Print

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

[ackack]

(and sometimes even pre-game analysis like I open $5/$2 on a Colony board that has no real engine. Should I open Mine or Jack ? 30 seconds later I know it's Jack... I don't know if people think that's cheating???)

Within the confines of Isotropic where card manipulation is presumably impossible, this seems like it's about the top of the list in terms of cheating. Force disconnecting your opponent would beat it, but that's probably about it. I'm kinda puzzled that this would be a question.

[theory]

(and sometimes even pre-game analysis like I open $5/$2 on a Colony board that has no real engine. Should I open Mine or Jack ? 30 seconds later I know it's Jack... I don't know if people think that's cheating???)

Within the confines of Isotropic where card manipulation is presumably impossible, this seems like it's about the top of the list in terms of cheating. Force disconnecting your opponent would beat it, but that's probably about it. I'm kinda puzzled that this would be a question.

Is it cheating if I look up the best opening on CouncilRoom, or do a quick search of this forum to see if anyone has talked about how to properly play NV/Bridge?

I think consulting a simulator is pretty high up on the list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it crosses the line.

[ackack]

Is it cheating if I look up the best opening on CouncilRoom, or do a quick search of this forum to see if anyone has talked about how to properly play NV/Bridge?

At the beginning of a game? Yes, I'd say so.

I think consulting a simulator is pretty high up on the list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it crosses the line.

If it doesn't, then almost nothing does. Consider the extension to the case where a computer player is the strongest player in existence. Now let somebody echo the moves from that computer player against their opponent. Is that cheating? I'd say obviously, yes. There's clearly a difference in degree, but I don't think there's a difference in kind. Especially since Geronimoo mentioned that he was talking about situations where no engines were feasible - in other words, situations where the simulator is likely dominant. And that weighting of which engine is better is going to be a huge majority of the actual strategic input into such a game.

Not that we overlap on Iso much, but I wouldn't play Geronimoo after that disclosure.

[DStu]

Fork please...

[greatexpectations]

i think it is comparable to a poker player looking up the odds for a certain play or draw. if you know the odds coming in (as most elite players do) then you can feel free to use them.  but to look them up during any competitive play would be illegal or at the very least frowned upon. 

that being said, you still need to know how to properly play those odds, or in this case the key card of your deck.

[painted_cow]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

To the simulating before game opening: Imo its a bit shady, you cant ask a friend in Magic whether or not you should keep this hand etc. Or consult a computer in chess. Doing this in tournaments is not really nice (Did you use it against me in the first 3 rounds of IsoDom? Just being curious, because this were all Boards without Engines if I recall it correctly). Say you take 3 minutes before the game to "analyse the board" aka simulation. It is a ethical question of course, and no one could possibly hindering you from using your own tool.

@greatexpectations: Wow, its really hard to click on a card like JoaT or Smithy in BigMoney games. Not much skill needed for this 

[jonts26]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

Wait...where do I come into this?

[Thisisnotasmile]

At first, good work Jonts26. This is a way to climb from level 30 to 40 too (could be mentioned in the tread for it).

Wait...where do I come into this?

This was originally in the Analyzing the Board guide until the fork lol.

[Donald X.]

imo create an account called Computer-Aided Geronimoo, or Computer-Aided theory, etc., and then people can choose whether or not they want to play against that. Some people may be happy playing against an AI, or cyborg.

If Deep Blue beats someone in a game of chess, you can't claim that as a victory for yourself, that's madness. It's the same if Deep Blue just makes a few moves for you.

[jonts26]

Oh ok. Now it makes sense. Thanks.

Also the fork comment makes more sense now, too. Man, this thread was confusing me.

[rrenaud]

I'd say the worst thing you could do on iso is consistently make moves that take close to but not quite the move time limit.

I'd personally love to see human/machine combos owning humans on iso (and I'd even more love to see machines owning humans).

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

[Fabian]

To me, this is computer aided playing, which is not cool (unless properly announced etc, like Donald mentions) in pretty much any sport/game where computer can do things humans can't. I'd be reasonably disappointed to hear something like that was used against me, and in a tournament setting, it's imo outright cheating.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

[ackack]

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

I agree. The solution is to do what Donald said: clearly label any account that does this as a computer. People using high quality games playing programs as an aid to their own unlabeled account, however, seems about as far from awesome as you can get.

Kudos to Geronimoo for bringing it up. I'm sure he sincerely thought this was okay (although he does recognize it's enough of an issue to bring it up in the first place.)

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

I know! It's just like people who think they should spank their children having a problem with aggravated assault.

I didn't use a point counter before one was officially instituted in the interface. As a rule, external aids that haven't been explicitly ratified by the community strike me as problematic. But I don't think that's anywhere close to the same league as this. added: Among other things, in the era when I've been playing on isotropic, most of the client-side point counters explicitly announced their presence and allowed both players to access the information. Both that symmetry and the counting issue being somewhat more on the periphery of the game change things up quite a bit.

[olneyce]

I don't have a problem with it, but I think it's totally understandable that many people do. If an opponent asked if I minded, I'd say go ahead.

