Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Hypothetically:  (Read 3143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5224
  • Respect: +2682
    • View Profile
Hypothetically:
« on: June 10, 2012, 01:28:20 pm »
+1

If you were at a face to face Dominion tournament which had a ruleset specifically prohibiting coaching by outside parties, and your opponent played four coppers and hovered his hand over Sea Hag turn 1, and your opponent's friend said, "Hey, there's a Jack of all Trades dude", with a judge nearby, if you pointed it out to that judge, would you expect to be called a whiner, accused of being the only person asking that the coaching rule be enforced, and refuse to be offered any reparations ever at that tournament or future ones even as you proceed to lose the double Jack mirror?

Hypathetically.

Has nothing to do with nondominion events of my life.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 01:54:03 pm by popsofctown »
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2595
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3252
    • View Profile
Re: Hypathetically:
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2012, 01:35:15 pm »
+2

If coaching by outside parties was specifically prohibited, then yes I would be fairly upset.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5224
  • Respect: +2682
    • View Profile
Re: Hypathetically:
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2012, 01:37:17 pm »
0

Yes, in a written document.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +667
    • View Profile
Re: Hypathetically:
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2012, 01:45:10 pm »
0

I would expect my opponent to be disqualified from the game/match/tournament immediately. Any other result is wrong.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 835
  • Respect: +601
    • View Profile
Re: Hypathetically:
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2012, 01:47:32 pm »
0

I would expect my opponent to be disqualified from the game/match/tournament immediately. Any other result is wrong.

Not exactly. If it's not the opponents "friend" but a third party giving advice, immediately remove the third party and assess what's best for the affected game by the situation and severity.
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +667
    • View Profile
Re: Hypathetically:
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2012, 01:52:00 pm »
+1

If it can't be proved that the third party is my opponent's friend, then I would at least expect the kingdom to be re-randomized and the game started over. Especially if this happened on the first hand.

If it can be proved that they are friends then my last post stands. He should know the rules before he goes to the tournament.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5224
  • Respect: +2682
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2012, 01:55:55 pm »
0

Interesting.  Why do you believe it matters if they are friends?
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +667
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2012, 01:57:49 pm »
+1

Match is X vs Y.

X's friend walks in and gives advice to Y.

X complains and Y gets disqualified.

Good tournament gameplan right there.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2595
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3252
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2012, 02:04:55 pm »
0

The coacher should be removed from the area, and you have the option of starting a new game if you, the victim, wants.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7058
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9287
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2012, 02:08:47 pm »
0

Match is X vs Y.

X's friend walks in and gives advice to Y.

X complains and Y gets disqualified.

Good tournament gameplan right there.

True enough, though Y's response in that case should also be an immediate "Dude, no advice, get us a new randomized board."

In pops's case here, if there were no repercussions at the tournament, then it's time to go over that tournament director's head.  If there is no "over their head," well, I wouldn't participate in any tournament run by that person or group, and would in fact go out of my way to name names on message boards and the like.  I mean, hypothetically.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5224
  • Respect: +2682
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2012, 02:14:04 pm »
0

Hypothetically I'd get a sanity check in a thread like this, then quit the scene.
Logged
Also you probably are an expert if you buy two bureaucrats early.

Taco Lobster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 288
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2012, 02:58:53 pm »
+1

Damn, you guys are hardline.  Magic, which has a competitive environment complete with substantial cash prizes, isn't half as extreme on what constitutes cheating and what the consequences should be.  This zero tolerance rule is terrible if you play it out.  Are you losing?  Have a friend make a suggestion to the other player and restart the game.  What if the person gives bad advice?  What if they give factually incorrect advice - they say "buy a Lighthouse" when Lighthouse isn't on the board?  Do you still restart the game?  Do you still stop the game to conduct an inquisition as to whether the two are friends to determine the appropriate punishment? 

I don't have a problem with tournament rules existing or being enforced, but they need to have a certain level of practicality, administrative ease, and proportionality to them.  Asking a judge to make a determination about whether someone is acting in concert with a player is difficult and slow; restarting games because of outside intereference provides an incentive to manufacture interference when a player is losing.  Neither of these are proportionate to the damage done by the particular act in question.  Maybe the other player would've taken Jack anyway and the suggestion didn't make a difference.  Maybe he took Jack, but if he'd had a Sea Hag instead, it would've hit the opponent's Jack on turn 3 and put him further behind.

Again, I appreciate the need for tournament rules, but they need to be realistic, easy to determine in a short period of time, and have consquences somewhere between "nothing" and "restart the game".  I'm not entirely certain where those lines are or what the rules look like, but I am certain that restarting the game is the carpet bombing option, and should be reserved for actions that justify its use.

