Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 18 [All]

Author Topic: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]  (Read 164736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« on: July 02, 2012, 03:06:56 pm »
0

1: Personman
2: jtl005
3: ednever

1 2 3
2 3 1
3 1 2
1 3 2
2 1 3
3 2 1

WanderingWinder withdraws.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2012, 03:09:26 pm »
0

Hey! if he withdraws can I substitute?

From my point of view I should have the right to play...
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2012, 03:10:29 pm »
0

The thought did not occur to me to sub you in.  Are you available now?  The match already started, but I can conceivably ask them to restart.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2012, 03:10:41 pm »
0

yes.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2012, 03:11:42 pm »
0

Allowing timchen in would be unfair to a mess of other participants.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2012, 03:19:44 pm »
+1

WanderingWinder withdraws.

I just wanted to say that it's kinda sad how this ended.
I do really not want to start the discussion, but I want to add, that tournaments serve at least 2 purposes IMO:
1.) The best should win
2.) It should be fun

If one player withdraws, we will never find out, if the first point was achieved and the second definitely not.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2012, 03:28:11 pm »
+1

I don't think I can justify subbing in timchen. 

I'm glad this damn thing is over, at least.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2012, 03:37:18 pm »
0

Interesting to see that, despite the huge crapshoot that is 4p, still the final 4 are all highly-ranked on the leaderboard (WW at level 49, ednever at level 40, jtl005 at level 38, Personman at level 36). Disappointing that we don't get to see if WW can follow up his dominant performance in the semis.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2012, 03:37:48 pm »
0

Quote
WanderingWinder withdraws.

:(

I do want to note that whoever goes to nationals probably should do some practicing without the point counter.  Because, you know, it won't exist there...
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 03:38:17 pm by theory »
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2012, 04:11:06 pm »
0

I'm glad this damn thing is over, at least.

So where was this discussion? I only got the fallout in several other threads, but seem to have missed the main thread...
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2012, 04:14:37 pm »
0

Much of it was done over email.  It was just a bit of a hassle, trying to coordinate everyone's schedules, while simultaneously trying to manage one of the all-time Dominion Top Ten Debates because our original ruleset wasn't comprehensive enough.

I think we ended up with a decent compromise, though I'm genuinely sorry WW decided to withdraw.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2012, 04:22:41 pm »
0

Why did he withdraw? Was it because of the video thing?
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

rrenaud

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
  • Uncivilized Barbarian of Statistics
  • Respect: +1197
    • View Profile
    • CouncilRoom
Re: Finals order
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2012, 04:27:20 pm »
+3

It was basically the point counter debate all over again.  There were reasonable, but very strong views on both sides, and we couldn't come to a compromise that made everyone happy within the time constraints.  We really don't want to rehash this over and over.  We regret that WW resigned withdrew.  He is a great Dominion player and a great participant in this community.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2012, 04:48:57 pm »
0

It was basically the point counter debate all over again.  There were reasonable, but very strong views on both sides, and we couldn't come to a compromise that made everyone happy within the time constraints.  We really don't want to rehash this over and over.  We regret that WW resigned.  He is a great Dominion player and a great participant in this community.
But it was to be played over the internet right?

For such a game, NOT including the point counter would cause people to just jot everything down on a piece of paper and this would slow the game down way too much. Not that I want to start the argument again, but wouldn't it be better to have all the points be synchronously available to all players instead of waiting 5 minutes every time some one buys a Silk Road?

Would be even more fun with Vineyards, Silk Roads, Fairgrounds etc.
"Joe just bought an Island, break out the abacuses everybody!"

I mean, I can understand people generally not caring or wanting it in regular 2p games, but for the finals, man, you kind of have to do this.  :-\
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

rrenaud

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
  • Uncivilized Barbarian of Statistics
  • Respect: +1197
    • View Profile
    • CouncilRoom
Re: Finals order
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2012, 04:51:42 pm »
+4

We can keep talking about this and get into the same argument.  But hey, I just got through the worst apartment move ever where a guy threatened to keep a truck full of my (and girlfriend's) possessions, so I've got better things to do than argue about point counters on the internet again.

If I could perma-ban myself from reading this thread again, I would ;).
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2012, 04:54:33 pm »
+1

* Davio sees the word Possession in rrenaud's post.
* Davio must constrain himself not to make a pun, because it's such a serious story.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2012, 05:03:25 pm »
+8

Keep in mind those possessions included Council Room itself!!

Who knew that Thief/Council Room was a combo.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2012, 06:15:25 pm »
0

I mean, I can understand people generally not caring or wanting it in regular 2p games, but for the finals, man, you kind of have to do this.  :-\

Go right ahead and do that at nationals or any in-person tournament.  I dare ya!
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2012, 07:45:39 pm »
0

WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2012, 08:43:32 pm »
+1

WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?

I'm also confused.  I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen.  The tournament rules state this:

Quote
Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter.  Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2012, 08:51:46 pm »
+2

i am as curious as the next person as to what went down. but at the same time i think that if theory and/or WW had wanted the information of precisely what happened made publicly available they would have done so by now.  i would recommend not pressing the issue too much here, especially given that things seemed to be a little tense at the time of the decision.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2012, 09:21:18 pm »
0

WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?

I'm also confused.  I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen.  The tournament rules state this:

Quote
Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter.  Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?

Let me see if I can summarize the issue of the point counter in a neutral manner. (Disclaimer: I use the point counter extension.)

Isotropic's built-in point counter gives you just the minimum information a point counter can give you: the points each player had at the beginning of the current turn. The point counter extension existed first and gives you more information: the current points of each player, along with the current deck contents of each player. The tracking of deck contents is a side effect of tracking points, since you need that information to calculate the value of fairgrounds, silk road, etc.

The point counter extension makes point information available in two ways. One is that it can be seen at any time, by either player, by typing "!status" into the chat box. The other is that the current points information is shown next to the chat box, for the player running the extension.

The point counter extension makes deck content information available in two ways, also. Similar to points information, it can be seen by typing "!details" into the chat box. A few months ago, that was the only way to see it. Somewhat more recently, I believe on April 1st with the release of version 5.1 of the extension, the deck contents information started to display next to the supply. While I can't speak for other users of the extension, I didn't pay much attention to the deck content information until this UI change. However, all the information provided by the UI change was previously available by typing "!details".

Since there's no visible change to people who don't use the extension, initially only users of the extension were aware of the UI change. I believe that changed with this post in the Isotropic Discussion forum, so that's why it's becoming a hot topic now.

Opinions on the point counter extension are mixed. As theory summarized:
Quote
Consider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points.  Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.

Actually going over the pro and con arguments is a different discussion, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suspect the issue here was that the tournament rules did not address the point counter extension, just the official isotropic point counter.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2012, 09:37:30 pm »
0

I appreciate the summary but I wasn't actually asking about what the point counter did.  I'm trying to figure out why WW withdrew (and I'm trying to do it without setting off a powder keg).  My read of it from the forum is:

- At least 1 player likes to use the unofficial point counter and plans to use it in the finals
- WW objects
- Tournament organizers rule that unofficial point counter is OK
- WW withdraws

If there's concern that answering this will start an argument, one can always confirm / deny / correct this series of events and then lock the thread.  It happened.  It's over.  Whether people like or dislike it can be the subject of other threads.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 09:43:42 pm by GigaKnight »
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2012, 10:31:25 pm »
0

WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?

I'm also confused.  I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen.  The tournament rules state this:

Quote
Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter.  Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?

Let me see if I can summarize the issue of the point counter in a neutral manner. (Disclaimer: I use the point counter extension.)

Isotropic's built-in point counter gives you just the minimum information a point counter can give you: the points each player had at the beginning of the current turn. The point counter extension existed first and gives you more information: the current points of each player, along with the current deck contents of each player. The tracking of deck contents is a side effect of tracking points, since you need that information to calculate the value of fairgrounds, silk road, etc.

The point counter extension makes point information available in two ways. One is that it can be seen at any time, by either player, by typing "!status" into the chat box. The other is that the current points information is shown next to the chat box, for the player running the extension.

The point counter extension makes deck content information available in two ways, also. Similar to points information, it can be seen by typing "!details" into the chat box. A few months ago, that was the only way to see it. Somewhat more recently, I believe on April 1st with the release of version 5.1 of the extension, the deck contents information started to display next to the supply. While I can't speak for other users of the extension, I didn't pay much attention to the deck content information until this UI change. However, all the information provided by the UI change was previously available by typing "!details".

Since there's no visible change to people who don't use the extension, initially only users of the extension were aware of the UI change. I believe that changed with this post in the Isotropic Discussion forum, so that's why it's becoming a hot topic now.

Opinions on the point counter extension are mixed. As theory summarized:
Quote
Consider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points.  Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.

Actually going over the pro and con arguments is a different discussion, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suspect the issue here was that the tournament rules did not address the point counter extension, just the official isotropic point counter.

I didn't realize this at all. In other words, every person with the "Auto Count" thing next to their name has this ability?
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2012, 10:31:54 pm »
0

WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?

I'm also confused.  I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen.  The tournament rules state this:

Quote
Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter.  Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?

Let me see if I can summarize the issue of the point counter in a neutral manner. (Disclaimer: I use the point counter extension.)

Isotropic's built-in point counter gives you just the minimum information a point counter can give you: the points each player had at the beginning of the current turn. The point counter extension existed first and gives you more information: the current points of each player, along with the current deck contents of each player. The tracking of deck contents is a side effect of tracking points, since you need that information to calculate the value of fairgrounds, silk road, etc.

The point counter extension makes point information available in two ways. One is that it can be seen at any time, by either player, by typing "!status" into the chat box. The other is that the current points information is shown next to the chat box, for the player running the extension.

The point counter extension makes deck content information available in two ways, also. Similar to points information, it can be seen by typing "!details" into the chat box. A few months ago, that was the only way to see it. Somewhat more recently, I believe on April 1st with the release of version 5.1 of the extension, the deck contents information started to display next to the supply. While I can't speak for other users of the extension, I didn't pay much attention to the deck content information until this UI change. However, all the information provided by the UI change was previously available by typing "!details".

Since there's no visible change to people who don't use the extension, initially only users of the extension were aware of the UI change. I believe that changed with this post in the Isotropic Discussion forum, so that's why it's becoming a hot topic now.

Opinions on the point counter extension are mixed. As theory summarized:
Quote
Consider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points.  Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.

Actually going over the pro and con arguments is a different discussion, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suspect the issue here was that the tournament rules did not address the point counter extension, just the official isotropic point counter.

I didn't realize this at all. In other words, every person with the "Auto Count" thing next to their name has this ability?

Yes.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2012, 10:34:46 pm »
0

Oh. I see.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2012, 10:38:56 pm »
0

I didn't realize this at all. In other words, every person with the "Auto Count" thing next to their name has this ability?

That is correct.  In addition, some people do not allow it to be disabled (the default state I believe).
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2012, 10:44:05 pm »
0

The Auto Count thing means they have it set so that it cannot be disabled.

edit: well i'm not sure actually, it seems the Auto Count message is required if you've disabled disabling, but I don't know if Auto Count always means that has occurred.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 10:47:19 pm by Mic Qsenoch »
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2012, 10:56:57 pm »
+1

The Auto Count thing means they have it set so that it cannot be disabled.

edit: well i'm not sure actually, it seems the Auto Count message is required if you've disabled disabling, but I don't know if Auto Count always means that has occurred.

There are three options:
  • Shows status message and can be disabled. (Edit: thought this was the default, but it's not.)
  • Shows status message and can't be disabled.
  • Doesn't show status message and can be disabled. (The default.)
The only thing that you can't do is turn off disabling and not show the status message.

I've attached a screenshot to show what the point counter looks like when you use it (with the other player's name hidden). Next to the cards in the supply, you can see how many each player has. The chat box is what it looks like after typing "!details", which both players can see. You can see current points and deck sizes next to the chat input box (which is the same info you get by typing "!status").
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 10:59:44 pm by blueblimp »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2012, 10:58:47 pm »
+1

I have requested permission from the other finalists and theory to post full screenshots of the email debate that preceded the finals.

I have also uploaded the videos of the finals to youtube!

The games themselves were great, especially this one. I do feel that I threw away a good chance at the win via a) a somewhat unfortunate misclick in the last game (I meant to buy workshop, not woodcutter) and more importantly b) a failure to remember that it was in my interest to kingmake for ednever when it became clear that I couldn't win. However, jtl005 played extremely well in every game, had a better record than me going into the decider, and deserves his win fully. Ednever didn't have the strongest results, but he was no slouch, and was a real threat in every game. Well played to both opponents, thanks for the wonderful games, and special thanks to both of you for keeping level heads in the midst of what became a rather heated discussion.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 11:06:23 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2012, 11:21:27 pm »
+7

I do not give permission.  Not because there is anything damaging or embarrassing in those emails (as you know), but because I believe very strongly that if we had wanted to conduct the debate on a public forum, we would have.  People should be free to communicate on email without the fear of having their communications made public (or being pressured to do make it public).

If WanderingWinder wishes to explain his principled stand, he may do so on his own.  If he chooses not to, then that's the end of the story, I'm afraid.  This too shall pass.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2012, 11:37:30 pm »
+8

(screenshot)

Holy shit, really?  That's what this does?  I mean, that's everything except showing your hand and the contents of your discard pile to your opponent!  And I'm sure the same addon could probably do the latter to within a certain amount of error.

Seriously, that's easily five levels' worth of playing ability in a nice, succinct format, available only to one player.

I think it's time to start playing with "point counter: never" rather than "don't care."
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

nopawnsintended

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Finals order
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2012, 11:58:46 pm »
0

Wow.  I'm with Kirian. I had no idea that the Auto Count extension did this.  Now, I see why people use it, and why it could make a difference.  As someone who never thought to use a deck tracker (or even keep a spreadsheet tally as in the finals video), it never occurred to me to turn off the extension.  I thought it was just a somewhat innocuous public good -- That is, if I type "!details", everyone sees what I have too.

Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2012, 12:02:26 am »
0

Theory: That's perfectly reasonable, and I meant no pressure. You need not fear that I will make anything from the thread public (and you are perfectly correct that you are not hiding anything damaging or embarrassing).

Kirian: There are a number of misunderstandings in your post. First and foremost, the isotropic combo box labeled "Point counter" does not in any way affect your opponent's use of drheld's extension. It refers only to the built in point counter. There is nothing isotropic can do to prevent you from using client-side card tracking tools. (Thanks blueblimp for correcting me on this!)

Secondly, the information is NOT available to only one player. The extension (in addition to being freely available to everyone) also includes a chat-box interface that the opponent can use. You can type "!details" in the chat box and receive a full listing of your and your opponent's cards.

Lastly, I strongly encourage you to think of the point tracker not as a devious attempt to gain an advantage, but as an enabling tool for a legitimate, optional Dominion variant in which more information is public. My favorite Dominion games by an ENORMOUS margin are those in which both players are using the extension and making well-informed decisions (and not wasting their time writing it down by hand or memorizing it). If you do not understand how I can think this, I refer you to this video, in which the extension enabled me to carefully and precisely control my deck flow with native village and wishing well. That is the kind of highly technical, tactical play that I enjoy.

This variant may not be to your liking, and that is fine. No one is asking that you play against players with the extension when you do not want to. If it is undisableable, it is announced in the player's status message, with the phrase "Auto▼Count". Otherwise, you have the option of typing "!disable" in chat to remove the extension entirely for both players. All I ask is that you not feel that you are being deceived or cheated. Some of us just sincerely believe that the extension makes the game deeper and richer for everyone.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 12:16:21 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2012, 12:02:50 am »
0

I mean, that's everything except showing your hand and the contents of your discard pile to your opponent!  And I'm sure the same addon could probably do the latter to within a certain amount of error.

To address the technical issue here, namely whether the extension could track hand and discard pile: TLDR, it can't now, it would be harder to implement if someone wanted to, and it could never accurately track your opponent.

Tracking your opponent's discard (or hand, or draw deck) accurately is impossible. A lot of the time, you don't know what they discard, even in the early game. e.g. Was that card they didn't play an Estate, or a collided terminal? Or later, did they discard actions to that Warehouse, or VP? An extension could track which cards they've played since the last reshuffle, but you can get about the same effect by looking back a couple turns in the log.

Tracking your draw deck and discard is possible in principle, but difficult to implement. To understand why, you need to know how the point counter extension works now. To track deck contents, it uses log messages only. This works because whenever a card is added to or subtracted from your deck, there is a log message saying so. On the other hand, there isn't always a log message when you draw a card or discard a card (because of the clean-up phase). This means it's fundamentally impossible to track your draw deck by only looking at log messages. To track the draw deck, you'd also need to look at hand contents, and that increases implementation difficulty.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2012, 12:04:07 am »
0

No it can't. It just tracks everything everyone has bought. No estimations and guesses. In a 2p game at least, it is not too different from what I keep track of (basically this is due to the fact that I know my cards and from the supply and trash I can deduce what the other player has.)