I think it's important that simulators aren't perfect (or close to it). There is a lot of skill still required to figure out what to feed in, and what to do with the results.

[chwhite]

If my opponent was running the simulator before games to optimize buys and strategy for that board, then I would have a lot less respect for them.  If they did that in a tournament, there is no question that should be considered cheating.

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

The point counter is not as bad, but I do have a mild preference for non-point counter games, and don't play with it unless my opponent says so.  (The old third-party counters that you couldn't access and/or shut off did bother me much more.)

[ftl]

I'd personally love to see human/machine combos owning humans on iso (and I'd even more love to see machines owning humans).

There is just something cold, hard, objective, and awesome about programs playing games well.

Agreed, on both counts. AIs are awesome.

They're hard, though. Especially for Dominion.

[Davio]

If people resort to actively using the simulator to play a GAME against other people, I'd say it's their loss, not mine.

[tlloyd]

I won't go so far as to call it cheating (I'm one of those people who doesn't call the point-tracker cheating despite never using it), but I do call it cowardly and, to be blunt, rather pathetic.

No offense to any particular persons intended, but a top player shouldn't need to do this. I mean what is the point of playing random sets if one of the players does a few million practice rounds before the game starts?

Btw, I do appreciate that Geronimoo admitted this himself, because the secrecy is the worst part.

[theory]

To clarify, I don't run simulations before games either.  I just think this raises very interesting questions of ethics.  It's unquestionably true that using a machine in chess to pick your moves is cheating.  But isn't there some recognition for the fact that simulators are dealing with incomplete, inaccurate generalities that don't necessarily apply to the particulars of the situation.  Neither rspeer's nor Geronimoo's simulators are actually capable of simulating entire games and boards.

[Octo]

It's in the same bag as the point-counter for me:  variant if you agree to it, cheating if you don't.

I was about to bring exactly this example up in the last point-counter thread, but it got locked as I was posting. It always comes back to the real game with me - would I do this if playing face-to-face? Of course not. Being un-seen by the opponent is no excuse for cheating. Whatever it is, it's not how the game was meant to played, that much is for sure. Online gaming has produced some interesting side-effects, to the point where the "spirit of the game" is no longer relevant, and the absence of a referee means there's no room for on-the-spot judgements of foul play, so all rules have to be black and white without exceptions, and everything not covered tends to be fair game.

Strange how some people who were all for the point counter back when it was being used in games without the opponent's consent are dead against this.

Yup.

[Geronimoo]

  I didn't expect this kind of reaction. Maybe I should clarify: I always take a minute to read the board, but it's impossible to construct proper buy rules and simulate a complete strategy in that amount of time. The only thing I can do very quickly is see if one card beats another card like Jack beats Mine in a Colony game with a $5/$2 opening, BUT that doesn't take into account the other 8 cards on the board while their impact may be huge. And I think in the 1000 games I've played I've done it max 5 times.

People who don't want to play against me anymore because of this feels like Phil Ivey not wanting to play against Daniel Negreanu if he brings along a pocket computer to calculate the odds. That's just silly.

High level Dominion games can't be simulated in under a minute, but if people have a problem with this, I promise to not use it anymore pre-game. I'm all for fair-play!

[Fabian]

"People who don't want to play against me anymore because of this feels like Phil Ivey not wanting to play against Daniel Negreanu if he brings along a pocket computer to calculate the odds. That's just silly. "

This is just silly.

[ackack]

I just think this raises very interesting questions of ethics.  It's unquestionably true that using a machine in chess to pick your moves is cheating.  But isn't there some recognition for the fact that simulators are dealing with incomplete, inaccurate generalities that don't necessarily apply to the particulars of the situation.

Continuing the chess analogy, I don't think most opponents would look very kindly on it if you cracked open a book on a particular opening to read about thematic ideas in the middle of a game, even if the particular line you used didn't turn up. That the information gained in this way is less complete just makes it an issue of scale.

[tlloyd]

Geronimoo - I'm not calling into question your motives or fairness or integrity, etc. But I do think what you did (all five times!! ) gave you an unfair advantage. It doesn't guarantee that you'll win, but it makes the set a lot less random for you. To a certain extent this is similar to proposing pre-arranged kingdoms with which you are familiar to unsuspecting people on isotropic.

I don't personally like turning games into number-crunching exercises, but lots of people disagree. But do the simulating before or after - not during the game itself.

Theory - I get your point and agree to a certain extent. But imagine I could freeze time at the beginning of a game, come onto this forum and start a thread to get everyone's input on a particular combo or ask advice on the opening (info that my time-frozen opponent won't have). I don't call it cheating, but it seems unfair and thus bad form.

[Davio]

Just to throw something in the mix here: If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical.

By simulation we know all know that Jack is a pretty powerful card and that information has been shared on this site freely. So if ever we play on Iso against someone who doesn't know this site and doesn't know about the most signifcant results of the simulator, do we cheat?

I'm just saying this because I don't think it's that clear cut.


