• Будь ласка, скопіюйте/вставте повідомлення про помилку, якщо ви бачите якесь на своєму екрані.

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.

• Будь ласка, опишіть, що ви намагалися зробити, що зробили, та що трапилось

• Який у вас браузер?

• Будь ласка, скопіюйте/вставте текст відображений англійською замість вашої мови. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Чи цей текст доступний у системі перекладів? Якщо так, то чи перекладали його понад 24 години тому?

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.

• Який у вас браузер?

• Будь ласка, поясніть вашу пропозицію точно й лаконічно, щоб було якомога легше зрозуміти, що ви маєте на увазі.

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.

• Який у вас браузер?

• Що було на екрані до того, як ваша гра заблокувалася (Порожній екран? Частина ігрового інтерфейсу? Повідомлення про помилку?)

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.

• Який у вас браузер?

• Які саме правила були порушені адаптацією гри на BGA

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.

• Чи видні порушення правил на повторі гри? Якщо так, на якому кроці?

• Який у вас браузер?

• Яку ігрову дію ви намагалися виконати?

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.

• Що ви намагались зробити, щоб активувати цю ігрову дію?

• Що сталося, коли Ви намагалися виконати цю дію (текст помилки, статус на панелі повідомлень, ...)?

• Який у вас браузер?

• На якому етапі гри виникла проблема (яка була на той момент вказівка в грі)?

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.

• Що стається, коли ви намагаєтесь зробити ігрову дію (повідомлення про помилку, повідомлення на панелі статусу гри і т.п.)?

• Який у вас браузер?

• Будь ласка, опишіть візуальну помилку. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here.

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.

• Який у вас браузер?

• Будь ласка, скопіюйте/вставте текст відображений англійською замість вашої мови. If you have a screenshot of this bug (good practice), you can use a picture hosting service of your choice (snipboard.io for example) to upload it and copy/paste the link here. Чи цей текст доступний у системі перекладів? Якщо так, то чи перекладали його понад 24 години тому?

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.

• Який у вас браузер?

• Будь ласка, поясніть вашу пропозицію точно й лаконічно, щоб було якомога легше зрозуміти, що ви маєте на увазі.

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.

• Який у вас браузер?