Opponent A plays Edric, Spymaster of Trest deck and has been drawing truckloads of cards. He controls Reliquary Tower and took 3 turns in a row due to some time spells. He whacked opponent B in those turns.
When opponent B is about to die, he concedes the game to prevent opponent A from drawing cards off Edric.
Is it a gentlemanly thing for opponent B to do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GMR21=OYS, I know you.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
I would classify the scenario you're discussing as a spite play. This might have been triggered by the Edric player dominating a table with a very strong deck, compared to the power level of the rest of the decks. Regardless of what triggers it, I'd still call it a spite play.
While my understanding of the rules is that this is technically allowed, my playgroup would likely just have played as if the creatures did connect if someone tried to scoop after attacks are declared. House rules are fine in a social format. In an unfamiliar environment? I'd just roll with it.
It's a bit of a spite play, but denying some triggers to the player who took you out of the game (especially when they're just whacking you in the face continually for 3 turns in a row to do so) should just be anticipated by the Edric player. Waiting until after attackers are declared against you is the only way to give the Edric player's other opponents a bit more of a chance, possibly. It isn't even a kingmaker move because it doesn't undercut the Edric players current dominance, it just denies some advancement in that dominance.
Yeah in my group he would have just drawn the cards anyway. The same way when its very, very clear that one of us will be killed by another player we may scoop but the supposedly attacking player will still tap their creatures as though they had attacked the player who conceded. Because otherwise it just opens up that player to take out another player that they otherwise wouldn't have. I know I lost a game once because one of my friends scooped so the other player just attacked and killed me when I would have combo'd off on my next turn and won myself.
In my group, we decided that players can only concede under three circumstances: Sorcery speed (their turn), all simultaneously (all opponents agree to scoop), or they've been effectively removed from the game (say, being forced to sacrifice all their permanents).
Generally, I feel that conceding (at instant speed) to spite or to deny an opponent something is against the spirit, but really it depends on the dynamic of the group. If I cast a Villainous Wealth with X=40 targeting a player and they concede in response, is that fair to me? My deck is designed to do that. Going along with what a few others said above, if the person conceded, my group would treat it as though they blocked the most damage and the rest went through.
If I cast a Villainous Wealth with X=40 targeting a player and they concede in response, is that fair to me? My deck is designed to do that. Going along with what a few others said above, if the person conceded, my group would treat it as though they blocked the most damage and the rest went through.
I will say that some people will scoop to this because they don't think they can win and do not want people to know what's in their deck, or in some instances don't want other people touching their cards.
There is also the speed consideration. VW for 40 takes a long time to resolve, and you can't force someone to sit there while you read the text on all their cards.
For the OP, spite conceding to deny triggers (or lifelink) is unsportsmanlike.
But what about not blocking?
Or blocking to kill the biggest threat despite the fact you're still losing?
There are a lot of grey areas. I think the correct play depends on the game. Trying to help the other players beat the person ahead on board is fine. Letting the person ahead on board keep all their attackers so the game ends faster sucks, but, it gets you playing faster. Or, maybe your group would see it differently.
I am sure there are situations where it is okay to deny the card draw triggers, but most of the time it is not a fair play.
Gentlemanly? No. But I would say neither is attacking the same player for 3 consecutive turns unless that stopped them from immediately winning the game.
And I 100% would have done the same, scooped after declared attackers.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Just consider this: spiteful plays like this encourage people to rely as little as possible on their opponents being in the game for their win conditions. So instead of playing Edric, Spymaster of Trest aggro/control you'll start seeing more Thrasios, Triton Hero solitaire.
The decks that can be disrupted most by the "spite scoop" also happen to be the ones that allow more interaction. In my opinion, it is far better to let they player have his win and preserve an environment of interaction and counterplays.
Gentlemanly? No. But I would say neither is attacking the same player for 3 consecutive turns unless that stopped them from immediately winning the game.
And I 100% would have done the same, scooped after declared attackers.