But I do think that Geronimoo is using an unfair advantage if he actively uses it before a game. At least, he should share the results or notify the other player. The poker comparison is rather odd. I think it's more like Scrabble and Geronimoo is using a dictionary before laying down tiles, instead of afterwards. I don't think Geronimoo intended to cheat or be unethical, so I'm not calling him out and a witch hunt is totally unnecessary here. We can all be civilized and give our opinion and I think Geronimoo will be fine with the consensus going either way.

[DG]

Just to throw something in the mix here: If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical.

Let's throw that out straight away.

In general, I'd say that using a simulator or AI strategy guide after you've seen the kingdom cards is unfair on the opponent. So would be software that tracks the content of a deck and displays draw probabilities, etc. without sharing it with an opponent. It would be nice to have Isotropic tournament rules that prohibited these aids but what's the point of having rules that can't be monitored or enforced?

[Fabian]

"If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical."

That conclusion doesn't follow at all, and is very strange to me. See chess engines and/or chess game databases.

[Toskk]

The issue here that hasn't exactly been defined is what constitutes the span of time we're calling the 'game'.. does it begin the moment you take your first turn, or does it begin the moment the Kingdom cards have been revealed, or at some other point? That span of time isn't exactly spelled out in the rules, and has a pretty direct affect on what any given player may think of as 'cheating'.

[Octo]

The game starts as soon as you see the 10 kingdom cards. Analysing the spread totally counts as part of the game. I would've thought that goes without saying.

I also agree that using a simulator outside of the game is fine. However, it's interesting to note that both chess databases and the simulators have had profound effects on the games they are supplemental to.

In the case of Jack of All Trades - you can't keep winning with that strat AND keep it a secret though - it becomes a learned strat and part of the standard arsenal. You may play tons of games where a combination of cards you found through a simulator simply do not show up, and even then there could still be a better strat on the table. However, analysing a specific set of 10 cards is very different as you only need it to last you one game and you can make a much better simulation and comparison as you know all the cards available.

[Toskk]

The game starts as soon as you see the 10 kingdom cards. Analysing the spread totally counts as part of the game. I would've thought that goes without saying.

I don't think it's as obvious as you suggest, at least not to all players.. after all, why does Isotropic let you view the board before agreeing on a game? If the game really has already started, a player should not at that point be able to decline it without forfeiting.

[ftl]

The rules specify that you can choose a kingdom however you like; you're allowed to do stuff like veto mode and discarding ones you don't like.

If the game really has already started, a player should not at that point be able to decline it without forfeiting.

There are indeed people who think that would be a good way for Isotropic to work. If there were a checkbox to play like that (nobody sees kingdom until you can't leave except by resigning), I'd do it, for sure.

[Slurms]

There are indeed people who think that would be a good way for Isotropic to work. If there were a checkbox to play like that (nobody sees kingdom until you can't leave except by resigning), I'd do it, for sure.

+1

[rspeer]

It's important to keep in mind that there is no pre-defined absolute morality about how you play a game, besides the rules. It's defined by the community that plays that game. Which is of course what's going on in this thread, but there's no reason to point fingers and say "you retroactive cheater!" about how someone played before the discussion.

Here's an example that parallels the perennial vp-counting argument. Can you count tiles in Scrabble? Yes. Every hardcore player does it. Look at any Scrabble tournament and 99% of the players are counting tiles, on paper, without asking permission from their opponent. But can you count cards in casino blackjack? No. Officially you're not even allowed to do it in your mind.

Can you use computer aids during a game of poker? Not if it's face-to-face, but yes if you're playing online, apparently.

I wouldn't personally use a simulator after the cards were revealed. And I don't think anyone else should after this thread, unless they say so up front like Donald suggested. But enough witch hunting. (Unless it's in game, using a Black Market.)

[DStu]

My first comment was not forked.... It was not totally serious anyway.

Really don't want to discuss point counters here, but I think that discussion is exactly the point why I was against using them in the first place, especially against the will of your opponent. You can't just define cheating by how much using a computer in the game helps you, but only by if you use it to help you. If you do it anyway, you have lots of grey area where somebody says clearly it's ok, and the other says it's clear cheating. If the computer can help me a little, it can help me much. Or where exactly is the line?

Of course, in reality, and in a computer game, you maybe must adjust the rules (like it is done in the tournament) to reality, to make cheating you can't prevent and see a variante...

[Davio]

"If using a simulator before a game is considered cheating or unethical, then using simulators at all is, by extension, also unethical."

That conclusion doesn't follow at all, and is very strange to me. See chess engines and/or chess game databases.

I was just trying to make a point. Where do you draw the line?

If I had been simulating something (e.g. Jack vs Mine) out of curiosity and 1 minute later, I go on Iso, play a random game and would you believe it: It has both Jack and Mine! Yes, it's different from looking at a kingdom first and using the simulator at that time, but the end result is the same. I still know what beats what.

How about asking a friend for help when looking at a kingdom?


