a quote by someone else that implies "people are obligated to ask permission to resign"

Your tone is ironic in a discussion about etiquette.  I'd prefer we keep things civil.

Seems to me there are two camps here.  The discussion has helped me see both points of view.  I think the closest thing to a compromise I've seen is that if you're going to resign, you don't have to "ask permission", but it's more polite to say something first, such as "gg".  (I think dondon151 said this.)  In the grand scheme of things, my opponent abruptly leaving was rude, but nowhere near as rude as, say, cursing me out first.

[chogg]

Your right, I could have worded my message better.
I completely understand that people would usually prefer to see their carefully honed engines deliver the killing blow.
I take exception to being called discourteous for unilateral resignation though (other reasons are fine), and I still think tlloyd is basically alone in the position he is espousing here.

No; I agree with him and I think he's expressed himself better than people have given him credit for.  It does seem like this view is the minority one (at least, among forum members who happened to read this thread).

Taking the discussion at face value, it seems the community consensus is that what my opponent did was no big deal.  I still think it would have been nicer if he'd said something first, so I could have asked for just 2 more turns.  But he was certainly within his rights.

[WanderingWinder]

Courtesy is a social construct.
I have never in these discussions seen anyone agree with your ridiculous idea that people are obligated to ask permission to resign.
You do not constitute a "significant minority"

Give it up already.

You should read the discussion before you comment. Check out the OP as well as two or three others before I even joined the discussion.

I'm familiar with the debate - if you recall the older discussion that beat this topic to death you might remember that I've had plenty to say about your idiocy before.

I stand by my assertion that no-one else believes your delusions. Show me a quote by someone else that implies "people are obligated to ask permission to resign"

Your tone is ironic in a discussion about etiquette.  I'd prefer we keep things civil.

Seems to me there are two camps here.  The discussion has helped me see both points of view.  I think the closest thing to a compromise I've seen is that if you're going to resign, you don't have to "ask permission", but it's more polite to say something first, such as "gg".  (I think dondon151 said this.)  In the grand scheme of things, my opponent abruptly leaving was rude, but nowhere near as rude as, say, cursing me out first.

I don't even think that was rude, but there's a much stronger argument here.
There doesn't always need to be a compromise position... http://xkcd.com/690/
There are definitely two points of view, though I'm not sure there are enough people espousing each to call them both 'camps'...

[WanderingWinder]

Your right, I could have worded my message better.
I completely understand that people would usually prefer to see their carefully honed engines deliver the killing blow.
I take exception to being called discourteous for unilateral resignation though (other reasons are fine), and I still think tlloyd is basically alone in the position he is espousing here.

No; I agree with him and I think he's expressed himself better than people have given him credit for.  It does seem like this view is the minority one (at least, among forum members who happened to read this thread).

Taking the discussion at face value, it seems the community consensus is that what my opponent did was no big deal.  I still think it would have been nicer if he'd said something first, so I could have asked for just 2 more turns.  But he was certainly within his rights.

If I tell you I'm going to resign, I'm going to take it as pretty rude if you ask me for 2 more turns.

[mrdirt73]

I typically ask my opponent if they mind me resigning.  I do this because there are games that if I were on the winning side I usually like playing it out.

However, if I ask and am told that you want to play it out, I do expect you to buy provinces when you have $8, and not draw it out hoping for that perfect megaturn.

Is this in reply to me?
I'm not claiming that no-one will be willing to go along with this, but as someone else wrote, there is a difference between being a super-nice person and being courteous.

I'm looking for someone else willing to declare that they think opponents are required to ask permission before resigning.

Yes it is in response to you. And this certainly doesn't show what you asked for, but it does imply it, and you asked for a post that implies.
Mind you, I don't think it's that important, and I'm also totally against the position tlloyd is taking, too.

Since it's my quote being used, let me clarify it. 