If the aggro player is not attacking the same person, then they are aggroing wrong. Sometimes you do have to switch because you find out someone is running combos and you need to kill them first or you will lose....
Causing you to scoop plays into the aggro player's plan. One less person to worry about. All of Edric's draw triggers go off if no blocks, move to second main and continue as usual with or without the attached player.
I think ultimately, the answer should depend on how you evaluate king-maker play or basically any play made by a player who is guaranteed or likely to lose to try to influence or greatly influence the outcome of the game for the other players.
I feel like to be consistent, your reaction to this should be more or less closely aligned to playing Skullwinder before you die to give someone their combo piece back. There are some differences, but the overarching situation is the same. Another example is using Swords to Plowshares on a critical creature before losing even though it doesn't save you. Or if an Oblivion Ring is holding a combo piece out of play and you concede in response to removal so it stays exiled forever and keeps the other players alive.
I don't see anyone arguing against it, but I do want to point out that it's a perfectly legal move to concede before damage. I think we're just discussing the merits.
As to my actual preference: Deterrents exist for a reason. Don't attack me or I'll kill your creatures and make things harder for you. Things like that. They exist whether or not the damage is lethal, why should damage being lethal stop me from casting removal? That's the tax you pay for trying to kill me, regardless of whether you succeed or not.
The main difference between that and the situation you outline is that it sits in a part of the rules that may not be obvious to new players. I would suggest explaining how it works the first time but taking the damage so that they aren't caught unexpectedly by the rules. Then whenever it comes up in the future, concede or not based on how you feel.
With respect to the example, I feel like Brago would make a better one since it's much higher variance. Flickering everything and getting a ton of spell effects vs merely drawing some number of cards. Though the situation still comes up with effects as mundane as lifelink.
Just consider this: spiteful plays like this encourage people to rely as little as possible on their opponents being in the game for their win conditions. So instead of playing Edric, Spymaster of Trest aggro/control you'll start seeing more Thrasios, Triton Hero solitaire.
The decks that can be disrupted most by the "spite scoop" also happen to be the ones that allow more interaction. In my opinion, it is far better to let they player have his win and preserve an environment of interaction and counterplays.
I very much agree with the core of your assessment, but in the specific case of Edric, all such decks I've encountered have been pretty unpleasant to play against. Because he's interactive, they're able to price him more aggressively, so the optimized decks he's in are that much more effective. If it were something like Brago vs Roon, I'm totally with you.
I think either way, I'd be more inclined to deny resources to players who weren't fun to play against which is probably my overall heuristic.
Of course what's worthy of note here is that this scenario likely involved YOU being the one with the Edric deck, knowing what you've posted about in the past.
And as always, the same advice applies: Talk to your playgroup about all this. It's not gentlemanly, but neither is taking multiple turns and STILL NOT WINNING.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
If I cast a Villainous Wealth with X=40 targeting a player and they concede in response, is that fair to me? My deck is designed to do that. Going along with what a few others said above, if the person conceded, my group would treat it as though they blocked the most damage and the rest went through.
I will say that some people will scoop to this because they don't think they can win and do not want people to know what's in their deck, or in some instances don't want other people touching their cards.
There is also the speed consideration. VW for 40 takes a long time to resolve, and you can't force someone to sit there while you read the text on all their cards.
That's why I said beforehand 'it depends on the dynamic of your group'. I can use VW with X=40, but I'm a fairly fast and decisive player and my group knows this, so it's not really an issue. I also don't mind being on the receiving end of a comparable move from others, unless it takes an absurd amount of time. I once saw someone spend five minutes on an End-of-Turn Mystical Tutor, only to take another 15 to figure out how to win (we thought the reason the search took so long was 'figuring it out'). You do make fair points for a larger/less personal playgroup, though, I hadn't factored those in. I suppose people taking 'too long' to resolve a spell or take their turn gets under my skin, but I've still always allowed them to finish, only conceding if everyone agreed the game was over already, lol.
