#22847: "Allow conceding in tournament matches for games where winning always grants 1 point"
Mitä tapahtui? Valitse alta
Mitä tapahtui? Valitse alta
Ennen ilmoituksen tekoa, tarkista onko sellainen jo olemassa samasta aiheesta
Jos kyllä, ole ystävällinen ja ÄÄNESTÄ tätä raporttia. Eniten ääniä saaneet raportit laitetaan ETUSIJALLE!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Tarkka kuvaus
• Kopioi/liitä virheilmoitus näytöltäsi, jos sait sellaisen.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Selitä mitä halusit tehdä, mitä teit ja mitä tapahtui
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Mitä näytöllä näkyi kun olit estettynä (Tyhjä ruutu? Osa pelin käyttöliittymästä? Virheilmoitus?)
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Mitä osaa säännöistä BGA:n sovellus ei noudattanut
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Onko sääntörikkomus nähtävillä pelin toistossa? Jos kyllä, mikä on siirron numero?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Minkä pelin toiminnon halusit suorittaa?
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mitä yritit tehdä tämän pelitoiminnon käynnistymiseksi?
• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Missä vaiheessa peliä ongelma ilmeni (mikä oli silloinen pelin ohje)?
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän pelin toiminnon (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Kuvaile näyttöongelmaa. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.
When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:
1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.
In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.
In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.
However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.
As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v84
Raportin historia
Lisää jotain tähän raporttiin
- Toinen pöydän tunnus / siirron numero
- Ratkaisiko F5 ongelman?
- Ilmestyykö ongelma useita kertoja? Joka kerta? Satunnaisesti?
- Jos sinulla on kuvankaappaus tästä bugista, voit käyttää Imgur.com:a sen lähettämiseksi. Kopioi ja liitä linkki tähän.