On the other hand 3p and 4p are quite different. I think conceivably one just cannot keep track of so many things ,without training. So if we go back to the original question, I actually think in this tournament the point counter should be left disabled. That is what you will face IRL anyway.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2012, 12:07:55 am »
+1

Kirian: There are a number of misunderstandings in your post. First and foremost, the isotropic combo box labeled "Point counter" does not in any way affect your opponent's use of drheld's extension. It refers only to the built in point counter. There is nothing isotropic can do to prevent you from using client-side card tracking tools.
This is wrong. When the point counter extension is enabled, it forces the official point counter to be on. If your auto-match settings forbid a point counter, you won't be auto-matched with anybody using the point counter extension.

(In principle, anyone could modify the extension to be completely invisible to the opponent. There's no reason to believe that anyone does this.)

Quote
Secondly, the information is NOT available to only one player. The extension (in addition to being freely available to everyone) also includes a chat-box interface that the opponent can use. You can type "!details" in the chat box and receive a full listing of your and your opponent's cards.
This is correct. The only difference between the player running the extension and the player who isn't is how the information is displayed. "!details" gives you all the information available to either player (and actually more than is displayed next to the supply cards, because of Black Market, Tournament, etc.).
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 12:09:11 am by blueblimp »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2012, 12:15:34 am »
0

Kirian: There are a number of misunderstandings in your post. First and foremost, the isotropic combo box labeled "Point counter" does not in any way affect your opponent's use of drheld's extension. It refers only to the built in point counter. There is nothing isotropic can do to prevent you from using client-side card tracking tools.
This is wrong. When the point counter extension is enabled, it forces the official point counter to be on. If your auto-match settings forbid a point counter, you won't be auto-matched with anybody using the point counter extension.

(In principle, anyone could modify the extension to be completely invisible to the opponent. There's no reason to believe that anyone does this.)

Oh! That makes sense. I think I knew that once, but had totally forgotten. That's quite a good thing, I suppose.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2012, 12:21:02 am »
+2

(and not wasting their time writing it down by hand or memorizing it).
A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.

Edit: Reference for this.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 12:25:43 am by blueblimp »
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2012, 12:23:16 am »
+7

Secondly, the information is NOT available to only one player. The extension (in addition to being freely available to everyone) also includes a chat-box interface that the opponent can use. You can type "!details" in the chat box and receive a full listing of your and your opponent's cards.

While this is technically true, there is an issue of convenience.  You, running the addon, get to see the numbers all the time in a nice, easy-to-read format.  I, without the addon, have to type !details every single time I want to know the information--which means every round if I want to have the same information you do.  In addition, the readability of the chat-log format is significantly lower, and takes more brain power to process; this is not a minor detail.

Quote
Lastly, I strongly encourage you to think of the point tracker not as a devious attempt to gain an advantage, but as an enabling tool for a legitimate, optional Dominion variant in which more information is public.

Certainly, it's a legitimate variant if you wish to play this way.  However, it's notable that people were being forced into this variant without knowing quite what it was, and the format of having the addon vs. not having it does still give an advantage to the player running the addon.  In addition, some people run it without it the option of the other player(s) disabling it, which is troubling, especially if the opponent doesn't know what the addon can do.

I'm kind of saddened that I won't get to play against you again, bb, but I basically consider tournament games I've played against you to be illegitimate.  Sorry.

This addon will be barred from future IsoDom tournaments, should they happen.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2012, 12:24:01 am »
+1

Quote from: blueblimp
A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.

..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to read this as fairly pointless antagonism.

Quote from: Kirian
This addon will be barred from future IsoDom tournaments, should they happen.

You can do whatever you want in tournaments you run, but I beg you to consider the following line of argument:

1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 12:34:28 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2012, 12:46:12 am »
+7

1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
This is cuckoo.

I do not see myself being willing to try to talk sense into you. You could try David desJardins on BGG, I have seen him shoot down this brand of nonsense.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2012, 12:46:17 am »
0

Quote from: blueblimp
A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.

..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to read this as fairly pointless antagonism.
Sorry, this wasn't directed at you specifically, but was just intended to ward off the debates over what's-cheating-what's-not that always seem to crop up in these threads. That debate tends to lead to threads getting locked.

Quote
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
I disagree with this line of reasoning. If a tournament forbids the point counter extension, then honest players won't use it. Cheaters can always find some other way to cheat apart from using an illicit extension. (Get my better-ranked friend to play my games for me? Why not!)
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2012, 12:46:44 am »
0

..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted.

This is patently false if it is possible to turn off disabling.

You can do whatever you want in tournaments you run, but I beg you to consider the following line of argument:

1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.

I... wow, just wow, man.  Really?  You're going with "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" as an argument?  Really?

If the addon can be trivially modified to be invisible--even without any evidence that it has been done--then I openly call for swift condemnation of the addon by the community, abjure those who use it, and ask dougz and the FunSockets team to do everything in their power to make such addons unusable.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2012, 12:54:20 am »
+1

"if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X"

Fun fact to lighten to mood. This statement falls under the larger class of statements coined snowclones by the internet.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2012, 12:56:29 am »
+1

Seriously, that's easily five levels' worth of playing ability in a nice, succinct format, available only to one player.

Anecdote here: I'm not much higher rank than before card count display.

I'd like tournaments to allow the point counter extension. I enjoy Dominion more with it, mostly out of curiosity (since it gives me something to look at during boring stretches of the game).

In my experience, it doesn't actually make that much difference when playing an individual game. Sure, it may show you that you lost the Peddler split 8-2, but you probably knew that roughly anyway, and you're going to lose in any case. Same goes with a severe curse imbalance. The main exception here are Amb games, where seeing how many coppers you have can be pretty helpful. (Although now that I know how useful it is, I'd want to start counting them mentally in non-extension games, which would be so annoying that I might quit Iso instead.)

Where it's really nice is after-the-fact analysis. Why did my opponent connect his Tournaments more easily? Well, maybe because he bought two of them and a Warehouse, whereas I only had one and didn't get a Warehouse. Sure, I could look at the log for this, but it's a lot more convenient to do it during the game. Somehow this doesn't actually make me play better, though.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2012, 01:03:27 am »
+2

I think Personman's argument is probably exaggerated, but reasonable. Still, I believe people here are nice enough, and the games are friendly enough, so this argument is not relevant.

However, one thing I always have a hard time understanding is why some people prefer not to have point counters even in a pure online setting. I guess I just don't understand what part of memory game is fun, especially comparing to other aspects of Dominion.
Logged

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2012, 01:06:57 am »
+14


Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2012, 01:07:35 am »
0

If the addon can be trivially modified to be invisible--even without any evidence that it has been done--then I openly call for swift condemnation of the addon by the community, abjure those who use it, and ask dougz and the FunSockets team to do everything in their power to make such addons unusable.

To be clear, a cheater would need to modify the source code of the extension to do this. The add-on itself won't let you make it invisible, but AFAIK it is not technically possible for a Chrome extension to prevent source modification. The extension's author (drheld) has done everything reasonable to make the extension up-front.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2012, 01:08:18 am »
+3

Quote from: Kirian
I... wow, just wow, man.  Really?  You're going with "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" as an argument?  Really?

...yes. Yes I am. I would like to better understand your apparent belief in the absurdity of this notion, as "Really?" isn't really helping me.

Maybe the issue here is our differing experiences with other online communities? I just find it inconceivable to have faith that strangers on the internet, presented with an opportunity to cheat at a game with no chance of getting caught, will not do so. It must be nice to feel certain that your community is entirely above that, but I think it is naive.

In the early days of Isotropic I might have been more willing to entertain this notion, but after a recent string of players I've never met before opening games by saying "Fuck you" in chat, muting me, and proceeding to slow-play, I see absolutely no reason to assume people in an isotropic tournament won't be unscrupulous.

Of course, I also really, really, really think Dominion is a better game when played with the extension, so my conclusion intrinsically makes me happy rather than sad, and there is a real possibility that this is biasing my logic in some way. If you think so, please point out how.

Quote from: timchen
I think Personman's argument is probably exaggerated, but reasonable. Still, I believe people here are nice enough, and the games are friendly enough, so this argument is not relevant.

However, one thing I always have a hard time understanding is why some people prefer not to have point counters even in a pure online setting. I guess I just don't understand what part of memory game is fun, especially comparing to other aspects of Dominion.

Man, it feels really nice to encounter a somewhat like minded player. We should play some more games! And I wish I could be as optimistic as you about the community, but see above...

Quote from: Donald X
This is cuckoo.

I do not see myself being willing to try to talk sense into you. You could try David desJardins on BGG, I have seen him shoot down this brand of nonsense.

With all due respect, I was not asking you to talk sense into me. I worry that I am slipping into a persecution complex here, but I am really reading this as "HEY EVERYONE I MADE THIS GAME SO MY OPINION IS THE BEST, THIS OTHER GUY IS CRAZY AND WRONG LOL". I want to believe that you are above that, so I hope you can explain to me what I was meant to take away from your post, other than being made the target of a witchhunt by the most high-profile member of the community. I really am not attempting to force my opinions on anyone else. All I want are the following few things:

1. For my position to be respected, as I respect those who prefer memory-intensive Dominion.

2. To educate those who have misconceptions about why people like me enjoy extension-Dominion.

3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.

I wish everyone didn't have to get so mad...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 01:15:38 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2012, 01:18:47 am »
0

However, one thing I always have a hard time understanding is why some people prefer not to have point counters even in a pure online setting. I guess I just don't understand what part of memory game is fun, especially comparing to other aspects of Dominion.
One reason could be that having a memory game forces you to choose what to spend your memory on. You can't remember full deck contents, so you need to identify key splits and counts and remember only those. That's definitely a skill.

Another reason is that it can be interesting for a game to require a mixture of skills. Lots of people like Starcraft because it requires a mix of thinking and fast clicking. I'm not a fan of the clicking part myself, but I can see where these people are coming from.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2012, 01:23:07 am »
0

All I want are the following few things:

1. For my position to be respected, as I respect those who prefer memory-intensive Dominion.

You want us to respect what some consider to be unethical or cheating.  Gotcha.

Quote
2. To educate those who have misconceptions about why people like me enjoy extension-Dominion.

Please go post it in the Variants subforum.  It's there for a reason.

Quote
3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.

And I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.

Quote
I wish everyone didn't have to get so mad...

I didn't start the cheating.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2012, 01:32:44 am »
0

Once again, though I'm getting a bit tired of it: you can always avoid playing a game with the extension, either by disabling it or choosing not to play with players who have the ""Auto▼Count" status. No one is trying to deceive you. We are just trying to play the game we love. Please stop calling us cheaters.

Quote
3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.

And I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.


... are there so few Dominion players in the world that you are concerned that I will steal them all from you? Your position is already the majority. Why must you maliciously wish me to be unable to find opponents I will enjoy playing against? Live and let live...

Oh, and re your earlier contention that the extension provides 5 free isotropic levels: I challenge you to two sets of ten dominion games, one in which neither of us uses the counter, and one in which only you do. Dominion is variant enough that I don't want to make a claim about the actual difference in games won, but I believe strongly that after playing those games you will revise your estimate to perhaps 1/10 of a level, if that. I don't play with it because it's an advantage, I play with it because it's more fun.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2012, 01:36:14 am »
+6

With all due respect, I was not asking you to talk sense into me.
And I didn't ask you to ask me! I get to reply to posts, I am registered in the forums and everything.

I worry that I am slipping into a persecution complex here, but I am really reading this as "HEY EVERYONE I MADE THIS GAME SO MY OPINION IS THE BEST, THIS OTHER GUY IS CRAZY AND WRONG LOL". I want to believe that you are above that, so I hope you can explain to me what I was meant to take away from your post, other than being made the target of a witchhunt by the most high-profile member of the community. I really am not attempting to force my opinions on anyone else. All I want are the following few things:
If people think I am just posting to throw my weight around, that's just them being who they are; it's not going to convince me not to post in forums to save them from feeling oppressed. Man I would link you to some BGN article comments where this lunatic tried to argue that game designers should be separated from reality so that no-one would be affected by anything they might say about their games (man maybe you could look it up on the wayback machine). Anyway whatever, you reading it that way just backs up my read on you, which I'll get to in a minute.

What you were meant to take away from my post was, that you, Personman, should go to the website we refer to as BGG, and post about this issue there, and then people would show up and tell you how foolish you were, and this would save me lots of time, whether you were swayed by them or not.

What other people were meant to take away from my post - I didn't send you a private message, and wasn't just posting for you - was, that there are people who see that your argument was clearly nonsense. I do not like to see nonsense just sitting there, I feel like someone might see it and think "oh, no-one protested, I guess people believe this?"

1. For my position to be respected, as I respect those who prefer memory-intensive Dominion.

2. To educate those who have misconceptions about why people like me enjoy extension-Dominion.

3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.
But these have nothing to do with your post, which was about using awful reasoning to justify whatever you were going to believe anyway. It had zilch to do with "I like using a point-counter, is that so wrong." Liking point-counters is fine.

If I were trying to argue about this with you, I would start by explaining the cognitive biases. That is what I think of your argument.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2012, 01:49:03 am »
+3

Thanks for your levelheaded reply. Sorry I was a bit accusatory, I really was feeling a bit set-upon from all sides.

I certainly don't think you should refrain from posting in the forums! I think it is lovely that you post in the forums. I just wish you would do it with more substance and tact than your first post contained (and which your second demonstrates you are more than capable of).

I already indicated in my own post that I was aware of the potential cognitive bias, and asked for external input aside from "Really?" and "That's cuckoo", which is all I've heard so far. I am not asking you to argue with me, and I do not think that it is my responsibility to post elsewhere in order to "save you time". I am asking you not to insult my intelligence publicly without backing yourself up at all.

I've put forward what still seems to me like a pretty well-reasoned defense of the initial post you took issue with. A primary point of divergence for people seems to be that they are more trusting of internet strangers than I am. If that is the same reason you think I am "cuckoo", then at least I will understand where you are coming from. I don't think anyone can convince me that all isotropic players are somehow immune to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, but at least I can understand why other people might believe they are, and we can have a polite agreement to disagree.

I'm not aware of any other counterpoints to the arguments I made. If there are some, I would like to know about them. But again, I am in no way demanding your or anyone else's time or energy. Anyone who feels like trying to change my mind or help me see it their way is welcome to, and I am eager to listen... at least once we move past insults & incredulity.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Young Nick

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +274
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2012, 01:54:57 am »
+3

So a few quick notes seeing as I have internet at home for the first time in a while...

I started using the add-on after learning about the April 1 update. You can see me asking "for this magical extension" in the thread that ultimately got locked about verification failed (refer to blueblimp's summary). I started using it only because I thought it would make the game less stressful for me. In fact it did, though because I paid so much attention to who had how much of what, I kind of forget about what was left in the supply. I firmly believe that I have played several games with the add-on worse than had I never gotten it. I now use it, but don't care one way or the other.

I firmly believe that if one player is using it, s/he has a definite advantage over an opponent who is not, even if said opponent types !details at the start of every turn. The information is just so much easier to process when you run the add-on.

Though, I disagree with Persoman's line of logic about it turning us into cheaters if we outlaw it, I still do not agree with the likes of Kirian. Calling someone a cheater is a very dangerous accusation, one that I think is unjustified. And while I respect that he runs his own tournaments and thus can establish his own rules, I think if all agree to use it...I can't see why it should be banned.

Saying that one will not play with others who use the add-on seems unfairly harsh. I now am afraid to use it knowing that I may miss out on games because of it.

I mean, we are all playing to have a good time, and typing !disable doesn't seem too harsh, even if you don't ask permission beforehand.

More than anything else, I, a long-time non-add-on player, do not want others to view add-on users as cheaters. This seems wrong.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2012, 02:04:28 am »
+3

Why must you maliciously wish me to be unable to find opponents I will enjoy playing against? Live and let live...

I guess I only wish that so long as you make it clear to those opponents that you are no longer playing Dominion.

Quote
Oh, and re your earlier contention that the extension provides 5 free isotropic levels: I challenge you to two sets of ten dominion games, one in which neither of us uses the counter, and one in which only you do. Dominion is variant enough that I don't want to make a claim about the actual difference in games won, but I believe strongly that after playing those games you will revise your estimate to perhaps 1/10 of a level, if that. I don't play with it because it's an advantage, I play with it because it's more fun.

That would require me to install that script on my machine.  Not going to happen.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2012, 02:06:12 am »
+1

Quote from: Young Nick
Though, I disagree with Persoman's line of logic about it turning us into cheaters if we outlaw it

Hmm. I was trying to be very technical and formal, and I think I overstated that part of my case. I don't really think it will "turn us into cheaters". Though it is unquestionably a pressure in that direction, most honest people remain honest even under mild pressure. I think really the more likely case is that there are some people who will use it whether it is legal or not, and it's sad to give them an advantage.