If I cast a Villainous Wealth with X=40 targeting a player and they concede in response, is that fair to me? My deck is designed to do that. Going along with what a few others said above, if the person conceded, my group would treat it as though they blocked the most damage and the rest went through.
I will say that some people will scoop to this because they don't think they can win and do not want people to know what's in their deck, or in some instances don't want other people touching their cards.
I would certainly find it miserable to lose to someone casting a third of my deck and would rather concede than experience that. If you have access to 43 mana, surely there's a better win condition, though I suppose Exsanguinate isn't as useful if you only have 12 mana.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: spite scooping punishes people for playing the kinds of decks most groups purportedly WANT them to play, decks that are exposed to interaction. This encourages players that want to actually successfully implement their gameplan to brew increasingly insular, solitaire-style decks that don't care what opponents are doing, so that they don't get screwed out of making their desired plays by needing to interact.
Personally, I let Swords and other triggers happen if they're going to kill me. I try to exhibit good sportsmanship, and to me, scooping in response just to deny someone resources is petty, spiteful, and immature. Their deck is doing its thing. Let them have their fun, then shuffle up and start a new game.
That said, I will absolutely 100% use everything in my deck's power to make winning the game as hard as possible for the one who took me out. I think this is fair game because you're using in-game resources, not meta rules, to inhibit them.
I would certainly find it miserable to lose to someone casting a third of my deck and would rather concede than experience that. If you have access to 43 mana, surely there's a better win condition, though I suppose Exsanguinate isn't as useful if you only have 12 mana.
I would classify the scenario you're discussing as a spite play. This might have been triggered by the Edric player dominating a table with a very strong deck, compared to the power level of the rest of the decks.
Of course what's worthy of note here is that this scenario likely involved YOU being the one with the Edric deck, knowing what you've posted about in the past.
It depends..did that player do something that hosed my plans before I died..if so then yes I will deny them the card draw.
Of course that is not as vindictive as someone using villainous wealth..taking a few good creatures that will win them the game..then vamp tutoring an Emrakul the Promised end to the top of your deck so Dark Confidant kills you before they can use all your fun creatures. *cough*
I would consider it an unsportmanship, jerk move, on the same level as a tableflipping when you are about to lose or just blatant cheating. As an otherwise introvert, calm guy, I would never hesitate to call out anybody I'd see doing that and as sure as hell would not play with that person anymore.
I believe in multiplayer games, in a situation when I am about to lose and can't do anything about it, I would just let it happen, without trying to harm player defeating me or affecting boardpresence at all. I respect other players and their wincons, being it multiple extra turns or infinite comboes. But I cannot stand acting like a jerk and being unsportmanslike.
Great answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GMR21=OYS, I know you.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
Gentlemanly? No. But I would say neither is attacking the same player for 3 consecutive turns unless that stopped them from immediately winning the game.
And I 100% would have done the same, scooped after declared attackers.
Agree with that, and I would also add that to me, edric isnt really gentlemanly commander
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can not win the game and my opponents can not lose the game.
Honestly, I don't have an opinion on the matter. I can't even outright consider it bad sportsmanship without knowing the social context of the game/playgroup. It's gentlemanly if the playgroup accepts it, it's not if playgroup doesn't and if the playgroup is "arguing" (actively or subtle via gameplay) over it over a (relatively) very long period of time, then the playgroup itself is ungentlemanly because they're disrespecting the Social Contract half of the format.
EDH is a format composed of 50% MTG and 50% Social Contracts. The first half tells you what you can do (with no moral/social implications at all) and the second half tells you what you should do (or not) by applying the implications. Half the effort of playing the format isn't actually playing it, but formulating the Social Contract of the format you play together with others.