I don't think anyone is "obligated" to ask permission to resign.  I just do that myself because I personally think it is the nice thing to do because I know there are people out there that like to play things out if the end is in sight anyway.  Thus my further comment of "bye the province if you have $8"

That being said, I don't understand how it would be considered rude to ask for two more turns.  Then again, I rarely beat anyone to a pulp so it's not that big of an issue.

[WanderingWinder]

I've played games where turns last like 4-5 minutes, and take several button presses from the dude getting pounded into submission. And those are usually the big engine decks that someone might wanna play.

[chogg]

I don't even think that was rude, but there's a much stronger argument here.
There doesn't always need to be a compromise position... http://xkcd.com/690/
There are definitely two points of view, though I'm not sure there are enough people espousing each to call them both 'camps'...

That last sentence was snarky.

Not to mention, completely unwarranted.

Of people expressing an opinion (up to this post of yours), I count 7 in the "nothing wrong with ducking out" camp, and 4 in the "it's polite to ask" camp, plus one ambiguous.  4 is smaller than 7... but not so small that it doesn't even register. More to the point, 7 is small too: the sampling error with single-digit integers is huge.  Drawing strong conclusions is statistically unsound.

But let's not get sidetracked by technicalities.

The larger point is that I learned something about the culture of the Isotropic community.  Judging from this thread, it seems a significant fraction (probably a majority) think there's nothing wrong at all with leaving at any time, for any reason.  Some of them have taken the time to explain their views.  While I don't agree, I'm now much less likely to hold it against someone who ditches the game before I can play my engine.

On the other side, it's hard to deny that lots of other people get annoyed when the game ends prematurely.  You don't have to ask permission or anything... but if you at least say something before you leave, you make Isotropic a more pleasant place.

[chogg]

I've played games where turns last like 4-5 minutes, and take several button presses from the dude getting pounded into submission. And those are usually the big engine decks that someone might wanna play.

True, and an excellent point.  I had another dominant game today with multiple Margraves per turn -- I felt horrible for my opponent, and wouldn't have minded at all if he resigned.

But you saw my deck in this one.  5 Highways, 8 Grand markets in a 17-card deck?  That is a fast, fast turn.  The argument doesn't apply to the particular case here (which is why I took exception to his leaving).

[WanderingWinder]

I don't even think that was rude, but there's a much stronger argument here.
There doesn't always need to be a compromise position... http://xkcd.com/690/
There are definitely two points of view, though I'm not sure there are enough people espousing each to call them both 'camps'...

That last sentence was snarky.

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

Not to mention, completely unwarranted.

Of people expressing an opinion (up to this post of yours), I count 7 in the "nothing wrong with ducking out" camp, and 4 in the "it's polite to ask" camp, plus one ambiguous.  4 is smaller than 7... but not so small that it doesn't even register. More to the point, 7 is small too: the sampling error with single-digit integers is huge.  Drawing strong conclusions is statistically unsound.

But let's not get sidetracked by technicalities.

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.

The larger point is that I learned something about the culture of the Isotropic community.  Judging from this thread, it seems a significant fraction (probably a majority) think there's nothing wrong at all with leaving at any time, for any reason.  Some of them have taken the time to explain their views.  While I don't agree, I'm now much less likely to hold it against someone who ditches the game before I can play my engine.

I'm not sure how you didn't know that before, but good.

On the other side, it's hard to deny that lots of other people get annoyed when the game ends prematurely.

Two problems with this are 'lots' and 'prematurely'. I find only a smattering who care at all, and resignation is by no means a premature end to the game.

You don't have to ask permission or anything... but if you at least say something before you leave, you make Isotropic a more pleasant place.

More pleasant for you, maybe. But less pleasant overall if you have this (unreasonable) expectation.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Okay, derail time.  You know what I think is rude?  To backtrack into my strategy and beat  me through better shuffling.  I can't stand that.

Also, that guy who has a lead, not quite insurmountable, but close enough to keep me interested, who takes ten seconds per action in a big engine deck.  I mean, come on.  I'd like to try to buck the odds but do I really want to spend half an hour in a battle I'll likely lose?

[Fabian]

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.

[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.