Quote from: Kirian
I guess I only wish that so long as you make it clear to those opponents that you are no longer playing Dominion.

Thanks for backtracking on that, but seriously: I think this makes four times that I have talked about how no one is being deceived...

Quote from: Kirian
That would require me to install that script on my machine.  Not going to happen.

lol. It doesn't bite.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 02:10:12 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2012, 02:18:17 am »
+1

More than anything else, I, a long-time non-add-on player, do not want others to view add-on users as cheaters. This seems wrong.

Yeah, and actually I'm a bit surprised at the general reaction. I figured that, since people don't type "!details" very often, and since the point counter extension has been freely available for ages and announces its URL when the game starts, that most people not using it just didn't care, except for those who would decline auto-match when seeing the status message.

The first time the card counts appeared next to the supply, I actually found it annoying. I liked the extension because it shows up-to-date scores, instead of just what you had at the beginning of the turn. The card counts seemed not nearly as helpful as knowing whether I can safely 3-pile. In fact, I still believe this is true for most kingdoms.

So to conclude, if I have been cheating by openly using the point counter extension, then I only wish I had been cheating in a way that would actually improve my leaderboard rank, Paralyzed-style.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 02:19:22 am by blueblimp »
Logged

Mazwa

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2012, 02:34:38 am »
0

It does seem like the least Kirian could do is install the addon and see for himself what type of advantage it provides before labeling 20% of the community cheaters with such strong language.  I'm saying 20% because the addon has 1500 users and there's 8000 on the leaderboard.  Wouldn't shock me if that 1500 skewed towards the higher end of rankings and towards those players who played more games, so the game-weighted average might even be higher than 20%.

The add-on just doesn't matter in the majority of everyday (2 player) dominion.  I sometimes sign in on firefox by mistake, and might not notice for a full game that I don't have the addon available.  If you play a lot of dominion, you are going to remember all your important cards, and as tim said earlier in the thread, by subtraction, you know what your opponent holds.

I suppose how much it really matters varies from person to person, but for me personally, it really only helps with vineyards, silk roads, sabateur, or swindler on the board.

The recent 4 person qualifier is a different story, however.  I found it extremely helpful, because I cannot remember what 4 different people are buying, particularly when people are playing slowly and the game drags out and approaches 30 minutes in length.  So I can understand the opposition to using it in that format.

And to agree with what blueblimp just said, its baffling to see such surprised indignation at the use of the addon, considering that if you play a lot, you see the link to the addon spammed in your chat window several times a day.  The reaction we're seeing suggests that all this cheating was going on behind everyone's back, when in fact we link the addon at the start of every match and its only a 1-click install.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 02:39:58 am by Mazwa »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2012, 02:40:55 am »
0

I am not asking you to argue with me, and I do not think that it is my responsibility to post elsewhere in order to "save you time".
It is not your responsibility. It is my advice that you do it though, if you really want to know how nonsensical that post was. Of course people in general do not wish to know such things. There are all sorts of advantages to believing false things. And who knows, maybe people wouldn't spend time on you at BGG, or maybe someone will here.

I have to stick to not arguing out that thing line by line, because it will take hours over days and not get anywhere, and it's not worth it to me. You not being satisfied with that can't dissuade me; man I have been down that road. I once participated in a thread that went hundreds of pages arguing about whether or not point nine repeating decimal is equal to one. You can tell yourself how crazy and unlike you that is, but your post is more of that crazy. So, the important thing to me is for people to see, immediately following your awful reasoning, someone calling it out. And the people who don't have anything invested in your conclusion will work out the problems with your argument to the degree that they want to.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2012, 02:42:31 am »
+1

It does seem like the least Kirian could do is install the addon and see for himself what type of advantage it provides before labeling 20% of the community cheaters with such strong language.

Again, on principle, I will not install the addon.  I can see what it does from screenshots now; I really don't need anything else.

And to agree with what blueblimp just said, its baffling to see such surprised indignation at the use of the addon-on, considering that if you play a lot, you see the link to the add-on spammed in your chat window several times a day.  The reaction we're seeing suggests that all this cheating was going on behind everyone's back, when in fact we link the add-on at the start of every match and its only a 1-click install.

The indignation was because most of us didn't realize what the addon user could actually see.  We assumed you needed to type !details to see, well, all of the details.  No one except users had any idea that those users could see basically everything about another player's deck.

As for it being a one-click install, not everyone uses Chrome.

As for it being cheating, it gave players using it an advantage that non-users didn't even know about until recently--a couple of weeks ago.  Blueblimp's screenshot and Personman's videos made everything suddenly a lot clearer to us non-users.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #62 on: July 03, 2012, 02:43:30 am »
0

The extension in the Chrome web store. The screenshots haven't been updated with the new UI (and they actually date from before even "!details" existed), so maybe that is the issue. Apparently I was wrong about which version introduced the card count UI:
Quote
== v5.0 ==
- Added UI for displaying all cards owned by all players.
- Several bug fixes.
The github commit for v5.0 was on Feb 16th, 2012, so that's a while ago now.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #63 on: July 03, 2012, 02:47:09 am »
+3

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #64 on: July 03, 2012, 02:47:23 am »
+2

Donald, I have to disagree on you here.

if it takes you hours over days and not get anywhere, it is probably not that obvious. For your example of whether .99999 equals 1, you can have a 2-3 line proof for it. Whether people take it is another issue, but you can have it written there, instead of saying "I don't want to waste my time here because while my argument is simple and clear you won't accept it."

Really, if you do think what he said is ridiculous and crazy (as I said I think it is exaggerated but not unreasonable), just point it out. Whether he takes it or not is another issue.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #65 on: July 03, 2012, 02:48:31 am »
+3

This discussion reminds me of the discussion about the use of tracking software for poker rooms. I believe the consensus was that tracking software was allowed, but exchanging hand histories with other players is illegal or highly unethical (they can't enforce this of course).

For this discussion to have any meaning, we must firstly accept this fact: Online Dominion is not the same as offline Dominion. Trying to make the online version a perfect copy of the offline version is an effort in futility. Tools like the Point Counter Extension will always exist and they will always be used.

I believe that banning such tools will not stop them from being used, in fact they would be driven underground and would not give any notice to the other players anymore in the form of: "Hey, I'm using the point counter." They would just be silent.

It's important to note that these extensions only use information that's available to yourself and takes information from other players that's publicly available. I would consider it cheating if it somehow knew what everyone passed with Masquerade.

So banning the extension doesn't really do anything. If you're so concerned about how many cards each player has, you could just write it down and waste everyone's time. This means we kind of have to accept the point counter extension and moreover I believe that it should be included in Isotropic and turned on if one player opts in.

I know this is kind of a bold statement, but again, we're talking about online Dominion here, not offline. There's nothing stopping your from secretly writing everything down behind your computer so you'll know where everyone is at. You could go even further and write down which cards you have seen your opponents play so you can guess what's left in their decks with a higher degree of certainty. I believe this is something the extension doesn't yet offer.

The only thing the extension does is make it easier for a player to gather all the info he would otherwise have to write down. And I think this is a good thing, as it keeps the game going.


Now let me just address the boo yellers by saying that I do not condone pen and paper during a live game. Again, because it slows the game down and because I believe that keeping all the points and cards in your head is a skill that should be tested during a high level live game.

You simply can't enforce this during online play, so we might as well accept it and regulate it.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #66 on: July 03, 2012, 02:49:42 am »
0

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #67 on: July 03, 2012, 02:54:32 am »
+2

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #68 on: July 03, 2012, 02:58:27 am »
0

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Not if he's not stopping you from grabbing pen and paper or stopping your from programming an off-line counter on your computer as I have done in the past.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Young Nick

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +274
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #69 on: July 03, 2012, 02:59:03 am »
0

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?

I agree with this, but it's hard to argue that people are cheating when they use the add-on. Is anyone really using the add-on maliciously? I was in your same boat, Robz888, until just a week or two ago. It doesn't make that big of a difference, let me tell you. It is helpful, undeniably so, but nothing like some are making it out to be.
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #70 on: July 03, 2012, 02:59:45 am »
+2

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Not if he's not stopping you from grabbing pen and paper or stopping your from programming an off-line counter on your computer as I have done in the past.

Well, up until now, I thought we were both using stone tablet and chisel.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #71 on: July 03, 2012, 03:01:11 am »
0

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?

I agree with this, but it's hard to argue that people are cheating when they use the add-on. Is anyone really using the add-on maliciously? I was in your same boat, Robz888, until just a week or two ago. It doesn't make that big of a difference, let me tell you. It is helpful, undeniably so, but nothing like some are making it out to be.

I don't think it's an enormous benefit, nor do I think most people using it were trying to purposefully malicious or deceitful. But it's a non-negligible advantage, I would say.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #72 on: July 03, 2012, 03:01:52 am »
0

See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.

Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.

Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?

I think it's more important for me that other peoples browser addons can't mess with my computer than this...
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #73 on: July 03, 2012, 03:04:44 am »
0

Yes I think it's fair to say it is an advantage. So I understand people's surprise and anger when discovering this. However, toward the end, I think once you know, you can disable them if you don't like them, choose not to play with players that do not allow you to disable it, and finally if you don't care about the memory aspect of the game so much you can get it yourself. Don't see a major problem anywhere.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #74 on: July 03, 2012, 03:08:06 am »
+2

A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread, I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #75 on: July 03, 2012, 03:09:14 am »
+4

For your example of whether .99999 equals 1, you can have a 2-3 line proof for it. Whether people take it is another issue, but you can have it written there, instead of saying "I don't want to waste my time here because while my argument is simple and clear you won't accept it."
When you give them your short proof, they say, but xyz. Now if you are silent they say, oh I'm right? If instead you say, "no that's nonsense" they say "oh explain it." Again, hundreds of pages, no lie, and I know this wasn't unique to those forums, there are other forums that have had the endless argument about that very thing, point nine repeating decimal, this thing that requires only a tiny proof.

It's not that I'm going on about this because I want everyone to know just how much I think that post wasn't worth my time, despite spending time repeating that. You guys are talking to me. I was content to leave it at "that's cuckoo" and wait for someone else to do the work. You've already got threads of me arguing for pages against obvious wrong things here on dominionstrategy.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #76 on: July 03, 2012, 03:14:23 am »
+5

A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread, I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!
If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.
Logged

Young Nick

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 561
  • Respect: +274
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #77 on: July 03, 2012, 03:14:46 am »
0

How would those who are against the add-on feel if there was no UI, and that those who enabled the add-on would have to type !status or !details just like the non-users? All players have to deal with the clogged messages that display the information and no single opponent has access to the information 100% of the time if the add-on functioned this way.

I figure some would still be against this, but I doubt this would be granting any competitive advantage at all. This is the next logical step.
Logged

jayarsea

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #78 on: July 03, 2012, 03:18:41 am »
0

How would those who are against the add-on feel if there was no UI, and that those who enabled the add-on would have to type !status or !details just like the non-users? All players have to deal with the clogged messages that display the information and no single opponent has access to the information 100% of the time if the add-on functioned this way.

I figure some would still be against this, but I doubt this would be granting any competitive advantage at all. This is the next logical step.

This would be my strong preference. I am among those who didn't realize that my opponent has been passively receiving information while I must request it.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #79 on: July 03, 2012, 03:22:16 am »
+3

A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread, I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!
Motion seconded as I have said before.

Online Dominion isn't offline Dominion, people.
Time to throw away all pens, papers, stones and chisels and embrace the fact that we can easily track public information on the internet so that everyone can use it.

And all the surprise about: "I didn't know it tracked cards!" Well, boo fricking hoo. Stop overreacting and calm yourselves please.
You are in fact shocked that players on the other side of the internet are using information that's available to everyone?

If I told you that in every game I've played on Iso I kept track with my loyal pen and paper so I always knew what you and I had in our decks, would you be shocked? I think NOT! You would think: "Well, you're free to do what you want, man, we can't stop you from doing it anyway."

Was the extension used under false pretenses? Maybe, but I'm actually surprised it caused such upheaval.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #80 on: July 03, 2012, 03:23:55 am »
+1

A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread, I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!
If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.
Oddly enough, the Ascension iPad app tracks deck contents but not points. Go figure.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 03:27:23 am by blueblimp »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order
« Reply #81 on: July 03, 2012, 03:26:59 am »
0

A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread, I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!
If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.


Alright, well, for a points-only counter, my hypothetical kickstarter contribution goes down to say.. $50 ;-)

Seriously, that's great to hear. I hope he doesn't hate it, and I hope this kind of messy argument can just never ever happen with FunSockets, because everyone accepts that the official counter exists, knows what it does, and is clear on whether they are playing with it or not.

Also, I'm going to bed now.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 03:28:46 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #82 on: July 03, 2012, 03:28:28 am »
+9

I'm just going to say one thing on this matter, then shut up.

I personally have no issue with the point counter.  I know that it gives a (very) slight advantage to the player who uses it, but it doesn't bother me.  I play against people who use it all the time, no big deal.  If I meet you on Iso, I'm not going to ask you to disable anything, or avoid you, because you use the point counter.

HOWEVER.

There is no defense, I repeat no defense, for not having the courtesy to disable it if asked, since after all a) everybody knows it's controversial, and b) it is confirmed by the DXV himself as a variant rather than accepted within the official rules.  And it should go without saying that this is especially true in a tournament setting: there is no question in my mind that refusing to disable the point counter in a tournament game is not just incredibly rude, but is, yes, cheating.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #83 on: July 03, 2012, 03:31:49 am »
0

You can't take the official rules for the offline version and copy paste them for the online version.

But if I continue your reasoning, chwhite, you could play in a tournament and say in the chat box: "Guys, I'm not using the point counter (disabling it), but I'm writing everything down, is that ok?" They can't stop you from doing this even if they don't want you to.

So what's the difference and what's the use?

In my view, we're at a Crossroads, either:
- Make the point counter extension native to Iso, program it in so everyone can use it
- Make any online Dominion software very intrusive on your PC, making it scan constantly for the usage of point counters and let it connect to your inbuilt camera to see if you're writing something down with pen and paper

I think the first one is more viable.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 03:34:03 am by Davio »
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #84 on: July 03, 2012, 03:32:18 am »
0

(Edit: In reply to chwhite.) I agree for tournaments, but for everyday play I'd prefer that the other player just decline the auto-match. That's why it's in the status.
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #85 on: July 03, 2012, 03:53:28 am »
0

But if I continue your reasoning, chwhite, you could play in a tournament and say in the chat box: "Guys, I'm not using the point counter (disabling it), but I'm writing everything down, is that ok?" They can't stop you from doing this even if they don't want you to.

Yes, technically you could do that.  And you'd be at best an inconsiderate jerk for doing so- just because it's impossible to catch all fouls doesn't make it okay to foul.

I really don't see what's so controversial about basic courtesy and sportsmanship here (and make no mistake, this argument is about sportsmanship and NOT about the point counter, which as I've said before I'm quite agnostic about).

(Edit: In reply to chwhite.) I agree for tournaments, but for everyday play I'd prefer that the other player just decline the auto-match. That's why it's in the status.

Yeah, of course.  That's entirely fair.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #86 on: July 03, 2012, 04:25:48 am »
+6

Seriously guys, what going on!?
I'm happy to be part of this community, because I had the impression that everyone is kind and very respectful. I can't understand all the hate which is going on.
The community seems to split apart in two halfs, the Pro- and Contra-PointCounter parts. That's really sad.

I did want to post a long essay, but as I figured out. Most of it was already said by Davio. Especially his bold sentence "Online Dominion isn't Offline Dominion".
But I like to add a few things. I can understand both sides. Each side has brought arguments that sound reasonable. So, I, by myself tried to figure out what s reasonable.

First question to ask: What is cheating? I, for myself, consider it in this context to have information that I'm otherwise shouldn't be able to have.
Second question (half provoking): Why hasn't anybody brought up the question: "Is having logs cheating?" ? The same arguments could be brought up here. The one side could say: You have to memorize, that's part of the skill. The other side could say: Yes, but I easily could write that down.
Third question: Is the official point counter cheating? AFAIK the official point counter even displays the points of multiplayer Masquerade games correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is information you shouldn't have (see question 1) and is IMO more cheating than anything else here mentioned. And counting points is the most important thing you have to do. IMO the discussion should more be "Is using any point counter cheating?" instead of "Is the inofficial point counter cheating?". Because knowing how much worth your Fairgrounds, Vineyard or Silk Roads are, is very important.
Fourth question: Which benefit you have from the uninofficial point counter in comparism to the official point counter? Yes, you know how your and your opponents deck looks like. Yes, it's an advantage. But how big is it? IMO when you know how many points you have, knowing how your deck looks like isn't much of any deal. You can count if you would have enough money for double province if you draw your whole deck and there are more cases in which you really have a benefit.  But remembering what cards you have in your deck is not that hard. You often know it anyway. Maybe you don't know if you have 5, 6 or 7 silvers, but is that important? The number of your key cards you know anyway. And the only case you really want to know exactly what you have is, when alternative victory cards refering the number of specific cards. But then you have the point counter either way...