Generally, I think playing a game on the internet is much much different than playing a game in real life. We simply can't enforce the same rules and have to view them as separate entities. While it is true that an online poker player will still understand the simple rules if the game when played live, he can't use a heads-up display which tells him how good or bad the other players approximately are and what their exact statistics are. In poker, information is key and the more information you have, the better your decisions and the better your results will be.

Can we really blame someone who is putting in more effort than someone else and tries to get better? Hardly. But do we have to protect non-suspecting opponents? Possibly.

[Octo]

So it's a case of "well he might be doing it so I'm going to do it" ? That's pretty sad (though probably quite true);

Regarding your example of simulating 1min before - you could equally say the same about discussing that strat with a friend or even having a game with those key cards 1min before this game. What about the fact that there's some cards that people haven't played with before? The point is that people come into the game with different levels of knowledge for whatever reasons, but once it starts then those artificial aids are out. If it was a competitive game, then no, no discussion with a friend while the game is on.

@Toskk - that's a good point, but that's where Isotropic is weird for me. I think I might be unusual among some here in that I don't see iso and real-life as different versions, they are just different levels of convenience, though in general internet games often encourage a different attitude. I see why they should have different rules sets and conventions really. In real-life though, we do still use the odd veto, it's not hard-core random-10 all the time. But I think the key thing is that once the 10 are decided then that's done. That much is certain. If they use a simulator in the veto stage? Not so sure, but I know for sure that I wouldn't allow at my table, so I wouldn't like it online either.

[Davio]

There is just no way to enforce anything over the internet.

Behind the comfort of their screens, people can do anything they want. They can ask a friend for help, simulate themselves or even hire a legion of Indian helpdesk employees to run 1000's of different simulators. There are poker coaches that help you while playing online.

So when the dust clears, whether this is classified as cheating or not, it will still occur. And that's the sad truth.
Still, people who want to go that far just to beat a random guy on the internet, probably need to re-prioritize their lives.

[Lekkit]

To be honest, I don't really see this as a problem. There are some people running a lot of simulations when they're not playing the game. If they've simulated the difference between JoAT and Mine in a Colony game earlier that day, or just keep track of their sims they know this allready. I don't want to point any fingers, but I've seen examples of people saying that "I was simulating this earlier, and then it came up in a game, and since I simulated it earlier I won, since I knew the "best" way to play it."

Say I got the base set and Prosperity first when I bought the game. It wouldn't take long before I got better at playing Colony games than someone who bought all expansions at the same time. Is it cheating when I play one of those players? I think it pretty much is saying that training is cheating.

However I do think it's unethical to do this right before a game when all the cards have been revealed, and I would probably frown upon the ones simulating games as soon as they see the kingdom, and if I was playing with them face to face, I would also probably notice they were doing it and I would ask them to stop. Over the Internet, there's no way of telling if they do or don't.

Also, a player doing this every game would only get so high on the leaderboard before playing a game with an engine and getting his behind handed to him. In the end, I don't see this as much different than only playing BM or BM+. I do play these strategys sometimes, And I don't think I'm much better than the guy simulating the game beforehand if I can tell it will probably be the dominant strategy.

[Geronimoo]

Not so long ago I mostly encountered scepticism whenever I said "this is not optimal, simulations show...". I take from this discussion that people are starting to take it more seriously. That makes me , but I'm a bit about being considered a cheater. Trust me, it's really only me and not my simulator who's kicking your ass on isotropic 

[Thisisnotasmile]

If I had been simulating something (e.g. Jack vs Mine) out of curiosity and 1 minute later, I go on Iso, play a random game and would you believe it: It has both Jack and Mine! Yes, it's different from looking at a kingdom first and using the simulator at that time, but the end result is the same. I still know what beats what.

Imagine you have a Maths exam at the end of the school year that could be on anything you've learnt and you decide to leave your revision until the last day. When you start you realise you've left it too late and only have time to revise one topic so you study how to solve quaratic equations. You get to the exam and the majority of the questions are on quadratic equations! In this case, you got lucky with your studying, but you studied and are within your right to have the knowledge you have.

Now imagine you didn't study at all. Instead, you get to the exam and open up the paper. Hey, most of these questions are about quadratic equations! You get permission to leave the exam room to use the toilet and while you are out you go and read up on quadratic equations quickly. You are cheating.


In my opinion, using a simulator, or reading the DS blog and/or forums while not playing a game of Dominion is studying. You are teaching yourself how to better play the game of Dominion. You are perfectly within your right to win games of Dominion if you have put in the time and effort beforehand to make sure you have a better knowledge of the game than the other guy. If you use the simulator or forums DURING a game to specifically find out information that will help you play better IN THAT GAME, you are cheating. The time to learn is before the exam, not during it.


Having said that, I hold nothing against Geronimoo for anything that he may/may not have done before this discussion happened.

[Rabid]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

[DStu]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

So you think we should force Geronimoo to put his simulator in the net?

[Rabid]

Of course not, But I group simulating during a game as a different point on the same scale as reading forums or looking at a table of openings during the game. I wish it was possible to stop, but as it isn't the only way I can see to get a level playing field is to allow it.