In case you're wondering why I don't have an opinion, I'll just say I never really cared about it from a personal perspective - I build my decks (or at the very least try to do so individually, although with the safety net of having multiple decks) with the capability to win in multiple ways including "solitaire" ways and adapt the flexibility depending on the playgroup/game I am in (meaning I don't assemble solitaire straightaway in casual groups and vice versa but I will shamelessly fall back onto the solitaire plan if something goes wrong with the interactive one regardless of game/playgroup, since I do still want to have an actual winning chance regardless of not if I already "won" that game in other ways).
Likewise, my "playstyle" changes depending on the situation and playgroup - my LGS playgroup isn't absolutely consistent itself either (hard to be when its a large group of players who may not appear every week, myself included) and there were different situations where different players had different stances when it came to conceding (usually boils down to whether it denies or causes an "epic" moment, there are times conceding can cause better moments to most players, involved or not). In fact there were some feel-bad concede games that happen time-to-time but we've more or less accepted that it is a game in the end and simply recognize that because we're too large, we can't really regulate and don't really need to "feel that bad about the "feel-bads"" in a way (it helps that it seldom actually happens to be an actual issue anyway).
So basically, my flexible (or indecisive if one wants to be negative about everything) stand does pretty much come from because I mostly play in a relatively casual (social-wise, our actual decks are more or less tuned to be around 75% and there are brutal games out there once in a while just like the feel-bad ones) playgroup that agreed to be as such (another good reason being at the LGS such flexibility is arguably the easiest "policy" to accept new players and have them adapt to being equally flexible than from one end to another).
I can't say much for closer-knit groups of more consistent members (my other group that's more close-knit consists of friends whom nowadays we only meet up for MTG games (due to our individual lives), but at the same time we more than just a "MTG playgroup", so we can afford the more "closed" policy where spite plays are a meta-fun of its own since it's mostly between friends (and the very occasional newcomer and/or irregulars are already made clear on the matter)).
Huh. This is the first time I've heard that this was considered to be kind of a jerk move. I'd never even thought of something like that before. My group does this judiciously, but that's a knee jerk reaction to Sydri, Galvanic Genius and aetherflux reservoir, since that's a solid way to interrupt the infinite combo, and it doesn't just mean everyone at the table instaloses. Since that was the first time we'd thought of scooping in response to something, we kind of just kept it as a general thing and never really saw it as a problem. Its definitely interesting to see how other groups react to the same way. I had no idea it was rude, or whatever.
Player C is tapped out.
Player A had somewhat between 0 and 5 lifepoints. He played Disciple of Iranos (the Boros XP Commander) and had it big with equipment. Tapped out.
Player B stole it, and cause of some equipment, it had haste.
Player C had nothing to block, and already took some commanderdamage von Disciple of Iranos, enough to die with a single attack.
Player B moves to combat and attacks Player C.
Player A scoops, Disciple of Iranos vanishes, Player C lives to kill a tapped out player B on the next turn.
Player A is a jerk, ungentlemanly jerk. I would never play with player A again but if I do, I will rub that salt into his wound until the end of time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GMR21=OYS, I know you.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
As someone who only plays casual EDH, I think scooping is always unsportsmanlike unless either the whole group agrees to it to real life gets in the way (someone has to get the last bus home for example).
I would never allow someone to spite scoop to deny triggers, the impact of someone leaving the game othe than genuinely losing should always be as minimized as possible. I would even allow someone to get a token of a creature he/she stole from someone who has to scoop because the creature he/she loses is not genuinely removed etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When opponent B is about to die, he concedes the game to prevent opponent A from drawing cards off Edric.
Is it a gentlemanly thing for opponent B to do?
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
I was thinking the same thing.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
While my understanding of the rules is that this is technically allowed, my playgroup would likely just have played as if the creatures did connect if someone tried to scoop after attacks are declared. House rules are fine in a social format. In an unfamiliar environment? I'd just roll with it.
old thread
old thread
old thread
R Zada Arcane Storm
RBU Marchesa
GWU Estrid
GWR Samut?