I mention it again: "Online Dominion isn't Offline Dominion" For those refering to the point counter as a variant. Yes, it is a variant. But online Dominion is a variant already on its own. Online Dominion needs variants for cases like you weren't able to fully concentrate e.g. because your baby starts to cry or whatever. So there are logs to read what happened, there is a point counter to see quickly where you are now and there is the "deck counter" where you can also see by a quick look what you missed.

On the other side I see the arguments of the Contra-group. In tournaments you want to test the skill of the players and this includes to keep track of your cards.

The combination of the "Online" and "Tournament" parts, really makes it difficult to come to an agreement.
My proposal: It should be possible to disable the inofficial point counter at any time. There shouldn't be an option "cannot be disabled". If one of the opponents don't agree with the inofficial point counter, he can just disable it. Where's the problem? Is it really that hard to come to an agreement? I think neither side has the right to either say "The inofficial point counter is cheating and should definitely be prohibited or banned" nor "I only play with the inofficial point counter". It is a controversial topic and it's the easiest way to define: "When all players come to an agreement what to use or not use, then it's fine. If an agreement isn't possible, the compromise would be no inofficial pointer, but with official point counter." I think, that's fair.

yudantaiteki

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #87 on: July 03, 2012, 04:57:17 am »
0

I assumed everyone knew that the point counter extension allowed you to see what was in decks, although I must say that I don't like the idea that you can see the deck without having to type !details, whereas your opponent does have to do that.  That's really the only thing that bothers me.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #88 on: July 03, 2012, 04:59:29 am »
+1

Still, I say that you can't have an online tournament, or an online game for that matter, where you can really enforce the "no point counter" rule. So we can either accept that some people will "cheat" (I still don't think it's cheating) without telling us or we can accept the point trackers and make sure that everyone has the same information. Well, everyone already has the same information, it's just that some players don't need to write it down while others do.

You can appeal to sportsmanship all you want, but you can never enforce players to play online tournaments without it. And if the carrot is big enough, players will do all they can to gain an edge. And why shouldn't they?? It's not like the point and card tracker instantly makes a person twice as good. It just helps him a bit to remember some things automatically which he would otherwise write down anyway.

All this discussion about something that will give players maybe a 2% edge. I mean, it's not like having the point tracker instantly makes you godlike like stef, marin or Obi Wan Bonogi....
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #89 on: July 03, 2012, 07:00:50 am »
0

I try to make another comparism: Card counting in games like Blackjack.
It's not illegal to count cards in Blackjack although you may be sooner or later get kicked out of casinos if you do so.
If you use external devices or pen&paper to count cards, that would be illegal, no doubt.

I think it's not possible to count cards in online casinos, but just imagine it would be possible.
Of course some would write cards down, and of course there would be plugins for counting cards. Nobody can prevent this.
But still: Counting cards still doesn't mean auto-win, especially as your opponent may do so as well.

What would be the solution?
1.) Prevent card counting at all. In Online Dominion in a browser, that's nearly impossible.
2.) Tolerate card counters, with the restriction to disable it by any opponent at any time. That's what I'm proposing.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #90 on: July 03, 2012, 08:33:53 am »
0

2.) Tolerate card counters, with the restriction to disable it by any opponent at any time. That's what I'm proposing.

I could deal with this if the code weren't transparent.  It's not a perfect solution, but it would be fair.  However, as has been noted, anyone with enough knowledge about programming can change the code; this creates an untenable situation in which you can't guarantee someone is using it and you can't disable it--or even see it!
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #91 on: July 03, 2012, 08:41:34 am »
0

2.) Tolerate card counters, with the restriction to disable it by any opponent at any time. That's what I'm proposing.

I could deal with this if the code weren't transparent.  It's not a perfect solution, but it would be fair.  However, as has been noted, anyone with enough knowledge about programming can change the code; this creates an untenable situation in which you can't guarantee someone is using it and you can't disable it--or even see it!

Yeah, but if it's tolerated, nobody needs to do that. Only when you prohibit it, people would start to bypass that restriction.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order
« Reply #92 on: July 03, 2012, 08:49:24 am »
0

One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets.  Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #93 on: July 03, 2012, 09:04:25 am »
+1

What the discussion boils down to is the believe that some players have access to more information than other players, but this is FALSE.

Every player has access to the same information. The point counter extension (PCE) just stores and shows the information which is available to everyone. The UI of the PCE is not accessible to everyone, but the information is. So the discussion about the PCE is moot. The PCE is not the culprit here, nor is anyone using it.

In banning the PCE from tournament use, you are trying to enforce a rule that is by definition un-enforcable. You can't prevent players from using the public information that's given to them. If you ban the PCE, you might as well ban Pen and Paper. I agree that having a good card memory is a key skill in offline Dominion, but online Dominion is already a variant, like Qvist mentioned. We need to treat it as such, with separate rules.

There wasn't such a Rabble when Iso implemented the option to start with the same 4/3 or 5/2 opening. This is also a variant.

I would even argue that Iso, even with the PCE, is more fair than real life Dominion, because even a pseudo-random computer shuffler is better than the good old 3 times overhand shuffle used in real life which causes clunking like there's no tomorrow.

I would let everyone happily use the PCE for online Dominion. If you want to cry about how that's unfair because you don't use it, just use it, use a pen and paper or stop whining about it. You can't prevent it, so you must accept it.

This is probably better than banning it and having everybody use it secretly anyway.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #94 on: July 03, 2012, 09:13:35 am »
0

Well that was a lot to digest.

The Auto Count thing means they have it set so that it cannot be disabled.

edit: well i'm not sure actually, it seems the Auto Count message is required if you've disabled disabling, but I don't know if Auto Count always means that has occurred.

There are three options:
  • Shows status message and can be disabled. (Edit: thought this was the default, but it's not.)
  • Shows status message and can't be disabled.
  • Doesn't show status message and can be disabled. (The default.)
The only thing that you can't do is turn off disabling and not show the status message.

I've attached a screenshot to show what the point counter looks like when you use it (with the other player's name hidden). Next to the cards in the supply, you can see how many each player has. The chat box is what it looks like after typing "!details", which both players can see. You can see current points and deck sizes next to the chat input box (which is the same info you get by typing "!status").
I just want to make sure I have this correct... The screenshot with the card counting did not need anything like !status to start it up correct?  Also it would continue to count it without anything like !status?  I ask because I have NEVER seen that before which makes me a little skeptical that this information is available to everyone (or I am missing the boat or something).  (Attached is the screenshot)

Also for the three options, could someone explain what is meant by not showing the status message (the third option).  Does this mean I would not be informed if they have it in the first place or something like typing !status would be invisible to the other player. 

I hope this question doesn't spring a huge debate as well, but do a lot of players actually keep track of cards say pen/paper or excel sheet? I have never even considered to do that... mainly because its too much work though.  This point counter looks like zero effort which bugs me a bit, but not enough into a frenzy. 
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #95 on: July 03, 2012, 09:17:29 am »
0

One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets.  Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.

I understand, but so long as Isotropic is the main online Dominion arena, I think the discussion needed to finally be had.  We've been skirting around it for over a year.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
  • Respect: +609
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #96 on: July 03, 2012, 09:30:39 am »
0

I'm just going to say one thing on this matter, then shut up.

I personally have no issue with the point counter.  I know that it gives a (very) slight advantage to the player who uses it, but it doesn't bother me.  I play against people who use it all the time, no big deal.  If I meet you on Iso, I'm not going to ask you to disable anything, or avoid you, because you use the point counter.

HOWEVER.

There is no defense, I repeat no defense, for not having the courtesy to disable it if asked, since after all a) everybody knows it's controversial, and b) it is confirmed by the DXV himself as a variant rather than accepted within the official rules.  And it should go without saying that this is especially true in a tournament setting: there is no question in my mind that refusing to disable the point counter in a tournament game is not just incredibly rude, but is, yes, cheating.

All of my feeling summed up about this silly argument. Thanks ch.
Logged

Eevee

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
  • Shuffle iT Username: Eevee
  • A wild Eevee appears!
  • Respect: +867
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #97 on: July 03, 2012, 09:59:48 am »
+1

I'm just going to say one thing on this matter, then shut up.

I personally have no issue with the point counter.  I know that it gives a (very) slight advantage to the player who uses it, but it doesn't bother me.  I play against people who use it all the time, no big deal.  If I meet you on Iso, I'm not going to ask you to disable anything, or avoid you, because you use the point counter.

HOWEVER.

There is no defense, I repeat no defense, for not having the courtesy to disable it if asked, since after all a) everybody knows it's controversial, and b) it is confirmed by the DXV himself as a variant rather than accepted within the official rules.  And it should go without saying that this is especially true in a tournament setting: there is no question in my mind that refusing to disable the point counter in a tournament game is not just incredibly rude, but is, yes, cheating.

All of my feeling summed up about this silly argument. Thanks ch.

How about announcing "I wont allow disabling the point counter extension" in my status message? Should ensure I only play guys who enjoy the same variant I do.

Because really, the idea of playing without any point counter makes me want to quit the game altogether, and I would REALLY like to have the extension available too because it makes the game that much more fun to me (and I play to have fun).
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #98 on: July 03, 2012, 10:08:11 am »
+1

One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets.  Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.

I still haven't really found the relevant code in the Funsockets client, but without knowing the exact working of the code, I guess to write the addon you should observe the communication with the server, or at least the functions that communicate with the server, or the functions that display the relevant events on the client. Change these functions to also do the counting for you, and you are done. It's significantly harder than for iso, but significantly easier than OCR.
I'm still quite sure that we won't have such a thing for Funsockets if there was some kind of point counter in the official version, but without it someone will probably do...

Or they do (or have done) some encryption/obfuscation of these functions...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 10:09:34 am by DStu »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #99 on: July 03, 2012, 10:12:29 am »
+5

First of all, I did not resigned. I withdrew.
Second, I protest. I protest the finals. I have noted this, but I want to do it more publicly here.
Third: the point counter, particularly the undisableable point counter spurred much of the discussion/argument/disagreement that was going on. However, it was not really, as things went on, the heart of the disagreements, and it would certainly not be correct to say that this is the only reason I withdrew - though from the other people looking at stuff, it would certainly look this way, I grant you. But setting the record straight, it's not the only reason.
Fourth, I actually think I gave up a somewhat better than 1 in 4 chance at the Chicago thing, because I think I was the best player, even with one of them cheating in this fashion. But I do not care so much about this. I care more about some of you guys missing out on things, I guess, but again, a heap of cash, and a bunch of fun is WAY less important to me than my reasons for withdrawal. I continue to be amazed at how not understood this is.
Fifth, I will be making several more points about the issues coming up.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #100 on: July 03, 2012, 10:24:57 am »
+2

I'd like to add one point: WW's withdrawal, to my knowledge was independent of any decision we made.  Our subsequent attempts at compromise attempted to balance the letter of the rules, please everyone, and encourage WW to return to the match.  We were unsuccessful.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #101 on: July 03, 2012, 10:47:36 am »
+1

I continue to be amazed at how not understood this is.
Maybe that's because at least I don't really know what's going on, except point counter discussions...
Logged

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #102 on: July 03, 2012, 10:57:20 am »
+2

Interesting. So now I'm curious -- Did anyone actually use the unofficial point counter during the tournament games (quals/semis)?

If I had seen a player using it (and knew about the one-sided change in display), I would have stopped playing right there and requested a restart without it since it seems to violate the tournament rule "Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise." On three of the four tournament days I actually did request restarts when people started games without the official point counter, the wrong seating order, or different starting hands (each time we just restarted with the correct parameters and same kingdom). If people did use the unofficial counter, I am surprised no one was challenged on it before the finals. Although I do see that since the unofficial point counter isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules (like veto mode is) that MAYBE a player can argue that it's not against the rules; however, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "ex ante identical games for everyone" that the rules were trying to achieve.

Also, shouldn't the tournament admin have final say over how the rules are implemented and their interpretation?
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #103 on: July 03, 2012, 11:00:12 am »
0

As in the official inofficial version you can at least allow your opponent to disable the point counter, you could just (try) to disable it. I saw WW doing this in one of the games. No need to restart, just take it away.  But you can disable the option to disable, and then the mess started (to my knowledge...).
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #104 on: July 03, 2012, 11:11:23 am »
+1

Interesting. So now I'm curious -- Did anyone actually use the unofficial point counter during the tournament games (quals/semis)?

If I had seen a player using it (and knew about the one-sided change in display), I would have stopped playing right there and requested a restart without it since it seems to violate the tournament rule "Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise." On three of the four tournament days I actually did request restarts when people started games without the official point counter, the wrong seating order, or different starting hands (each time we just restarted with the correct parameters and same kingdom). If people did use the unofficial counter, I am surprised no one was challenged on it before the finals. Although I do see that since the unofficial point counter isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules (like veto mode is) that MAYBE a player can argue that it's not against the rules; however, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "ex ante identical games for everyone" that the rules were trying to achieve.

Also, shouldn't the tournament admin have final say over how the rules are implemented and their interpretation?

I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).

I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.

After seeing how upset WW got in an earlier thread about the unofficial point counter, I turned off the extension for our semifinal game. Timchen was also using it but WW disabled it for every game and no one got upset.

I think the only reason people do get upset is if someone is not allowing it to be disabled, which is bullshit. It really is an advantage, and helps me keep track of a lot of things and analyze certain things during the game instead of after it. I'll agree that it's a huge advantage to the player using it, and I think it is totally unfair in a tournament format, and if you play for isotropic rank it's also unfair.

But anyway, if you play without allowing it to be disabled, that'd kind of dirty, and shouldn't be allowed. And for tournament play, IMO, it should never be allowed. I'm just shocked that anyone would be upset if another player was going to disable it. WW did say there was more to why he withdrew, but that alone would be a good reason to withdraw, for me. Everyone should be allowed the same information, in an equally readable format. I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this, but that clearly seems to be the right thing to do, and I'm sure it will be done in future tournaments (if they're even held on isotropic).
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

rrenaud

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
  • Uncivilized Barbarian of Statistics
  • Respect: +1197
    • View Profile
    • CouncilRoom
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #105 on: July 03, 2012, 11:21:11 am »
+3

I convinced drheld to include a message with an up to date screenshot of the UI in the announcement, so people shouldn't be surprised as to what it does.

Quote
11:10 alarmtopia: ★ Cards counted by Dominion Point Counter ★
11:10 alarmtopia: http://goo.gl/iDihS (screenshot: http://goo.gl/G9BTQ)
11:10 alarmtopia: Type !status to see the current score.
11:10 alarmtopia: Type !details to see deck details for each player.

If anyone with gimp/photoshop skills wants to highlight the additions made by the point counter in some visually pleasing way, he will replace that image with yours.
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #106 on: July 03, 2012, 11:22:55 am »
+2

Interesting. So now I'm curious -- Did anyone actually use the unofficial point counter during the tournament games (quals/semis)?

If I had seen a player using it (and knew about the one-sided change in display), I would have stopped playing right there and requested a restart without it since it seems to violate the tournament rule "Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise." On three of the four tournament days I actually did request restarts when people started games without the official point counter, the wrong seating order, or different starting hands (each time we just restarted with the correct parameters and same kingdom). If people did use the unofficial counter, I am surprised no one was challenged on it before the finals. Although I do see that since the unofficial point counter isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules (like veto mode is) that MAYBE a player can argue that it's not against the rules; however, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "ex ante identical games for everyone" that the rules were trying to achieve.

Also, shouldn't the tournament admin have final say over how the rules are implemented and their interpretation?

I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).

I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.

After seeing how upset WW got in an earlier thread about the unofficial point counter, I turned off the extension for our semifinal game. Timchen was also using it but WW disabled it for every game and no one got upset.

I think the only reason people do get upset is if someone is not allowing it to be disabled, which is bullshit. It really is an advantage, and helps me keep track of a lot of things and analyze certain things during the game instead of after it. I'll agree that it's a huge advantage to the player using it, and I think it is totally unfair in a tournament format, and if you play for isotropic rank it's also unfair.

But anyway, if you play without allowing it to be disabled, that'd kind of dirty, and shouldn't be allowed. And for tournament play, IMO, it should never be allowed. I'm just shocked that anyone would be upset if another player was going to disable it. WW did say there was more to why he withdrew, but that alone would be a good reason to withdraw, for me. Everyone should be allowed the same information, in an equally readable format. I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this, but that clearly seems to be the right thing to do, and I'm sure it will be done in future tournaments (if they're even held on isotropic).