[Thisisnotasmile]

While I agree that it would be nice to ban this, in an online setting it is not possible.
Therefore the only way make it fair is to allow everyone to do it. (Just like we did for point counters)

So you think we should force Geronimoo to put his simulator in the net?

It's been on the net for a long time now...

[Octo]

@Davio - just to clarify, when I said it was sad I didn't mean you were sad for justifying it, I meant it in the way you meant it: it's sad that it simply has to boil down to the fact that it can't be enforced.

@Geronimoo - I wouldn't worry, I'm sure any negative karma you've acquired is vastly outweighed by the positive karma gained making the simulator in the first place!

Interesting question though: I played chess with a friend over email/text. The last game lasted nearly two years. Was I cheating to read about chess strategy at all during that time? Two years is pretty long to abstain from any training.

@Rabid - I don't think so. To concede that it cannot be enforced though is still frowned upon is different from expressly allowing it. We can't expressly allow it either though because the simulator is not integrated and is a separate thing. So "allowing it" is just as pointless.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Interesting question though: I played chess with a friend over email/text. The last game lasted nearly two years. Was I cheating to read about chess strategy at all during that time? Two years is pretty long to abstain from any training.

I think when a game lasts that long and is known to last that long before the game starts, it's a different matter. To use my exam analogy again, consider this "writing your dissertation" as opposed to "sitting an exam". You're still being assessed on what you can do, but what you are being assessed on is different. You are no longer being assessed on the knowledge that you have learned and digested, but the knowledge that you have learned and digested in addition to your ability to learn and digest more.

[DStu]

It's been on the net for a long time now...

really?

Of course not, But I group simulating during a game as a different point on the same scale as reading forums or looking at a table of openings during the game. I wish it was possible to stop, but as it isn't the only way I can see to get a level playing field is to allow it.

But that would in the end mean to introduce Geronimoo's (and rspeer's) simulator in isotropic.  Everybody can download them now, so that is the only thing that would level the field more. You of course could let you tell isotropic which BM+X is the strongest on this board, but therefore it has to know how you play BM+X optimally (against which other strategy). Where you would have to optimize and hold 20.000 startegies, how you play BM-X in the presence of BM-Y. That's only 2 player. In 3++ player, things get even larger, and more game-theoretical. (If two player go for Nomand'sCamp-Fool's Gold, third player going Smithy beats them, but only one player NC-FG wins. Same fun with Witch/Moat. I guess it happens all the time).
Given that, I don't see how isotropic can implement any feature that really solves that, beside giving a simulator which probably most people can not configure fast and well enough to do this analysis pregame. So anyway only the interested ones can use this feature, and these already know about the simulator and could use it anyway.

I think that is about the same as someony printing a poster with which BM beats which. You can not prevent somebody to have this, but do you want to have a link on iso to a jpeg that shows it because someone could do it?

[Rabid]

I'm only saying that it should be allowed, not integrated into iso.

For example in the rules for a tournament.
A) I would rather have a rules saying it was allowed.
B) Than a rule that cannot be enforced forbidding it.

A) creates a level playing field.
B) a few players break the rules, but cannot be detected, most players stick to the rules but are at a disadvantage.

[Octo]

I see your logic, and it's entirely pragmatic (you could be either pro or anti simulators, I can't tell from that last post). The thing is that there's various things that are not set up right for competitive play - why are time-out kicks optional? If there's a time-limit that you exceeded, tough shit, game over (like chess), if there isn't a time limit then and it's just in case someone dropped then a) why can I kick someone none-the-less, and b) you will need a real time limit if simulators are allowed otherwise you might get kicked for the wrong reasons - taking too long is not against the rules, and if you take too long because you're simulating then that's not against the rules either is it? The timers would need a countdown too.

Basically, if a simulator is allowed then fuck it I'm going to run as many simulations as I damn well want before my first turn, and during the rest of the game too. Regardless of it being less fun, that's now a situation that needs dealing with in a proper way if it's fair competition you're worried about.

The only real solution is, I'm afraid, that you simply cannot have meaningful competitive play online with iso in its current state. The only way to allow aids is to bring them into the game and thus control them effectively. Otherwise it would be like having a hard and fast time-limit in chess without actually providing the clock, but hey, you can bring your own if you want.

[Rabid]

For the record I am anti outside influence during the game. (if it was enforceable)
And have not done so in the past.

But as you say pragmatic, and as such believe any competitive rules must be enforceable.
For example I wonder how many people have been "cheated" out of going first in the current event?
Do you ask your opponent to log off / on before starting the match in case they lost their last game?

[ackack]

It's important to keep in mind that there is no pre-defined absolute morality about how you play a game, besides the rules. It's defined by the community that plays that game. Which is of course what's going on in this thread, but there's no reason to point fingers and say "you retroactive cheater!" about how someone played before the discussion.