URB Kess
(R/W)(U/B) Akiri & Silas
BWR Alesha
R Neheb Dragons
G Nylea Wurms
W Darien
U Tetsuko
Generally, I feel that conceding (at instant speed) to spite or to deny an opponent something is against the spirit, but really it depends on the dynamic of the group. If I cast a Villainous Wealth with X=40 targeting a player and they concede in response, is that fair to me? My deck is designed to do that. Going along with what a few others said above, if the person conceded, my group would treat it as though they blocked the most damage and the rest went through.
I will say that some people will scoop to this because they don't think they can win and do not want people to know what's in their deck, or in some instances don't want other people touching their cards.
There is also the speed consideration. VW for 40 takes a long time to resolve, and you can't force someone to sit there while you read the text on all their cards.
For the OP, spite conceding to deny triggers (or lifelink) is unsportsmanlike.
But what about not blocking?
Or blocking to kill the biggest threat despite the fact you're still losing?
There are a lot of grey areas. I think the correct play depends on the game. Trying to help the other players beat the person ahead on board is fine. Letting the person ahead on board keep all their attackers so the game ends faster sucks, but, it gets you playing faster. Or, maybe your group would see it differently.
I am sure there are situations where it is okay to deny the card draw triggers, but most of the time it is not a fair play.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
And I 100% would have done the same, scooped after declared attackers.
The decks that can be disrupted most by the "spite scoop" also happen to be the ones that allow more interaction. In my opinion, it is far better to let they player have his win and preserve an environment of interaction and counterplays.
If the aggro player is not attacking the same person, then they are aggroing wrong. Sometimes you do have to switch because you find out someone is running combos and you need to kill them first or you will lose....
Causing you to scoop plays into the aggro player's plan. One less person to worry about. All of Edric's draw triggers go off if no blocks, move to second main and continue as usual with or without the attached player.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
I feel like to be consistent, your reaction to this should be more or less closely aligned to playing Skullwinder before you die to give someone their combo piece back. There are some differences, but the overarching situation is the same. Another example is using Swords to Plowshares on a critical creature before losing even though it doesn't save you. Or if an Oblivion Ring is holding a combo piece out of play and you concede in response to removal so it stays exiled forever and keeps the other players alive.
I don't see anyone arguing against it, but I do want to point out that it's a perfectly legal move to concede before damage. I think we're just discussing the merits.
As to my actual preference: Deterrents exist for a reason. Don't attack me or I'll kill your creatures and make things harder for you. Things like that. They exist whether or not the damage is lethal, why should damage being lethal stop me from casting removal? That's the tax you pay for trying to kill me, regardless of whether you succeed or not.
The main difference between that and the situation you outline is that it sits in a part of the rules that may not be obvious to new players. I would suggest explaining how it works the first time but taking the damage so that they aren't caught unexpectedly by the rules. Then whenever it comes up in the future, concede or not based on how you feel.
With respect to the example, I feel like Brago would make a better one since it's much higher variance. Flickering everything and getting a ton of spell effects vs merely drawing some number of cards. Though the situation still comes up with effects as mundane as lifelink.
I very much agree with the core of your assessment, but in the specific case of Edric, all such decks I've encountered have been pretty unpleasant to play against. Because he's interactive, they're able to price him more aggressively, so the optimized decks he's in are that much more effective. If it were something like Brago vs Roon, I'm totally with you.
I think either way, I'd be more inclined to deny resources to players who weren't fun to play against which is probably my overall heuristic.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
And as always, the same advice applies: Talk to your playgroup about all this. It's not gentlemanly, but neither is taking multiple turns and STILL NOT WINNING.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
That's why I said beforehand 'it depends on the dynamic of your group'. I can use VW with X=40, but I'm a fairly fast and decisive player and my group knows this, so it's not really an issue. I also don't mind being on the receiving end of a comparable move from others, unless it takes an absurd amount of time. I once saw someone spend five minutes on an End-of-Turn Mystical Tutor, only to take another 15 to figure out how to win (we thought the reason the search took so long was 'figuring it out'). You do make fair points for a larger/less personal playgroup, though, I hadn't factored those in. I suppose people taking 'too long' to resolve a spell or take their turn gets under my skin, but I've still always allowed them to finish, only conceding if everyone agreed the game was over already, lol.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
Personally, I let Swords and other triggers happen if they're going to kill me. I try to exhibit good sportsmanship, and to me, scooping in response just to deny someone resources is petty, spiteful, and immature. Their deck is doing its thing. Let them have their fun, then shuffle up and start a new game.