I don't use the unofficial point counter - primarily because I didn't people to think that my rating was a result of having it on.  I do use the official one - because I'm lazy - and I'd rather play casually (maybe i'm reading point counter debates in the other window) AND play at a high level (not making stupid end game buys because I wasn't aware of game state).

Because of this - I didn't realize that the unofficial counter had added those sweet sweet  deck counting access.  I had seen !details - which was interesting - but I didn't realize that it was actually displaying the details for the other person all the time.

As for tournaments - rather than banning it outright - I would argue the other way - that it should be required... otherwise the people who do want to track information are just going to get out the pen and paper / excel spreadsheet and track it that way.  At least if you mandate the counter - you've got everyone on a level playing field - and hopefully playing dominion at a higher level than if we were all playing blind.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #107 on: July 03, 2012, 11:33:45 am »
0

One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets.  Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.

I still haven't really found the relevant code in the Funsockets client, but without knowing the exact working of the code, I guess to write the addon you should observe the communication with the server, or at least the functions that communicate with the server, or the functions that display the relevant events on the client. Change these functions to also do the counting for you, and you are done. It's significantly harder than for iso, but significantly easier than OCR.
I'm still quite sure that we won't have such a thing for Funsockets if there was some kind of point counter in the official version, but without it someone will probably do...

Or they do (or have done) some encryption/obfuscation of these functions...

Yep. In fact it may turn out to be easier than for isotropic, if it's possible to hook the animations, since if you have some uniform animation for cards leaving/entering your deck, that's simpler to deal with than parsing every possible log message.

On the other hand, I would be surprised if they chose not to obfuscate their javascript. (Not that obfuscation really stops anyone, though.)
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #108 on: July 03, 2012, 11:40:46 am »
0

If you're keeping track of EVERY card the other player buys, you're either taking a long time every turn, or you set up an extension of your own, which may or may not be visible, which to me is cheating.

Both sides of this argument have been stated and restated and restated again. I think there is some merit to the argument that keeping track of the most important stuff in your head is a part of the game itself. You realistically won't keep track of everything everyone has in their decks, and if you do that's either quite a skill or distracting you from the actual strategy/ tactics within the game itself.

Just because the game isn't about "counting cards" to you, doesn't mean it isn't to someone else, basically. I was reading someone talk about the catan world championships a while ago, and they have a similar thing going on. The player who won the championship was someone who very meticulously kept track (in his head, obviously) of what every player had in his hand. Other players focused on more general strategy, from the gist of the review I read. Was his memorization skill, or just a waste of time? If Catan had a similar card counter that kept track of what was in everyone's hands, would that be fair to you? I imagine your answer would be yes, while mine is no.

And that is the crux of the argument really. Is dominion about card counting, or more general strategy? I would argue both.

This is what I was referencing in regards to Catan: http://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/uuwhu/final_board_of_a_settlers_of_catan_tournament/
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

nightdance

  • Ambassador
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #109 on: July 03, 2012, 11:53:45 am »
+1

@RisingJaguar, I think if you disable the status message, that means that you cannot see the status message under the person's name in the lobby. When you start a game, it will be obvious that the person is using it and then you can disable it.

My own opinion:

I use the point-counter most of the time, but I sometimes play on other browsers or another computer without it. It is only cheating if there was an intention at securing an advantage that was unknown or not agreed upon by the other player. I have never had this intention. Not allowing it to be disabled seems in my mind to be on the cheating side of the fence, but calling people cheaters is a big accusation. Online dominion ITSELF, is a variant of Dominion. Personally, I also try to play Dominion IRL as much as I can.
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #110 on: July 03, 2012, 11:57:10 am »
0

I'd argue that online dominion and face to face dominion are different variants of the same game.  In online dominion - since you can't enforce someone tracking all the information (since the cost of doing so is very very low) you might as well make it available.  Fortunately - dominion is a strong enough game that it stands up with the card counting aspects of the game removed.

Think of forum mafia vs. real life mafia.  Same basic game - same basic rules - but the difference in having perfect information and recall makes the games have a very different feel.

As for settlers - I agree - might as well make it public because online someone will track it.  I would fully expect expert level players to do so.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #111 on: July 03, 2012, 12:15:35 pm »
0

@CF

I totally agree with you. Online dominion should be treated differently than IRL dominion. I've used the point counter, and I see the benefits.

There comes a point, though, when the "it's better for everyone to have it than only a select few" holds no water. If everyone was able to know the order of everyone's cards in their deck (unrealistic, I know, but bear with me), then you are no longer playing dominion. Wishing Well is a Lab, Navigator becomes less useful, courtyard becomes SO much better, the list goes on. It may be "fair" in that no one player is at an advantage, but you can't really say you're playing dominion any more.

So there does need to be a cutoff somewhere, IMO, and a point/ card counter that isn't readily available to everyone through the game is a good place to start.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #112 on: July 03, 2012, 01:11:49 pm »
+1

The unofficial point tracker is cheating.  Whether or not it is possible to stop, does not change that.  Obviously in online dominion, as in many things in life, cheating will happen no matter what anyone tries to do about it.

Someone brought up liking the point counter because it stops them from ending the game when they are behind.  This is exactly the reason I HATE the point counter.  Knowing when to end the game used to be something that separated a good player from a not so good player, but anyone can see "Hm, I'm down 7.  Buying a 6 point province will still cause me to lose.  I'll buy a duchy!"  To me a good player should AT LEAST be able to know who has bought what victory cards in a 2 player game.  The piles all start with 8... know what you buy and do subtraction.  For the unofficial point counter, knowing other splits is HUGE and having something tells goes against the nature of the game.  Having something tell you "You lost the GM split 6-4 and the Peddler split 7-3 BUT you have a small lead" is huge over thinking "Was it 5-5?  Did I win 6-4?"

Secondly, with the logic of "if it's illegal people will still do it" etc. So what?  If people want to cheat by writing down all the cards on paper, oh well.  If they feel they need to get ahead by cheating good for them, I hope it helps them when they aren't able to do that.  But the point is they are cheating.

I don't like the official point counter, but I don't mind playing with it or without it.  Think of offline dominion where all you see is the board (where you aren't even sure of exactly how many cards are always left in each pile) and your deck/ discard with an unknown # of cards.  Online already has given HUGE advantages to people that can't keep track of things on their own, why should even more be available?

With all that said, I don't consider everyone using it to be "cheaters" looking to get an advantage.  I liken it to the Jeopardy! online qualifying tests.  There is NOTHING to stop you from quickly google searching all the right answers and passing the qualifying test.  Does that mean it's not cheating?  Obviously not, as (I hope) we can all agree.  However at the next level you would be exposed, when you clearly DON'T know much.  Similarly here: There is NOTHING to stop you from quickly seeing the deck contents and using that to pass the "qualifying test"...

I think we all agree that we LIKE dominion.  And probably a majority started out playing IRL.  So in general things should be as close to that as possible.  In a perfect world for me the only info given outside of what each player plays/ buys would be the # of VP chips accumulated.  But, it is what it is.
Logged
A man on a mission.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #113 on: July 03, 2012, 01:32:02 pm »
0

Powerman you are just so horribly wrong. From your point even using the official point counter is cheating. In the strict sense you are saying even playing dominion itself online is cheating. Who knows, maybe without shuffling with your own hands make you have more leisure thinking about other things and give an advantage to you.

But that is not at all the point. What is cheating just depends on the rules. And the rules can change once everyone in the game agrees. So the point is to respect others. And to discuss and find the solution that everyone can accept.

The worst thing one can do is just to outright call the other group of people cheater. What benefit is there?

 
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #114 on: July 03, 2012, 01:44:10 pm »
0

Powerman you are just so horribly wrong. From your point even using the official point counter is cheating. In the strict sense you are saying even playing dominion itself online is cheating. Who knows, maybe without shuffling with your own hands make you have more leisure thinking about other things and give an advantage to you.

But that is not at all the point. What is cheating just depends on the rules. And the rules can change once everyone in the game agrees. So the point is to respect others. And to discuss and find the solution that everyone can accept.

The worst thing one can do is just to outright call the other group of people cheater. What benefit is there?

Well, I do think that the official point tracker is technically cheating, but it is probably necessary due to a few situations on Iso not present IRL so I accept it.  And if somehow a player online could somehow play a player that would be terrible.  But since both players are using a different platform, it provides no competitive advantage (as in there is no alternative).  However, having something tell you the cards bought does provide a competitive advantage and there is an alternative (either figure out the deck composition yourself or just don't know it).

I guess it comes down to whether you think (in general) that knowing what cards are in your deck and what cards are in your opponents deck is an advantage.  Now to me, using an external aid to gain an advantage is cheating.  I'm sorry if people that don't like that get mad.
Logged
A man on a mission.

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #115 on: July 03, 2012, 01:47:11 pm »
+2

People are throwing the word "cheat" around a lot. This implies there is some sort of deception going on. I was not aware of what the point counter actually did, but this was not the fault of the people using it. I could have looked it up on my own, the link is right there, so I wouldn't call them "cheaters". They're not trying to cheat anyone. They're just using a tool that is not expressly prohibited by any rules. Now if you ask them to turn it off and they don't, that's a different story. I still don't think it's "cheating" (unless they say it's disabled when it's not), it's just discourteous.

I can see why people use this for casual play. I myself use the official point counter because it allows me to pay less attention during the game, not so that I can devote my brain resources to playing better, but so that I can devote them to doing something else at the same time. In a serious 2-player tournament setting I don't see it really making much of a difference, because you're paying full attention anyway. But as the number of players increases, I can see people having a serious issue with it. Keeping track of stuff in 4 decks is hard. People who are skilled at it want to have that advantage, and people who are not don't want to be disadvantaged. Personally, I don't care, but this kind of thing has to be decided before the start of a tournament (before people even enter) and not on the day of the finals.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #116 on: July 03, 2012, 01:54:32 pm »
0

People are throwing the word "cheat" around a lot. This implies there is some sort of deception going on. I was not aware of what the point counter actually did, but this was not the fault of the people using it. I could have looked it up on my own, the link is right there, so I wouldn't call them "cheaters". They're not trying to cheat anyone. They're just using a tool that is not expressly prohibited by any rules. Now if you ask them to turn it off and they don't, that's a different story. I still don't think it's "cheating" (unless they say it's disabled when it's not), it's just discourteous.

I can see why people use this for casual play. I myself use the official point counter because it allows me to pay less attention during the game, not so that I can devote my brain resources to playing better, but so that I can devote them to doing something else at the same time. In a serious 2-player tournament setting I don't see it really making much of a difference, because you're paying full attention anyway. But as the number of players increases, I can see people having a serious issue with it. Keeping track of stuff in 4 decks is hard. People who are skilled at it want to have that advantage, and people who are not don't want to be disadvantaged. Personally, I don't care, but this kind of thing has to be decided before the start of a tournament (before people even enter) and not on the day of the finals.

Good post, except I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement.  Shouldn't people who are "skilled" have an advantage over people who aren't "skilled"?  Isn't that why we hold tournaments (to find out who is most "skilled"?)
Logged
A man on a mission.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #117 on: July 03, 2012, 01:55:56 pm »
+4

I really was confused reading Powerman's posts. For anymore who feels the same:

Personman != Powerman  :o

It took a few minutes until I noticed.  :P

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #118 on: July 03, 2012, 01:56:56 pm »
0

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #119 on: July 03, 2012, 02:05:43 pm »
+1

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

No words about violating the rules at all.
Logged

verikt

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +65
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #120 on: July 03, 2012, 02:06:18 pm »
0

Funny. I saw the !status thing too and never realized that the other player was getting visuals, or how much of an advantage that is. Now that I know, I'm going to block it every time I see it come up. I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating but I certainly think that someone using the option to hide it is being deceptive and unfair.
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #121 on: July 03, 2012, 02:09:12 pm »
+2

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

No words about violating the rules at all.

Dude. He told you what he meant. Who cares what the dictionary says?

And besides

"intransitive verb
1
a : to practice fraud or trickery
b : to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>"

It pretty clearly does say that. Now let's not all get offended by the word cheating, please.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2118
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #122 on: July 03, 2012, 02:11:05 pm »
0

People are throwing the word "cheat" around a lot. This implies there is some sort of deception going on. I was not aware of what the point counter actually did, but this was not the fault of the people using it. I could have looked it up on my own, the link is right there, so I wouldn't call them "cheaters". They're not trying to cheat anyone. They're just using a tool that is not expressly prohibited by any rules. Now if you ask them to turn it off and they don't, that's a different story. I still don't think it's "cheating" (unless they say it's disabled when it's not), it's just discourteous.

I can see why people use this for casual play. I myself use the official point counter because it allows me to pay less attention during the game, not so that I can devote my brain resources to playing better, but so that I can devote them to doing something else at the same time. In a serious 2-player tournament setting I don't see it really making much of a difference, because you're paying full attention anyway. But as the number of players increases, I can see people having a serious issue with it. Keeping track of stuff in 4 decks is hard. People who are skilled at it want to have that advantage, and people who are not don't want to be disadvantaged. Personally, I don't care, but this kind of thing has to be decided before the start of a tournament (before people even enter) and not on the day of the finals.

Good post, except I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement.  Shouldn't people who are "skilled" have an advantage over people who aren't "skilled"?  Isn't that why we hold tournaments (to find out who is most "skilled"?)

By "skilled at it", I mean skilled at counting/remembering.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #123 on: July 03, 2012, 02:13:27 pm »
0

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

No words about violating the rules at all.

There are lots of dictionaries though:

Verb
cheat (third-person singular simple present cheats, present participle cheating, simple past and past participle cheated)
(intransitive) To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation.
My brother flunked biology because he cheated on his mid-term.
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #124 on: July 03, 2012, 02:13:41 pm »
+4

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

No words about violating the rules at all.
Definitions cannot be 'wrong'. They might be not commonly used. The meaning which words have is down to how they are used, and how they are understood, no matter what any given dictionary says. Regardless of how people commonly view things, this is how I use the word, what I have always understood the word to mean in the context of a game, and people should be advised. The important thing with language is that people understand each other, and this is why I posted my clarification.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #125 on: July 03, 2012, 02:15:24 pm »
+1

The keyword there is "dishonestly".

And I think people should care about what a word is usually intended to mean. Or do you not mind if I define "idiot" as someone who just unconditionally stand by the rulebook rules and define "bastard"  as someone who is just unwilling to respect people by properly using the word, and then I just call someone posting here idiotic bastard?
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #126 on: July 03, 2012, 02:16:58 pm »
0

Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.

Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat

No words about violating the rules at all.

There are lots of dictionaries though:

Verb
cheat (third-person singular simple present cheats, present participle cheating, simple past and past participle cheated)
(intransitive) To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation.
My brother flunked biology because he cheated on his mid-term.
Ok, my bad. I guess cheating is not that a strong word after all.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #127 on: July 03, 2012, 02:24:39 pm »
+1

Timchen keeps stealing posts right out of my fingers.

Here's a tip if you want your meaning to be clear: don't make up your own definitions, use conventional ones. Do you expect every person to have read that one post where you cleared up what "cheating" means to you?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #128 on: July 03, 2012, 02:27:12 pm »
+1

Timchen keeps stealing posts right out of my fingers.

Here's a tip if you want your meaning to be clear: don't make up your own definitions, use conventional ones. Do you expect every person to have read that one post where you cleared up what "cheating" means to you?
This is a conventional definition. It is certainly not one I made up. I have never known 'cheat' to mean anything else, besides in the phrase 'cheat on your (person you have a romantic relationship with'.
That there is a dictionary containing this definition as well, is, I think, pretty clear evidence that it's not something I just made up.

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #129 on: July 03, 2012, 02:30:41 pm »
+1

Two definitions:
To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation.

To violate rules dishonestly

The point is that this thread has devolved into bitching about the definition of the word cheating. Please stop it. I don't usually advocate locking threads, but this has become senseless bickering about the semantics of others' posts. I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #130 on: July 03, 2012, 02:31:39 pm »
0

Timchen keeps stealing posts right out of my fingers.

Here's a tip if you want your meaning to be clear: don't make up your own definitions, use conventional ones. Do you expect every person to have read that one post where you cleared up what "cheating" means to you?
This is a conventional definition. It is certainly not one I made up. I have never known 'cheat' to mean anything else, besides in the phrase 'cheat on your (person you have a romantic relationship with'.
That there is a dictionary containing this definition as well, is, I think, pretty clear evidence that it's not something I just made up.

The closest thing to your definition that has been posted is:
"To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation."

Which is pretty clearly more nefarious than simply "violate the rules of the game". I don't think your definition is totally off the mark but I think it misses out on a pretty clear component of the typical definition. Which is the sort of value-laden concept of trying to help yourself unfairly.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #131 on: July 03, 2012, 02:33:14 pm »
+2

The point is that this thread has devolved into bitching about the definition of the word cheating. Please stop it. I don't usually advocate locking threads, but this has become senseless bickering about the semantics of others' posts. I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful.