Similarly, I don't have an issue with an effort to uncover two individuals acting in concert to cheat, but I'd expect a certain level of materiality to the cheating before a judget is forded to launch such an investigation ("Don't play Sea Hag, he has Trader in his hand!").
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 03:03:37 pm by Taco Lobster »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2012, 03:16:51 pm »
0

Given the fact that there is a specific rule prohibiting outside coaching and that the railbird shouted something that was relevant to the game, I would ask over a judge and expect that something would be done.

Whether the railbird is your opponent's friend or not is irrelevant.

I think the best way to resolve this is to do a random setup and start over. If the railbird keeps misbehaving, remove him from the scene.

I don't think it's too harsh. Why is there a special rule if they aren't going to enforce it. With a rule like that they create expectencies that the players are protected and if that's not the case they shouldn't have put the rule in.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Taco Lobster

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 288
  • Respect: +73
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2012, 03:24:37 pm »
+1


I don't think it's too harsh. Why is there a special rule if they aren't going to enforce it. With a rule like that they create expectencies that the players are protected and if that's not the case they shouldn't have put the rule in.


I agree - there is no point having a rule if there isn't a punishment for breaking that rule.  Except the punishment being discussed here doesn't encourage people to follow the rule because it isn't borne by the person breaking the rule, it's borne by the persons playing the game.  Furthermore, the punishment can easily be manipulated to create a much larger abuse than the actual conduct that the parties are seeking to stop.

If you want a rule to actually work, the punishment needs to encourage the behavior you want or discourage the behavior you don't want.  The punishment of "restart the game" is terrible from this perspectice.  Conversely, the damage to the game state caused by breach of the rule is difficult to determine and likely close to negligible.  So, you're creating a rule that doesn't deter the behavior and creates a greater disruption than the behavior sought to be deterred.  Outside of the world of perfect justice, in which each person who breaks the rule does so with the intent to cause maximum disruption, actually causes such disruption, and a judge can make that determination, this rule is stupid, and causes significantly more harm than it prevents.

If it were me, I wouldn't bother playing in a tournament with a rule like this coupled with a punishment so arbitrary and unrelated.  I'd find someone with actual experience running a tournament, who appreciates the reality of making rulings and distributing punishments in the absence of perfect information, doing so in a finite amount of time, and the need to couple the punishment with the behavior to be encouraged/deterred.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 04:05:56 pm by Taco Lobster »
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2028
  • Respect: +1294
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2012, 04:06:29 pm »
0

I would expect that the person making the comment would get at least a talking-to of some sort, though because of the lack of any sort of official relationship between the commenter and the player, there wouldn't be any sort of 'punishment' applied.

Definitely on your side, pops, I've had that happen to me too though not in a Dominion tournament, it's really annoying.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 04:22:18 pm by ftl »
Logged

Grujah

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2237
  • Respect: +1166
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2012, 04:08:32 pm »
0

If it was in the rules, I would expect that is it enforced. Like everyone in the audience has to be vouched for by a player, so if they screw up, player gets a loss or opponent can restart or whatever.
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +673
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2012, 04:56:17 pm »
+1

I've played in tournaments (non-Dominion) where you actually get a game loss if you drop a card while shuffling, talk to someone besides your opponent or a judge, recieve a text (doesn't matter if you read it or not, just recieving it is bad enough) or if you forget a mandatory effect (compare to putting a duration card in the discard). During these tournaments you just have to make sure you follow the rules. At higher level there aren't many game losses due to rules violations.

Also, if there is a rule about not communicating with people outside the game, why are people able to watch? If it is that serious, then show the game on monitors or something and keep the audience at a distance so that they cannot interfere with the game.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2028
  • Respect: +1294
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2012, 05:11:00 pm »
0

Because, presumably, it's not that serious. Still would be nice if people didn't give advice to their friends playing the game, though.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2012, 05:11:20 pm »
+1

Here I reference chess. USCF Rule 20E deals with this. Part 1 of the rule basically says that for solicited advice, you get a forfeit. Part II is unsolicited, and it's a lot trickier. Highlights: if the advice is bad, or if given to somebody who's likely to find it anyway (i.e. suggesting a very obvious recapture to a master), no penalty. If the advice is good, but not the only good thing, they suggest making some other move being played. If the advice is good, unlikely to be found, given by a strong player, they recommend disallowing the suggested move. If it's good, unclear as to whether it would have been found, it basically tells the TD that he has no good options. Of course, it also says that if the advisor is related to the advisee (coach, family, friend, etc.), then harsher penalties are in order.
In practice, this is a potential problem, and because of that, you keep spectators to places where they can't interfere like this.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2757
  • Respect: +1493
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetically:
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2012, 05:50:28 pm »
0

Damn, you guys are hardline.

The game hadn't started. It's a no-brainer to restart the game if they care about their rules at all, not hardline.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.135 seconds with 20 queries.