That said, I will absolutely 100% use everything in my deck's power to make winning the game as hard as possible for the one who took me out. I think this is fair game because you're using in-game resources, not meta rules, to inhibit them.
Exsanguinate? Get with the times, gramps. Torment of Hailfire is the new hotness.
I enjoy seeing huge Villainous Wealths go off, but I enjoy big, dumb plays like that.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Of course that is not as vindictive as someone using villainous wealth..taking a few good creatures that will win them the game..then vamp tutoring an Emrakul the Promised end to the top of your deck so Dark Confidant kills you before they can use all your fun creatures. *cough*
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
Great answer.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
Agree with that, and I would also add that to me, edric isnt really gentlemanly commander
EDH is a format composed of 50% MTG and 50% Social Contracts. The first half tells you what you can do (with no moral/social implications at all) and the second half tells you what you should do (or not) by applying the implications. Half the effort of playing the format isn't actually playing it, but formulating the Social Contract of the format you play together with others.
In case you're wondering why I don't have an opinion, I'll just say I never really cared about it from a personal perspective - I build my decks (or at the very least try to do so individually, although with the safety net of having multiple decks) with the capability to win in multiple ways including "solitaire" ways and adapt the flexibility depending on the playgroup/game I am in (meaning I don't assemble solitaire straightaway in casual groups and vice versa but I will shamelessly fall back onto the solitaire plan if something goes wrong with the interactive one regardless of game/playgroup, since I do still want to have an actual winning chance regardless of not if I already "won" that game in other ways).
Likewise, my "playstyle" changes depending on the situation and playgroup - my LGS playgroup isn't absolutely consistent itself either (hard to be when its a large group of players who may not appear every week, myself included) and there were different situations where different players had different stances when it came to conceding (usually boils down to whether it denies or causes an "epic" moment, there are times conceding can cause better moments to most players, involved or not). In fact there were some feel-bad concede games that happen time-to-time but we've more or less accepted that it is a game in the end and simply recognize that because we're too large, we can't really regulate and don't really need to "feel that bad about the "feel-bads"" in a way (it helps that it seldom actually happens to be an actual issue anyway).
So basically, my flexible (or indecisive if one wants to be negative about everything) stand does pretty much come from because I mostly play in a relatively casual (social-wise, our actual decks are more or less tuned to be around 75% and there are brutal games out there once in a while just like the feel-bad ones) playgroup that agreed to be as such (another good reason being at the LGS such flexibility is arguably the easiest "policy" to accept new players and have them adapt to being equally flexible than from one end to another).
I can't say much for closer-knit groups of more consistent members (my other group that's more close-knit consists of friends whom nowadays we only meet up for MTG games (due to our individual lives), but at the same time we more than just a "MTG playgroup", so we can afford the more "closed" policy where spite plays are a meta-fun of its own since it's mostly between friends (and the very occasional newcomer and/or irregulars are already made clear on the matter)).
EDIT: Text Fixes
Player A is a jerk, ungentlemanly jerk. I would never play with player A again but if I do, I will rub that salt into his wound until the end of time.
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
I would never allow someone to spite scoop to deny triggers, the impact of someone leaving the game othe than genuinely losing should always be as minimized as possible. I would even allow someone to get a token of a creature he/she stole from someone who has to scoop because the creature he/she loses is not genuinely removed etc.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.