I was sincerely under the impression that the entire point of this thread was senseless bickering, and of course its going nowhere useful. Its not the destination, its the journey!
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #132 on: July 03, 2012, 02:57:07 pm »
+2

I believe that stopping such discussion is a major problem. That by trying to limit it, you are only put it off until later. That as much as you might want it to go away, it will not. That indeed by trying to stifle discussion on the subject, you in fact only make the problem worse.

The issue at hand with the finals is mildly related to the merits of using a point counter or not, etc. It is much more importantly concerned with integrity and ethics. The primary reason for my withdrawal was due to what I felt to be a lack of integrity from my fellow contestants, as well as from the organizer, and my ethical obligation to not unethically cooperate with others' unethical behaviour in the form of cheating. theory's position was not a pleasant one, but he made poor choices every step of the way, and ultimately, he made his own bed here. I will explain that this does not mean I think him to be an immoral person, but rather someone who has done several things which are wrong. I do not particularly expect many of you to understand the difference, but I feel obligated to explain for those who will.

I intend to post the entirety of what was conversed for all to see. I understand that theory does not want it here, and can indeed stop it from being here. So likely it will be somewhere else. But I feel it is necessary to fully explain the situation, and I feel like the situation needs fully to be explained. Furthermore, I believe that I am fully within my rights to repeat anything which was said to me, particularly when there was no hint of a condition of anonymity at the time it was said. Indeed, there were several people I had told BEFORE theory's request. I will not edit the contents of what was said, except to clean up some formatting issues (lots of '>'s, line breaks in random places that aren't original) and to edit out people's personal information, where such information is not publicly available already. All changes other than the > thing and the extra spaces thing will be noted as changes  made by me, so that they will be plain to see. Oh, I suppose I have also spliced in some of the messages in the middle, to reflect as best as possible the order in which they were actually sent by everyone, as they were not quite all one big chain.

Edit: I am holding off for the moment to give theory the chance to give me some superior reason to not post it. I can't think of one which will suffice, but I want to give him time to have the chance.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 04:14:45 pm by WanderingWinder »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #133 on: July 03, 2012, 03:52:54 pm »
+4

I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.

Do they not understand the meaning of cheating? The people who are using the PCE aren't ordering their deck in the manner it pleases them. They're not suddenly grabbing Moats in hand whenever an opponent plays an attack card. They're not breaking the rules by sending fake messages to the server. All they do is use the information that everyone has.

Card counting is not cheating, it's not against the rules to count. It is frowned upon though and it will get you thrown off private property. Online you can count cards all you want, but apparently it's less useful as they use decks with a gazillion cards? I'm not sure though as I haven't played online Blackjack. The thing is that online Blackjack is different from real life Blackjack. You can't shuffle a gazillion cards in real life.

The same is true for Dominion.

All of the arguments of the PCE haters don't hold if they don't accept it's a different game, or at least a variant.
But the haters already seem to have lost the possibility to think rationally. Heck, people who advocated the use of the PCE on the forums were actually subject to bans for future tournaments, even if they would agree not to use it!

These kinds of knee-jerk reactions don't get you anywhere people. Stop, sit back, think, get over your initial shock. So many were shocked to find out the PCE didn't just track points, but also cards.

A logical response would have been: "I didn't know it did that, is this information available for us too?" And from here on an insightful discussion could have followed from where we could have gotten somewhere. Instead, the fingers were pointed immediately to players who used it and even the guy who programmed it! It was like Mafia all over again.

I have seriously lost faith in a lot of the people who think using the PCE is cheating. They're so blinded by their initial shock that they just stepped on the bulldozer and have lost the ability to process logical arguments.

The solution is not to ban the PCE, this will have 0 zero empty false result. It won't change ANYTHING! Nothing, nada, nyet! People who want to use a counter will break out the spreadsheet or use offline software. And then the people who wanted to ban the thing are stuck at the same point they were before! They still don't use the information that the other player uses? Are they going to complain if the opponent scribbled some things down on a piece of paper.

Hell, I jotted things down on paper before the Point Counter came out on Iso. Not because I wanted to cheat so badly, just because I wanted to use the information I had to the best of my ability. In real life games, it's a different story. I'm with you guys on that one, don't write anything down, keep it in your head. You just CAN'T expect the same for an online game.

Why do you think Poker Rooms have logs you can browse back to? They can't force players to either forget previous hands or remember them. They settled on using logs to provide players an equal field of play. Some sites even show statistics how many hands you've won or lost.

An online game should treat itself like an online game, not as a one on one copy of the offline experience.

I've seen so many games fail this way....
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #134 on: July 03, 2012, 04:18:51 pm »
+2

I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.

And I must admit that, after all these posts, I'm surprised you still think this is just about whether the extension is cheating or not.  As far as I'm concerned, that particular question is almost completely besides the point.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

rod-

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #135 on: July 03, 2012, 04:44:55 pm »
+1

I've seen so many games fail this way....
This is where people have their blinders on.  They only remember "Hey, i like to play this game offline, let's do the same thing, but on the internet" and don't think "Hey, this game is good offline, maybe it could be great online". 

I also don't understand it.  I don't see people pushing for a button to push to manually reshuffle their decks or draw their cards...The interface is sleek and streamlined and takes away all of the unnecessary grunt work, leaving you to play the GAME.  A point counter does the same thing.  It doesn't play for you, it doesn't do anything that you can't do on your own, it just does it faster. 
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #136 on: July 03, 2012, 04:54:59 pm »
0

First of all, if WW wants to withdraw from the tournament, I don't feel like we all have to know why. If he wishes to share that information, that's up to him. But I would never try to force him to share.

Second, I don't consider the use of PCE cheating. I do however think it gives the player with it a slight advantage. But probably as much advantage as playing a Shanty Town and then your Militia without any other actions in hand.

I do think it's kind of poor sportsmanship to have the PCE without the option of disabling it. Especially if you play without the built in point tracker. I'll probably start disabling it in games with Fairgrounds, Ambassador, Vineyards, Gardens and possibly Horn of Plenty.

Regardless, I don't think any lesser of any of you, wether you play with the PCE, like it or hate it.
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #137 on: July 03, 2012, 04:57:36 pm »
+1

I do think it's kind of poor sportsmanship to have the PCE without the option of disabling it. Especially if you play without the built in point tracker.

Just to be clear, this isn't possible. If you play without the !disable option, point tracker is automatically set to "required" and can't be changed.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #138 on: July 03, 2012, 05:00:18 pm »
0

I'm primarily posting to clear up one small misconception I saw a few pages back. Doing exactly what the extension does manually, and almost as precisely, is kind of annoying, but really not very time consuming at all, as you can clearly see by watching me do it throughout the finals yesterday. I did stop caring towards the ends of some games, because I felt it no longer mattered, but keeping up with it really wasn't a big deal at all. It's just a really pointless hoop to make me jump through when I could just have the extension instead. Also, it might be more irritating for other people than it is for me, and in THAT way I perhaps do have an advantage that I shouldn't. If everyone could just use the extension, that advantage disappears...

In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available, so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.

I'm still waiting for anyone who shares Donald's and Kirian's objections to my earlier logic to present them in not-insulting terms. Until then, I don't have a lot more to say on the topic in general, as I think we've all repeated ourselves enough by now.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #139 on: July 03, 2012, 05:06:27 pm »
+3

Wow. Personman, I would say this is a bit excessive.

I am pretty sure you will not be allowed to do so, suppose you have won and went to the nationals. Sure I understand once online there are no ways for the tournament director to forbid you from doing so... but why? Can people not just agree on not using the point counter and rely on their own heads?
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #140 on: July 03, 2012, 05:09:55 pm »
0

The thought of playing a 35 minute game because the people involved are updating their spreadsheets constantly makes me want to quit Dominion outright, ugh. Then again I'm easily annoyed when a Dominion game isn't played at a reasonable speed regardless so I dunno.
Logged

questioneer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #141 on: July 03, 2012, 05:12:33 pm »
0

Hey just wanted to chime in here.  I recently ran the Detroit Area Qualifier.  It went fantastic!  However, this issue of card counting did come up as some of the players that came had played online and were used to the counter.

One of the players that made it to the finals had pen and paper to use to count cards and point track.  I allowed it and people didn't make a big deal out of it.  After the tourny, we discussed it online here.  It seems that everyone was against having any items out during FTF tournys.

After asking DXV, it seems he was against it also.  So for next time we will not allow these items.  However for an online Qualifier, theory or DXV or somebody just needs to make a ruling on the issue and move on.

I don't think its cheating at all.  Just a different way to play.  Online is just a different way to play vs FTF- simple as that.

If Wandering wind wants to withdraw, then that is his right.  Play on.  Afterwards, work together to make the online Qualifier clearer and better for people.

Honestly, people are blowing their breath over something petty- grow up, work together, play on, improve the system and move on.

It might help if there were some universal Dominion tourny rules and procedures.  Personally I like the tournament point system for the online Qualifier here.
Logged

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #142 on: July 03, 2012, 05:20:38 pm »
+3

A very similar debate to this raged for years in the online poker community regarding statistic tracking programs.  At the end, the majority of the sites drew a line by allowing trackers that tracked your personal history and disallowed anything that pooled a large database of statistics compiled by different players or bots.  Essentially anything that could be accomplished by pencil and paper(no matter how tedious) was allowed and anything that went beyond that was disallowed.  The stat trackers for poker are WAY closer to cheating the game than the counter at debate here, and in the end they were allowed(for the most part). 

Personally, I think this debate is a lot of ruffled feathers over something that is pretty inconsequential.  I don't use the point counter.  But I would never call someone that chose to use it in plane view a cheater.  I think at the highest level of play the counter is very close to a complete non-factor, perhaps preventing a blunder here and there.  If anything, the point counter is a tool for up and coming players to get a better handle on the game. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 05:28:05 pm by Obi Wan Bonogi »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #143 on: July 03, 2012, 05:25:21 pm »
+4

In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available, so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.
Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #144 on: July 03, 2012, 05:35:55 pm »
0

The thought of playing a 35 minute game because the people involved are updating their spreadsheets constantly makes me want to quit Dominion outright, ugh. Then again I'm easily annoyed when a Dominion game isn't played at a reasonable speed regardless so I dunno.

If you actually watch the video, you will see that I waste almost no time at all updating the spreadsheet. I do it almost entirely during other people's turns, and often let a few changes stack up before making them at once.

As you will see if WW does in fact publish the email thread (I really think he ought to respect theory's wishes and not do so, but I can't stop him) the ruling was reversed half an hour before the game started. I had initially intended and been explicitly allowed to use the extension, and made it clear that I would use a public spreadsheet instead if it were ruled against. In the end, it was ruled against, so I used a spreadsheet.

Wow. Personman, I would say this is a bit excessive.

I am pretty sure you will not be allowed to do so, suppose you have won and went to the nationals. Sure I understand once online there are no ways for the tournament director to forbid you from doing so... but why? Can people not just agree on not using the point counter and rely on their own heads?

This argument about bringing the qualifiers in line as much as possible with what will happen at Nationals keeps coming up over and over, and it continues to baffle me. Online Dominion is nothing like paper Dominion for so many other reasons - the psychology of being face to face, the presence of the log, the chance to misclick, no requirement to shuffle, the official point counter - that bringing up one additional difference and trying to make a principled stand on those grounds just baffles me.

I also disagree that it is strange or excessive for me to bother with a spreadsheet. Different people in different communities and from different backgrounds have different priorities, of course, so mine may seem strange and excessive to other people. But to me it is the bare minimum that I, as rational person trying to win at Dominion, should do. It's kind of too bad that the finals didn't include a serious Wishing Well engine game, so that you could see me get really excessive - I've had a lot of practice at tracking my exact progress through my deck and always maximizing my Wishing Well odds.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #145 on: July 03, 2012, 05:37:19 pm »
+2

Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.

Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few. 

@Personman - measure twice - cut once.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #146 on: July 03, 2012, 05:39:08 pm »
0

In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available, so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.
Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.


Then I guess he'll have to DQ the actual winner, jtl005, who is on record as having used it during the game.

To be clear, I explained in great detail exactly what I would do before the tournament started, and it was approved as non-DQable by the organizer.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #147 on: July 03, 2012, 05:40:10 pm »
+3

From my perspective what happened:

1. WW raises the issue that Pman wants to use an undisableable card counter

2. I tell Pman, don't use it

3. Pman insists on using it

4. [insert long flamewar betwen WW and Pman, while I'm asleep, wherein WW withdraws]

5. Not noticing that WW withdrew, I tell Pman in no uncertain terms that he should not use it but I'd prefer it if everyone used that rather than Pman taking 15-minute turns writing everything down [those of you who played in the BGGDL era will know what I'm referring to]

6. Pman takes that as an endorsement to use it

7. In an attempt to bring WW back rrenaud proposes that no one is allowed to use the counter, and if you wanted to take notes we couldn't stop you, but anyone judged in our view to be "excessively delaying", or timed out by the isotropic timer, would be DQ'd

8. WW did not reenter the tournament and under those rules the match was played.  Pman updated a spreadsheet that everyone had access to.

I have no authority over what Jay does and does not want to do at Nationals.  I approved Pman's proposed spreadsheet in the sense that I wouldn't kick him out of the finals for using it.

My view on this echoes OWB.  The point counter is of so little use to anyone competing at the top level that I'm dismayed it has turned into such a nasty debate. 
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #148 on: July 03, 2012, 05:42:17 pm »
0

I think that's actually a pretty unfortunately inaccurate account of what happened, and I'm now kind of thinking that the email thread should be published despite your objections...

Here is my version of a similar rundown:

1. WW raises the issue that Pman wants to use an undisableable card counter

2. Theory "asks" that I not use it.

3. After some discussion, Theory clarifies that it is explicitly legal, but that he will be "disappointed" if I use it.

4. WanderingWinder threatens me with a lawsuit, calls me a huge variety of names, and then withdraws.

5. I really should have let things rest here, but instead I try to continue the discussion, since I think that soft pressure of the kind that Theory was applying is a really awful thing to bring to a competitive environment.

6. Theory and I have a really nice private chat in which we come to understand that (I think) he understands my logic perfectly, but wishes that everyone could make concessions to the desires of the group and play with each other harmoniously. This is a noble and understandable desire, but I am too concerned with the ease with which my opponents can cheat to take this path.

7. Half an hour before the game is scheduled to start, rrenaud suggests the "no point counter, slow play is punishable" ruling, and Theory adopts it. I protest that I will do an exactly equivalent thing (use the spreadsheet) with no chance of it causing me to slow play, and that thus this ruling is silly. Nevertheless, it us upheld and I abide by it.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 05:49:08 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #149 on: July 03, 2012, 05:43:30 pm »
+12

I'm still waiting for anyone who shares Donald's and Kirian's objections to my earlier logic to present them in not-insulting terms. Until then, I don't have a lot more to say on the topic in general, as I think we've all repeated ourselves enough by now.
I don't know why you think someone will explain how you are justifying immorality without insulting you. Do they start off with a speech about how morals are arbitrary?

Morals are arbitrary. There are a bunch of atoms moving around, and later on they are in different positions. What are morals, in this context? Mere high-level abstractions.

Also, here's a handy way to justify whatever evil thing you were going to do anyway:

Quote
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
I know, right?

Quote
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
For example, it's advantageous for your wife to cheat on you. Maybe she'll get pregnant and increase the fitness of her offspring. That's no sleight against your genes; genetic diversity is one to one with genetic fitness. It is for sure better to cheat on you.

Quote
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
Similarly your wife can trivially cheat on you without you catching on. You can try to argue against this, but man, you are at the office all day, and it's a long commute, and she's always out buying groceries or getting her hair done or something.

Quote
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
Even if she isn't cheating, the fact that she easily could breeds suspicion and resentment.

Quote
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
For all she knows, you're probably cheating on her, with some floozy at work. Why not also cheat on you?

Quote
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.

Quote
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid blah blah blah, your wife should be free to have sex with whoever. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who prefer monogamy, but it is an inescapable fact of modern life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior. And we wouldn't want that! Then people would do unethical things!

It's a neat trick that you can solve the problem of "x is unethical" by saying "let's redefine x to not be unethical." Problem solved!

I have nothing against people with open marriages or people who like point counters. Your argument is crazy nonsense though, and it turns out humanity is better than that.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #150 on: July 03, 2012, 05:43:51 pm »
+4

Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few. 
"This is why we can't have nice things."
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #151 on: July 03, 2012, 05:44:41 pm »
+1

Then I guess he'll have to DQ the actual winner, jtl005, who is on record as having used it during the game.

