Print

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

[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.