There's no pre-defined absolute morality about anything outside of community mores. Yet people are still going to have moral reactions to things. There are certain things that seem so plainly outside the norms that waffling on them and trying to say "well, I guess that wasn't explicitly outside the rules, so you're an okay guy but let's not do that going forward" seems weird. Dominion's rules do not have anything in them about internet play. Isotropic's FAQ does not have anything about disconnecting your opponent in order to win, or taking 5 seconds less than the disconnection threshold every move to get your opponent to quit, or snooping on their machine to see what they have in their hand. I think a reaction of "hmm, maybe we should have been more explicit about that" to any of those things is comical.

The simulator issue is definitely different from those things. But I would say norms from other mental games are pretty clearly against unannounced external assistance. And it's clear from Geronimoo's original post that he thought there may be an issue (although I think his later posts in this thread where he tries to walk this back suggest he really didn't expect anybody to say "yes, that's cheating," which again, weird.) Thus I think my reaction is pretty reasonable.

It may well be that at some point people decide "sure, let's all do this" and it becomes a commonplace. I wouldn't like that very much, I don't think, but then it would have a different status. Your example of poker is a place where that happened - there was a lot of debate about HUDs and database software at first, and then eventually there was an agreement among serious players that they would be allowed. I always found them to be against the spirit of the game, but past a certain point it was hard to claim that they were cheating given the evolved norms. That said, the first person to use one on their own with nobody else knowing about it was cheating, at the time, even by your definition - terms of service were almost always written in a way that it was tough to interpret that software as kosher.

[Octo]

@Rabid - well, many people may have been cheated by that, which is another of the various reasons why iso cannot be truly competitive.

Suppose we were to go with your suggestion though, this changes the nature of the game quite drastically: The time-out-kick feature is NOT part of official Dominion rules and no time limit is set in the game, and thus I'm allowed to ponder the opening tableau as long as I want. If simulators are allowed then I must also by extension be allowed to simulate for as long as I want on any turn.

How do you reconcile this change? Would you concede that a game like that is altogether quite a different rule-set and skill-set to some extent than face-to-face dominion?

If you would not change the time-limit rules, then how would reconcile the fact that you are allowed to do something by the rules, yet a new extra rule has to be created to stop you doing it too much? (The amount of time would definitely have to be explicitly stated so you know how much time you have each turn.)

Lastly: there would have to be clear notification that simulators are allowed and where to get hold of them in the rules too (again, this is assuming you want fair competition) - it's not fair to say "oh, you didn't pick up the huge tennis rackets rather than the piddly little ones? yeeah, they were round the back somewhere, didn't anyone tell you about them? We've all got ours! Good luck!"

[yuma]

I find this thread fascinating and may use it as the basis of a paper in an ethics class that is coming up next semester--we will see if there is something I can apply it to.

For my two cents: I am not a hardcore player like many on here, I suppose I am more casual and as a result less competitive--also not as good. As such I have never used a simulator, nor do I think I ever will, even outside of play. For this reason, I could be considered one of the unsuspecting players on Isotropic that could get slammed by someone using a simulator--I would also probably get slammed by them even if they weren't using it. And to be honest I wouldn't really mind. The fact that this person is willing to spend the time and effort to learn how to use a simulator, be good enough to use it fast enough before the time constraint ran out and know how to use the results that the simulator spits out is impressive.

However, I can see the point from players more competitive than I were such an advantage may be upsetting and a true advantage over another great player.

Is this cheating? I don't think so. What is cheating? Is it unethical? Probably. But then again what is ethics?

[rspeer]

This thread has gotten pretty weird, I think.

The reasonable conclusion is "don't simulate during a Dominion game". I hope the suggestion of "what if everyone simulates during Dominion games" is just a thought experiment. This is a card game, not a programming competition.

The role of computers in Dominion is to find out cool things about strategies. In particular, cool things that can be shared with other players, making the game deeper. I hear there's even a forum for that.

The advantage you might get from having run a few simulations yourself (outside the game!) is nowhere near the advantage of reading this forum daily.

[Fabian]

"The advantage you might get from having run a few simulations yourself (outside the game!) is nowhere near the advantage of reading this forum daily."

This is probably true for most of us, but I definitely don't think it's true for the couple of players who are already very strong and are quickly becoming super strong with the aid of simulators (Geronimoo, WW, DG I think? etc). If you use the simulators efficiently and spend some time with them, I think they're a tremendeously powerful tool.

Unless "reading the Simulation forum" counts as reading the forum and not using simulators I guess.. but that seems like a silly distinction :p

[popsofctown]

Isotropic's FAQ does not have anything about disconnecting your opponent in order to win, or taking 5 seconds less than the disconnection threshold every move to get your opponent to quit, or snooping on their machine to see what they have in their hand. I think a reaction of "hmm, maybe we should have been more explicit about that" to any of those things is comical.

Force disconnecting an opponent isn't really winning the game of Dominion, it's simply destroying it.  That seems like hacking rather than cheating.  The meatworld analog would be pouring gasoline over all the cards and burning the entire game in between turn 8 and turn 9.  The response isn't, "you cheated", it's "wtf".  It's clearly unethical the same way it's unethical for me to steal your bank account number but it's not cheating in the sense of gaining an unfair, unallowed advantage in a game.  No one won or lost, the game was destroyed.  Whether that unfairly manipulates iso's ranking system isn't dominion cheating, it's elo manipulation cheating, which is not what this thread is about.