To be clear, I explained in great detail exactly what I would do before the tournament started, and it was approved as non-DQable by the organizer.
Not his call! It won't be according to Jay anyway, not ever.
Logged

questioneer

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
  • Respect: +12
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #152 on: July 03, 2012, 05:45:07 pm »
0

In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available, so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.
Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a
 future online qualifier happening is zero.

Hey, Donald as a GM for one of these qualifiers, in my mind what you and Jay rule on this issue is the law of the land.  I will fully support your decisions- if that that helps you guys in any way.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #153 on: July 03, 2012, 05:46:53 pm »
0

Eh, I can entirely see why there won't be any more online qualifiers, considering that Personman's point is that you can't stop people from using stuff like point counters and spreadsheets.

I had assumed that in this community, people would play fairly and honestly and not use such things if not agreed to by all players, but I guess not. Hence, no more online qualifiers. Makes sense to me.
Logged

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #154 on: July 03, 2012, 05:49:33 pm »
0

>Goes without internet really for a few days
>Comes back to see massive shitstorm
>Utterly confused about what's happening
>Finds out its about absolutely nothing of importance.

Despite my preference (which I have but won't post), who seriously gives that much of a <redacted> to care so obsessively about something that influences .1% of tournament games played at a high level. I mean, identical starting hands and shuffling patterns IRL have such a larger effect than this..

PPE: Jesus Christ. Wanderwinder had legitimate concerns. Personman has a legitimate point addressing those concerns and while his play was potential a minor point of viable discussion, screaming "CHEATER" at the top of your lungs doesn't help anyone, Kirian and Ftl.
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #155 on: July 03, 2012, 05:52:11 pm »
0

I have nothing against people with open marriages or people who like point counters. Your argument is crazy nonsense though, and it turns out humanity is better than that.

Donald X. Epic Burn.  This is starting to get better than the Peterson /  Sirlin / Knizia fiasco.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #156 on: July 03, 2012, 05:56:43 pm »
+11

I know I'm going to regret fanning the flames like this, but I can't hold out anymore.

I think that's actually a pretty unfortunately inaccurate account of what happened, and I'm now kind of thinking that the email thread should be published despite your objections...

Here is my version of a similar rundown:

1. WW raises the issue that Pman wants to use an undisableable card counter

2. Theory "asks" that I not use it.

3. After some discussion, Theory clarifies that it is explicitly legal, but that he will be "disappointed" if I use it.

4. WanderingWinder threatens me with a lawsuit, calls me a huge variety of names, and then withdraws.

5. I really should have let things rest here, but instead I try to continue the discussion, since I think that soft pressure of the kind that Theory was applying is a really awful thing to bring to a competitive environment.

6. Theory and I have a really nice private chat in which we come to understand that (I think) he understands my logic perfectly, but wishes that everyone could make concessions to the desires of the group and play with each other harmoniously. This is a noble and understandable desire, but I am too concerned with the ease with which my opponents can cheat to take this path.

7. Half an hour before the game is scheduled to start, rrenaud suggests the "no point counter, slow play is punishable" ruling, and Theory adopts it. I protest that I will do an exactly equivalent thing (use the spreadsheet) with no chance of it causing me to slow play, and that thus this ruling is silly. Nevertheless, it us upheld and I abide by it.


Even if we assume this version of events to be the correct one, you're still in the wrong.

What would have been so hard about being a good sport, respecting the wishes of your opponents AND the tournament organizer (and as it so happens the designer of the game), and just agreeing to turn off the point counter as soon as you were asked, even if you didn't 100 percent agree with their reasoning?  What would have been so bad about a little human decency?  For shame.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 06:05:45 pm by chwhite »
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order
« Reply #157 on: July 03, 2012, 05:58:33 pm »
0

Quote from: blueblimp
A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.

..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to read this as fairly pointless antagonism.

Quote from: Kirian
This addon will be barred from future IsoDom tournaments, should they happen.

You can do whatever you want in tournaments you run, but I beg you to consider the following line of argument:

1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.

I think you asked for someone to dispute this?  (if you were referring to some other post, my bad!)  First off, what you say in 4 basically is "Cheaters will cheat".  I assume you are American (as this was US only) and from my understanding of RL events (I know this is the internet) is RL cheating (AKA breaking the rules or laws) while not always caught, is never permissible  because it is done.  Let's look at speeding.  Who amongst us has not at some point gone over the speed limit?  I'm tempted to say no one, but we'll just say for ease that only 90% of people have gone over the speed limit.  Now, does this mean we abandon our speed limits because they are often ignored, and rarely caught?  No, obviously not.  There are police that watch roads and catch some people who speed, we'll say 10% (not that high, but w/e).  So 90% of the 90% (or 81%) of our population speeds (breaking the rules) and gets away with this.  But this doesn't mean we need to abolish speed limits.  Not a perfect example, I know.  But oh well.
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #158 on: July 03, 2012, 06:02:30 pm »
+1

Quote from: Donald X
long rebuttal

Thank you! It is very helpful to know what you are talking about. I'm glad you decided that it was worth your time. Also it was funny!

First, my not-serious response: I'm totally poly, so whatever, man! (I actually am, but this obviously does not invalidate your argument).

My actual response is that games are different from life. In life, I agree wholeheartedly that we must trust each other, and that is, in the end, usually more rewarding to be worthy of trust than to betray it. There are exceptions; as you've said, it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything. But on the whole I think we're on the same page here.

I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet. There's a reason that my side won this debate in the Poker community but hasn't done so so convincingly here: it's bigger, and there's more at stake. Under those conditions, the system will converge towards the strictly, logically fair alternative much more quickly, and analogies to real-life morals and community values stop holding water. (Of course, there are other, insoluble fairness issues in online poker, like collusion. But since people really like playing online poker, they kinda just have to ignore them.)

I don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.

As theory put it very well at some point during the email discussion, the primary take away from the whole thing is that rules need to be hammered out a bit better ahead of time.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #159 on: July 03, 2012, 06:04:00 pm »
+5

Quote
I think you asked for someone to dispute this?  (if you were referring to some other post, my bad!)  First off, what you say in 4 basically is "Cheaters will cheat".  I assume you are American (as this was US only) and from my understanding of RL events (I know this is the internet) is RL cheating (AKA breaking the rules or laws) while not always caught, is never permissible  because it is done.  Let's look at speeding.  Who amongst us has not at some point gone over the speed limit?  I'm tempted to say no one, but we'll just say for ease that only 90% of people have gone over the speed limit.  Now, does this mean we abandon our speed limits because they are often ignored, and rarely caught?  No, obviously not.  There are police that watch roads and catch some people who speed, we'll say 10% (not that high, but w/e).  So 90% of the 90% (or 81%) of our population speeds (breaking the rules) and gets away with this.  But this doesn't mean we need to abolish speed limits.  Not a perfect example, I know.  But oh well.

A better example could be athletes taking drugs

We know some athletes take drugs, we cant stop that. Every now and then one gets caught, but in all liklihood a load more are taking some and not getting caught.

Therefore should we allow drug taking so that everyone is on a level playing field?
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #160 on: July 03, 2012, 06:09:31 pm »
0

Heh. Unlike previous analogies, I think that one fits perfectly. Don't like the speeding or cheating-on-spouse analogy, but that one is good.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #161 on: July 03, 2012, 06:09:46 pm »
+2

Quote
This argument about bringing the qualifiers in line as much as possible with what will happen at Nationals keeps coming up over and over, and it continues to baffle me. Online Dominion is nothing like paper Dominion for so many other reasons - the psychology of being face to face, the presence of the log, the chance to misclick, no requirement to shuffle, the official point counter - that bringing up one additional difference and trying to make a principled stand on those grounds just baffles me.

@Personman: Thing is-- this tournament is the qualification for the nationals. All in all I think the objective of the online qualifier is to find someone among us who is the most likely to win the national. Thus, if memorization is a part that would be tested in the nationals, I'd rather it is also tested in the qualifier. I hope it is easy to see how this is obviously different from other things you have listed.

On the other hand I do find WW sometimes a bit hard to communicate. But if a large portion of your insistence on using the point counter is based on his response I think it went too far.

@Donald: a great response. Exactly what I would like to see yesterday.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #162 on: July 03, 2012, 06:10:59 pm »
+3

Whoa whoa whoa.

I never, ever approved the point counter or labeled it "explicitly legal".  I don't care about all your other statements, I haven't gone back and analyzed the dozens of emails exchanged, but I absolutely, most certainly, would never say anything of the sort. 

What I did say (initially) is that if you use it, I couldn't DQ you.  This is partially because you would have instead simply taken notes (and made the game take 3x as long) -- an understandable temptation, and partially because I felt constrained by the fact that the tournament rules were silent on the subject.  Had I the foresight to anticipate this issue, I would have simply banned it, no questions asked. 

I am uninterested in the factual dispute of what happened.  As far as I'm concerned, the finals happened, they could have gone better, but they happened and they're over.  But I don't want anyone to think that I supported the use of the extension.  Moreover, what we were forced to do in the middle of a tournament, constrained by existing tournament rules, is not equivalent to what we would do in the future.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #163 on: July 03, 2012, 06:11:37 pm »
0

A better example could be athletes taking drugs

We know some athletes take drugs, we cant stop that. Every now and then one gets caught, but in all liklihood a load more are taking some and not getting caught.

Therefore should we allow drug taking so that everyone is on a level playing field?

That is a better example.  Why didn't I think of that?  ::)
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #164 on: July 03, 2012, 06:12:51 pm »
0

Speeding: as with Donald's example, my response is that games are not real life. Additionally, going over the speed limit is not an arbitrary advantage: you are legitimately more likely to die and/or kill someone.

Athletes: This won't win me any sympathy points, I'm sure, but I think professional physical sports are pretty stupid. I mean, they are fun and great and people should play them, but when millions of dollars (not to mention, often, the lives of fans) are at stake, it just gets absurd. And then there's all the impossible murkiness around prostheses and other body mods - if a fake leg can help me run better, but it's illegal to have the operation voluntarily, should I try to get run over by a car? It's just a mess, and I really don't care what sports regulatory bodies end up doing. I would be fine with them legalizing steroids.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #165 on: July 03, 2012, 06:14:15 pm »
0

Whoa whoa whoa.

I never, ever approved the point counter or labeled it "explicitly legal".  I don't care about all your other statements, I haven't gone back and analyzed the dozens of emails exchanged, but I absolutely, most certainly, would never say anything of the sort. 

What I did say (initially) is that if you use it, I couldn't DQ you.  This is because I felt constrained by the fact that the tournament rules were silent on the subject.  Had I the foresight to anticipate this issue, I would have simply banned it, no questions asked. 

I don't know the difference between a tournament organizer telling me I won't be DQ'd and an action being explicitly legal. In my mind you've just directly contradicted yourself.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #166 on: July 03, 2012, 06:26:20 pm »
0

Whoa whoa whoa.

I never, ever approved the point counter or labeled it "explicitly legal".  I don't care about all your other statements, I haven't gone back and analyzed the dozens of emails exchanged, but I absolutely, most certainly, would never say anything of the sort. 

What I did say (initially) is that if you use it, I couldn't DQ you.  This is because I felt constrained by the fact that the tournament rules were silent on the subject.  Had I the foresight to anticipate this issue, I would have simply banned it, no questions asked. 

I don't know the difference between a tournament organizer telling me I won't be DQ'd and an action being explicitly legal. In my mind you've just directly contradicted yourself.

In tournaments as in life, not everything is black and white.  I believe theory is saying that he did not consider the point counter "explicitly legal" but his hands were tied and he had to allow it because neither was it explicitly illegal.  "I can't stop you from doing this thing" is a far cry from "go forth with my blessing."
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #167 on: July 03, 2012, 06:40:23 pm »
0

Athletes: This won't win me any sympathy points, I'm sure, but I think professional physical sports are pretty stupid. I mean, they are fun and great and people should play them, but when millions of dollars (not to mention, often, the lives of fans) are at stake, it just gets absurd. And then there's all the impossible murkiness around prostheses and other body mods - if a fake leg can help me run better, but it's illegal to have the operation voluntarily, should I try to get run over by a car? It's just a mess, and I really don't care what sports regulatory bodies end up doing. I would be fine with them legalizing steroids.

Say what? What does this have to do with the comparison between competitive sports and competitive gaming? I think it's a pretty good analogy. And the fact that people may or may not take it more seriously than they should is irrelevant. I think people have taken this point counter extension more seriously than they should, and yet here we are. We still should strive for fairness, as they should in sports.

You're competing for an IRL dominion tournament. As far as I'm concerned, it should be as close to IRL dominion as possible. And it totally would be possible if people weren't dicks and would just follow the rules on an honor system. It'd be great for a bunch of other things, too.  Apparently that's not really possible with our crowd. Wouldn't have expected that.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #168 on: July 03, 2012, 06:40:49 pm »
0

Quote from: eHalcyon
In tournaments as in life, not everything is black and white.  I believe theory is saying that he did not consider the point counter "explicitly legal" but his hands were tied and he had to allow it because neither was it explicitly illegal.  "I can't stop you from doing this thing" is a far cry from "go forth with my blessing."

Ok, but blessing or no, if something isn't illegal, and it is advantageous, I don't think it can be immoral to do it.

That may sound insane, but here's why it's not: I think that competitive events should have explicit, enforced sportsmanship guidelines. These can never be precise, but they don't need to be. As soon as there is the potential to be DQ'd for slow play, trash talk, or other unsportsmanlike conduct, it stops being advantageous. The Magic: The Gathering Infraction Procedure Guide handles this extremely well.

Quote from: zxcvbn2
As far as I'm concerned, it should be as close to IRL dominion as possible.

And as I've said at length earlier in this thread, I think that's a completely absurd notion.

Quote from: zxcvbn2
Say what? What does this have to do with the comparison between competitive sports and competitive gaming? I think it's a pretty good analogy.

And I think it isn't, because I don't think it's possible to resolve the issues with physical sports, whereas I do think it is possible to resolve them in abstract games.

I've never heard of any controversy about top chess players taking nootropics, and I guess that might become an issue in abstract gaming circles some day. If that day comes, we can hash out the issues then, but certainly some isotropic players may be taking them right now, and those same players may be competing in tournaments. Should we send drug-testing teams to everyone's house? Should we add explicit no-drugs clauses to our tournament rules and hope everyone abides by them?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 06:49:34 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #169 on: July 03, 2012, 06:48:53 pm »
+1

"if something isn't illegal, and it is advantageous, I don't think it can be immoral to do it."

One of the craziest things I have heard so far:

So would you agree your GF/BF  cheating with your Friend/Dad/Sibling on you wouldnt be immoral? Thats not illegal and it has an advantage for her?

Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #170 on: July 03, 2012, 06:49:42 pm »
+1

Ok, but blessing or no, if something isn't illegal, and it is advantageous, I don't think it can be immoral to do it.

That may sound insane, but here's why it's not: I think that competitive events should have explicit, enforced sportsmanship guidelines. These can never be precise, but they don't need to be. As soon as there is the potential to be DQ'd for slow play, trash talk, or other unsportsmanlike conduct, it stops being advantageous. The Magic: The Gathering Infraction Procedure Guide handles this extremely well.

Emphasis mine. And that's the issue. Hate to be all sappy, but the whole point of sportsmanship is to strive for fairness and good will outside of what the rules explicitly allow.

For instance, there's no explicit rule that teams shake hands at the end of a hockey series, but they do it. An even better example, IMO, is in baseball, where you can get thrown out if the umpire thinks you tried to intentionally hit a batter. There's nothing in the rules explicitly stating that you can't intentionally hit a batter (at least that I can find). But it's still reason for ejection in that sport.

Though I'm sure you don't like this reasons because they involve sports and aren't directly comparable. I find it a very fair analogy, fwiw.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #171 on: July 03, 2012, 06:54:10 pm »
0

Quote from: zxcvbn2
Emphasis mine. And that's the issue. Hate to be all sappy, but the whole point of sportsmanship is to strive for fairness and good will outside of what the rules explicitly allow.

The world is big, and the internet brings us all together. What is sportsmanlike in your town may not be in mine. Without explicit guidelines, situations like this will always arise. That is why a game similar to Dominion, but with a much larger and more competitive community, has to have them. Ask any Magic judge, and e will tell you that the sportsmanship entries in the IPG are absolutely vital to the success of the game and the creation of a healthy tournament atmosphere.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 06:58:36 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

nopawnsintended

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #172 on: July 03, 2012, 06:55:34 pm »
+3

Quote from: Donald X
long rebuttal
I don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.

I presumed honesty in the tournament because the spirit of the rules (Re: Polk5440's comment) was that players have a level playing field.  I didn't assume that others would take advantage of loopholes in the rules because I wouldn't ever find it optimal -- and I never thought anyone else would either.  It seems like such a hassle to defy the spirit of a tournament, just to secure 1/10th of a point to 5 points of a level of playing ability.