Taking 5 seconds less than the disconnection threshhold repeatedly isn't cheating, it's just being a dick.  It doesn't give you an unfair advantage, if I took a bit too much Nyquil before I played my Isodom tournament game and took that same amount of time to think about every move naturally I would enjoy that same advantage. 

Snooping on someone's machine to see their hand is viewing information that is defined by Dominion's rules to be private information, so it is explicitly cheating. 


I think simulating is pretty gray.  And I kinda think it's sad that Donald and everyone else responded the way they did.  I'm most interested by games that can't be played well by a computer, and within those games, the aspects that can't be played well by a computer.  And Gerominoo made the simulator himself.

It's kinda like when I was in high school.  I had a TI-84 calculator, and I knew how to program it.  I had a Statistics class that let me do whatever I wanted with it, and another math class that restricted me to a four function calculator when I had tests to take.  In the statistics class I learned the concepts and programmed z-test process and t-test processes into my calculator and I knew what they did and when the test came it was actually mostly word problems, but I knew where the tools I had made were and how to use them and what they meant and I made A's.  Some of my classmates used the programs I had made (please note that I consider this complex ethical moral etc stuff and I'm not sure if letting my classmates was ethical in my metaphor) and most of the time they didn't understand how to interpret the results or what the program was doing so they made C's anyway.  Which was rightful, the point of the class was to understand statistics, to potentially use it in the career field.  I could clone that TI 84 and give it to a company but they wouldn't pay me 50,000$ a year to use it, because the formulas aren't the skill of value here, it's the understanding.  If the point of that statistics class was to prepare me for potentially being a statistician, then I could very well bring that same TI 84 calculator to wherever I worked and use those same programs (yes I would forget how to use them.  But you forget everything you learn in high school, that's just how life is) to do whatever application they had.

In the other math class we went over the concept and the proofs for the material and even heard the names of some of the jolly mathematicians and talked about how this or that formula is really good in a particular kind of physics problem.  Then we got the test and it was a departmentwide thing that teacher hadn't written himself, and it had straightforward questions that just required you to remember tedious formulas.

In the first class the thing of value and interest was tested and the computation that didn't matter could be removed.  In the second class there was effort and desire for me to learn things of value, but the test didn't reflect it, and even if it did I could have been inhibited by thingss that didn't matter so much.


It does depend on what you value in the game, it's beauty in the eye of the beholder.  Almost everyone I hear from is more fascinated with engine games or interactive attack based games than when one guy won because he guessed that Vault BM would beat Envoy BM.  So if both people are using simulators I think that just cuts some of the unfun stuff out of the game and leaves in stuff people like.  I guess that's not really an ethical assessment, it's more of a, idealistic thing, about what the rules should be versus what they are.  I don't really know whether Geronimoo should have instinctively know he was acting against the communities unspoken rules.  I was just upset by Donald's post and the sentiment that using a simulator destroys the game or makes it uglier.  Deep Blue can win at chess but computers have a much harder time winning at go, and many would contend go is a more beautiful game.

[Fabian]

I don't understand your last couple sentences. Simulators can win at Dominion, does that mean simulators make Dominion a more beautiful game? As far as I can tell, that doesn't mesh with your last sentence, which to me implies the games computers CAN'T win at are more beautiful.

Feel free to use Deep Blue (or Rybka, Houdini, Fritz, etc as chess engines are called these days) when practicing/studying though. Just don't fire up Houdini when playing a game of chess against another (unknowing) human.

[popsofctown]

It is late where I am, I shouldn't be on forums.

I meant better games are the ones computers can't play well.

And as I mentioned, I broke into ideals rather than ethics, it's really about what players have agreed to.

[Octo]

I see your point, in so much as you value skills that can't be automated over those that can and think they make for a more enjoyable, worthwhile game, and so in using simulators we're cutting the fat and trimming it down to its essence.

However, what we can and can't automate changes as we make breakthroughs. So was chess more beautiful before Deep Blue? If a computer is made that can play Go does Go become less beautiful as a result?

If your answer is yes, then it also follows that simulators had/have the same effect on Dominion.
If your answer is no, then how do you account for the period before before Deep Blue when we didn't know you could automate stuff? Some games are innately mechanical, but with others it's not so obvious. To think "that's not as beautiful because a machine will be able to do that......eventually" is a bit odd.

(this thread is getting super weird btw)

[DStu]

If your answer is yes, then it also follows that simulators had/have the same effect on Dominion.

We shouldn't overrate what the sims can do at the moment. You can test which of two to three relatively simple strategies is dominant. Where either all playrules are defaulted (Geronimoo), or you could with some effort change them if you before the game consider how you would play which card in which situation in this setup. We don't even have anything that sees a board and says which BM-engine is dominante (which maybe would be possible, but not very interesting), let alone supported BM or a "real" engine. Automatic tuning of playrules is even more impossible. And I don't see that happening in the near future...

[popsofctown]

I see your point, in so much as you value skills that can't be automated over those that can and think they make for a more enjoyable, worthwhile game, and so in using simulators we're cutting the fat and trimming it down to its essence.

However, what we can and can't automate changes as we make breakthroughs. So was chess more beautiful before Deep Blue? If a computer is made that can play Go does Go become less beautiful as a result?

If your answer is yes, then it also follows that simulators had/have the same effect on Dominion.
If your answer is no, then how do you account for the period before before Deep Blue when we didn't know you could automate stuff? Some games are innately mechanical, but with others it's not so obvious. To think "that's not as beautiful because a machine will be able to do that......eventually" is a bit odd.

(this thread is getting super weird btw)

The computer that plays Go well will by necessity have to be a more complex computer than the one that plays Chess.  So no, it doesn't change whether Go is beautiful, the computer's ability to play it is just a barometer.

Ultimately eventually a computer will be able to play anything.  But I can write a computer that always wins tic-tac-toe in maybe 200 lines, while it would take me far more effort to do the same for checkers.  (I figure checkers is probably crackable, but I don't really know).  Using that as a barometer I expect I'd find checkers more interesting than tic-tac-toe, and, in fact, I do.

So if computers pick between Mine and JoaT really easily, I hope the dominion design challenge winners aren't similar to Mine/JoaT.  And if they are Mine/JoaT anyway, I would be happy to watch both of them use a simulator to choose between Mine and JoaT, and see the game hinge on whether a cleverly timed Brigand or good Inn manipulation wins the game instead.  (those might be kind of contrived, unlikely examples, but JoaT is kind of a killjoy for varying strategy so yeah..)

[Karrow]

I think the depth of this discussion is quite confusing as I find the matter very simple.  It's like scrabble & a dictionary.  For official scrabble tournament rules, you can not use a dictionary during play, it can only be used to resolve a challenge.

For Scrabble, there are word finding cheater programs online.  Referring to a simulator while playing Dominion online is just like using a dictionary or word-finder program in Scrabble online.  It's wrong, it's cheating, but you will always run into people that do it.  Just because you can't prevent someone from using a word-finder doesn't mean you integrate it into the online game itself.

To claim that using a simulator for training is cheating is insane.  That would be like claiming that anyone who ever used a dictionary or word finder for training is a cheater in Scrabble.  Using a word-finder for training in Scrabble may seem helpful, but in the long run for most people it just makes them dependent on the word-finder.  And I think the same is true in Dominion.  One who uses a simulator too much is going to have a very limited vision.  There are a lot of situations and cards that the simulator can not handle yet, and simulator Big Money +X is garbage as soon as there's an attack in the kingdom.

[Donald X.]

I think simulating is pretty gray.  And I kinda think it's sad that Donald and everyone else responded the way they did.

So, you're saying you think it's important that people be able to have a computer play some of their turns for them, without telling their opponents? You disagree with the concept of letting your opponent know that this thing they might not want is what they're getting. I mean, I am trying to see how else to disagree with my post.

[popsofctown]

No, you're right about that, it's not right to use a simulator during a game.

I just saw it more as a stealing a pencil rather than stealing a Rolex

[WanderingWinder]

"The advantage you might get from having run a few simulations yourself (outside the game!) is nowhere near the advantage of reading this forum daily."

This is probably true for most of us, but I definitely don't think it's true for the couple of players who are already very strong and are quickly becoming super strong with the aid of simulators (Geronimoo, WW, DG I think? etc). If you use the simulators efficiently and spend some time with them, I think they're a tremendeously powerful tool.

Unless "reading the Simulation forum" counts as reading the forum and not using simulators I guess.. but that seems like a silly distinction :p

FWIW, I don't think the simulator has helped me that much, except in a) saving some time on analyses; b) talking to other people about strategies (this is the biggie).

I just saw it more as a stealing a pencil rather than stealing a Rolex

Uh, they're basically the same thing?

Also, the whole "there's no morality, just what the community says" thing is really, really wrong. There is indeed objective morality. Whether the use of sims falls significantly into the realm of what that morality describes is another question.

[biopower]

Also, the whole "there's no morality, just what the community says" thing is really, really wrong. There is indeed objective morality.

This probably applies.

[WanderingWinder]

Also, the whole "there's no morality, just what the community says" thing is really, really wrong. There is indeed objective morality.

This probably applies.

In that it's grossly wrong?

[ackack]

Hooray for digressions.

Also, the whole "there's no morality, just what the community says" thing is really, really wrong. There is indeed objective morality.

There are a couple of interpretations of this I could agree with: modulo a few psychopaths, moral sense is universal; we can come up with a core set of ideas that are effectively held by consensus among all people. Some norms have evolved to be hugely successful at facilitating human cooperation. But I think that universal core is quite limited, and I also bet that neither of those interpretations are what you mean by "objective." If there is objective morality, then what is the objective argument for its existence?