You might not agree with my premise, and hence, we come to different conclusions.  You say under bullet point 2 that people want to win.  I think that's right, but incomplete.  In any competition, I want to win, but I want winning to mean something, and it won't mean anything if I deliberately tilt the field in my favor. 

That is, winning (right) > losing (right) > winning (wrong). 

In other words, if I took advantage of a tracking technique that is not explicitly mentioned in the rules (yet not explicitly prohibited, but explicitly frowned upon; see theory's comments) and won the match, I'd doubt myself.  I'd feel bad.  I wouldn't know if I could do it without the (dubious, not sanctioned) technique, and that would always eat away at me when I think about my victory.  I think that's why people are surprised that you have been so persistent to push for deck tracking in the finals.  If WW objected and theory frowned upon it, why not just play the game "blind"?  If you win despite your uncertainty that your competition is cutting corners, it's that much more of an accomplishment.

This argument applies to manually-entered speadsheets with deck contents as well as unofficial point trackers.  I know this has been hammered on from both sides, but my view is that a big part of the game is knowing the state of the game based on playing it.  I stuck to that in the tournament, and I will in future competitions, but I guess I'm a chump for that.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 06:59:03 pm by nopawnsintended »
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #173 on: July 03, 2012, 06:58:38 pm »
0

Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #174 on: July 03, 2012, 07:00:49 pm »
0

Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?

If only I had this ability, and I knew that, absolutely not.

If everyone did, yes! And I've often thought that stacking your deck instead of shuffling it would be a really interesting Dominion variant, though it would be slow, and a lot of people wouldn't like to play it.

If WW objected and theory frowned upon it, why not just play the game "blind"?  If you win despite your uncertainty that your competition is cutting corners, it's that much more of an accomplishment.

I hate repeating myself this much for fear of turning into that 100 page thread Donald was scared of, but one more time:

I advocated that the rules allow as much information tracking as possible, because I do not trust internet strangers not to cheat.
Once the rules were set in stone, I publicly announced my intentions to take full advantage of them, extended that advantage to my opponents in a gesture of good will (and at no real loss to me, since hopefully they would be taking full advantage of the rules on their own anyway), and did so.

I see no reason why I ought to accede to an opponent's request NOT to take full advantage of the rules. It would be like asking my opponent not to buy Provinces.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 07:18:55 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #175 on: July 03, 2012, 07:05:10 pm »
0

Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?

If only I had this ability, and I knew that, absolutely not.

If everyone did, yes! And I've often thought that that would be a really interesting Dominion variant, though it would be slow, and a lot of people wouldn't like to play it.

So something's okay because everyone does it? I'm sorry, but there are so many things wrong with that. I don't care if everyone in the world played the most wrong and most unfair variant, I want to play the most fair way. I think Monopoly is pretty comparable. Everyone plays the wrong way. It's just a variant. It makes the game suck, so I never play that way. In professional tournaments, you play by the official rules, period.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #176 on: July 03, 2012, 07:13:57 pm »
+6

There are two discussions (well probably more) that are happening and getting intertwined here. One is whether or not point trackers should generally be allowed in tournaments like this. The vast majority of the arguments of the pro-point tracking crowd are geared toward this set of arguments. Guess what: I don't actually think that there's an objective answer here. Now, it's a variant for sure, but I am not going to say that it's objectively a worse variant than actual dominion. I like the memory aspect to the game, and other people do not. And there are enforceability issues. Indeed, I could see myself being convinced that, in general, for online tournament play, which is to say tournament play in general perhaps, if you hold that online is a better format for tournaments generally, as I do, that the variant with point counters, assuming equal access to all participants, is better than the one without. There are legitimate disagreements of opinion and discussions to be had here, and ultimately, whichever more people like more is the one to use, because the whole point is to have fun for the most people.

However. There are other issues here. One of these is what was to be done in the tournament that we just had. And that should be based on the rules that we had, not the rules as they should be. Because if you arbitrarily decide to go on the rules as they should be, you end up with all kinds of people doing their own different things.

And of course, the biggest thing, IMO, is the ethical questions.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #177 on: July 03, 2012, 07:22:07 pm »
0

Great post, WW. I agree with 100% of it, though of course my beliefs about the answers to some of the questions you raise are different.

The part I'm having the hardest time with is why you think it is me and not you who was attempting to change the rules. Many, many earlier tournament matches had been played with the extension in use, and there had been 0 complaints! Suddenly outlawing it in the finals seems like a drastic and inappropriate change.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #178 on: July 03, 2012, 07:30:30 pm »
0

I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.

Do they not understand the meaning of cheating? The people who are using the PCE aren't ordering their deck in the manner it pleases them. They're not suddenly grabbing Moats in hand whenever an opponent plays an attack card. They're not breaking the rules by sending fake messages to the server. All they do is use the information that everyone has.

Card counting is not cheating, it's not against the rules to count. It is frowned upon though and it will get you thrown off private property. Online you can count cards all you want, but apparently it's less useful as they use decks with a gazillion cards? I'm not sure though as I haven't played online Blackjack. The thing is that online Blackjack is different from real life Blackjack. You can't shuffle a gazillion cards in real life.

The same is true for Dominion.

All of the arguments of the PCE haters don't hold if they don't accept it's a different game, or at least a variant.
But the haters already seem to have lost the possibility to think rationally. Heck, people who advocated the use of the PCE on the forums were actually subject to bans for future tournaments, even if they would agree not to use it!

The point is, mentally counting your cards is not cheating. Using external aids absolutely is. It is not only frowned upon, it is in fact cheating. And "it doesn't make a difference anyway to make it cheating" is an unconvincing argument, because then you would not be so upset about people calling it cheating. Whether it SHOULD be cheating is a different debate. But under the rules as they are, it is cheating, as has been explained repeatedly. And so I'm shocked that you're shocked that people are calling it cheating, because that is precisely what it is. It is a circumvention of the rules, and I can only assume that it is done in order to gain an advantage. If you want to play 'online dominion' by some other ruleset than the dominion ruleset, that is A OK with me. But don't treat it like it is the same thing, and until you have some other, accepted, comprehensive ruleset that is out there and accepted by your opponents, then you can't say you are following that. Because it doesn't exist. Online dominion CAN be a variant, but doesn't need to be. And at this point, your variant does not have a codified set of rules. If you want it to be a thing, make those.

Personman, you actually did a pretty crappy job of keeping track of who had what. I watched the videos. I could point out all the little mistakes, but I don't really have the time. I generally do better than you did, and have never played with such a memory aid. Regardless, don't act like it's not an advance, even over just taking notes, which is itself also against the rules of dominion qua dominion.

RE: What happened. The timelines. Well I can post my version, which will differ from those posted somewhat, but this is why I want to post what was actually sent back and forth. It is objectively what actually happened.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #179 on: July 03, 2012, 07:33:55 pm »
+3

Great post, WW. I agree with 100% of it, though of course my beliefs about the answers to some of the questions you raise are different.

The part I'm having the hardest time with is why you think it is me and not you who was attempting to change the rules. Many, many earlier tournament matches had been played with the extension in use, and there had been 0 complaints! Suddenly outlawing it in the finals seems like a drastic and inappropriate change.
Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not. Of course it's against tournament rules. cf. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546 . As well as the tournament rules stating that games are to be played with official point counter. Which in and of itself makes the tournament be played as a variant, true, but one we agreed to by signing up. But there is no provision in the rules ALLOWING you to do this, and therefore, as a game-related activity, it is forbidden, in precisely the same way I can't do a billion other things which are obviously illegal and can't all be individually proscribed.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #180 on: July 03, 2012, 07:35:19 pm »
0

Quote
Personman, you actually did a pretty crappy job of keeping track of who had what. I watched the videos. I could point out all the little mistakes, but I don't really have the time. I generally do better than you did, and have never played with such a memory aid. Regardless, don't act like it's not an advance, even over just taking notes, which is itself also against the rules of dominion qua dominion.

Oh, I know. In many cases I stopped caring. In one game (the pirate ship one, where I was probably just dead anyway) stopping caring was a fairly bad mistake, but I think that's the only game where it really mattered.

Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not.

From your perspective I can see how that is reasonable, and it was reasonable for you to bring up the question. But can't you see how from my perspective, having assumed it was legal and having played many games with it so far, and having seen other players using it, it would seem strange for (what seemed to be) the rules to suddenly change?

Once again, we all know that the real issue was a lack of time to get a comprehensive ruleset put together. This really isn't anyone's fault. Theory did his best to bring us an awesome tournament in a short time, and there were some inherent problems with that. I'm still super glad he did, and I'm sure jtl005 is as well!
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 07:40:45 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #181 on: July 03, 2012, 07:36:50 pm »
0

Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.

Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few. 
There are other reasons why not to have online tournaments. Case in point: it's incredibly difficult to enforce the rules.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #182 on: July 03, 2012, 07:41:00 pm »
+2

Quote from: Donald X
long rebuttal

Thank you! It is very helpful to know what you are talking about. I'm glad you decided that it was worth your time. Also it was funny!

First, my not-serious response: I'm totally poly, so whatever, man! (I actually am, but this obviously does not invalidate your argument).

My actual response is that games are different from life. In life, I agree wholeheartedly that we must trust each other, and that is, in the end, usually more rewarding to be worthy of trust than to betray it. There are exceptions; as you've said, it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything. But on the whole I think we're on the same page here.

I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet. There's a reason that my side won this debate in the Poker community but hasn't done so so convincingly here: it's bigger, and there's more at stake. Under those conditions, the system will converge towards the strictly, logically fair alternative much more quickly, and analogies to real-life morals and community values stop holding water. (Of course, there are other, insoluble fairness issues in online poker, like collusion. But since people really like playing online poker, they kinda just have to ignore them.)

I don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.

As theory put it very well at some point during the email discussion, the primary take away from the whole thing is that rules need to be hammered out a bit better ahead of time.
tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #183 on: July 03, 2012, 07:51:49 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #184 on: July 03, 2012, 07:53:01 pm »
+5

The doping and speeding analogies illuminate some of the hidden depths of Personman's argument.

Speeding, as was said, is something basically everyone does.  The speed limit is not really enforced unless you're driving way, way over it.  As a result, just about everyone drives a decent ten miles over the speed limit.  As a result, there's a lot of pressure to drive ten miles over the speed limit.  But there's still a rule on the books saying you can't.  But it's not enforced; you can drive ten over right by a police cruiser.  They won't pull you over.  But maybe they will!

Doping is also against the rules, but for a time in the 90s, this rule was not enforced in professional sports.  This created a lot of pressure to violate the rules.  Players saw other players taking performance enhancements, and thus performing better, and they weren't being punished.

If you are caught in the jurisdiction of a rules-system like this, than you are trapped in a sort of double-bind.  The system is constantly sending you conflicting messages: "don't break the rules," and "break the rules."

An ethically designed system of rules actually should, I think, take into account the enforaceabililty of each rule so as to avoid placing its constituents in this double-bind.  If a rule can't be enforced, either because there aren't enough resources or because the rule is by its nature unenforceable, then there's a larger burden in justifying the rule's existence.  The rule should in this case be necessary to protect a larger principle.  That is, a good rule should be principled, or it should be enforceable, or both.  But it can't be both arbitrary and unenforceable.

It was exactly these criteria that were honored in the evolution from Throne Room to King's Court.  The rule that Throne Room <i>must</i> find an action was unenforceable.  And it was arbitrary.  So it was deleted.  King's Court, the newer card, <i>may</i> find an action.

So Personman's argument for changing the rules based on their unenforceability is perfectly valid.  Either he's wrong, and the rules can be enforced, or he's right, and the rule needs to be justified on higher grounds.  That principled justification seems like it's going to be especially challenging if you don't also object to the tepid point-counter that's much more mainstream.

Personman's argument isn't an excuse to violate the rules -- it doesn't make it okay to cheat on your spouse.  But it is part of a good argument for <i>changing</i> the rules.  Or, redefining the terms of the marriage, to Throne Room the marriage metaphor. 

Or, to Throne Room the Throne Room metaphor, Personman's argument doesn't allow that people who cheated with Throne Room weren't cheating.  They were.  But it does hold King's Court to be an ethically superior card.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #185 on: July 03, 2012, 07:53:35 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #186 on: July 03, 2012, 08:00:06 pm »
+1

tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

While I'm pretty much completely in agreement with you on this particular brouhaha, I'd definitely prefer if we kept this discussion focused on ethics rather than morality.  (I'd be quite happy to have a discussion about the relationship and difference between ethics and morality, actually, but it's probably too much of a tangent for this thread.)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:01:24 pm by chwhite »
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #187 on: July 03, 2012, 08:02:20 pm »
0

tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.

While I'm pretty much completely in agreement with you on this particular brouhaha, I'd definitely prefer if we kept this discussion focused on ethics rather than morality.  (I'd be quite happy to have a discussion about the relationship and difference between ethics and morality, actually, but it's probably too much of a tangent for this thread.)
I was very precise in where I used which.

Edit: but I agree with your main point. It is pretty pointless to speculate whether or not a person has morals, if you are not that person. But I do think that, ethically, one ought to espouse morality.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:05:48 pm by WanderingWinder »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #188 on: July 03, 2012, 08:04:36 pm »
0

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

That was a quote from Donald, which I see now is what you were reading as sarcastic. I don't think it was sarcastic at all, but we'll have to ask him. Or, well, that's not quite right. I think that both Donald and I are moral humans who happen to also believe that our morality is at heart arbitrary and self-chosen.

I don't want to open this can of worms too far, but it may be helpful to know that I am an atheist. I also believe strongly (as it seemed to me Donald was also saying) that atheism is consistent with morality, and that choosing to be moral is a good idea for atheists for a large number of reasons.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #189 on: July 03, 2012, 08:05:52 pm »
0

I was very precise in where I used which.
Fork request!

I don't know the difference - but will be finding out shortly - and would be interested in any discussions on the subject that aren't focused at a higher level than Personman v. Wanderingwinder - in which I state that I enjoy the point tracker - and am in favor of its use to further greater dominion analysis and strategy, but in which I also find Personman's refusal to disable unsportsmanlike and thus unacceptable.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #190 on: July 03, 2012, 08:21:33 pm »
+3

Ah, so this thread will also degenerate into a religious debate now? Why on earth did you have to bring that up, Personman? So am I, does it matter here? I thought we were talking about Dominion and cardcounting aids...

This is why we can't have nice things.   
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #191 on: July 03, 2012, 08:27:20 pm »
+1

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #192 on: July 03, 2012, 08:30:39 pm »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.

My presumption is not based on that premise, but your statement "there's no real moral consistency to anything."

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #193 on: July 03, 2012, 08:40:44 pm »
0

I was very precise in where I used which.

Edit: but I agree with your main point. It is pretty pointless to speculate whether or not a person has morals, if you are not that person. But I do think that, ethically, one ought to espouse morality.

Interesting.  I must admit it looked to me like you were muddying the waters a bit.  I also think it makes much more sense to say that "I do think that, morally, one ought to espouse ethical behavior". 

We are pretty clearly operating under somewhat different definitions here.  Which is why I wanted to keep things focused on ethics and save the philosophy for another forum (though, as I've said before, I'm glad to talk philosophy in those other fora).
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #194 on: July 03, 2012, 08:43:09 pm »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.

My presumption is not based on that premise, but your statement "there's no real moral consistency to anything."

I guess, much like explicitly legal things and things you can't be DQ'd for, I see those as the same. If the universe is just a big pile of atoms, how can there be true moral consistency? Only certain clumps of those atoms even feel themselves to have any notion of what "moral" means, and of those such clumps, no two share exactly the same such notion. I certainly think we can try our best and be better off for it, and I do.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #195 on: July 03, 2012, 08:48:39 pm »
0

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #196 on: July 03, 2012, 08:52:23 pm »
+1

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #197 on: July 03, 2012, 08:53:45 pm »
0

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.

Edit: I should say, the definition that you give here, rather than 'your definition'.

verikt

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +65
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #198 on: July 03, 2012, 09:12:19 pm »
0

I find this interesting. But can we split this into two, or maybe 3 threads? If we could move the philosophy part to general discussion I'd be glad to join. Then have this thread be about either the point counter extension or tournament etiquette.
Logged

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #199 on: July 03, 2012, 09:49:36 pm »
+1

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.

Edit: I should say, the definition that you give here, rather than 'your definition'.

Well, I consider ethics to be objective.  Granted, I am using "objective" in the more limited pragmatic sense, rather than the Platonic one, which I find to be at its core unintelligible.  Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #200 on: July 03, 2012, 09:51:41 pm »
+1

I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).

I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.
Unenforceable rules are dumb.  It's a truth I hold to be self-evident.  It creates an environment where those who violate the rules have an advantage over those who don't, and punishes good ethics. 

I use paper and pencil when I play dominion games online.  That subverts the rules of dominion, I'm pretty sure, haven't read base rules in a while.  But to me it's like an ethical tautology that I should not be expected to obey a rule with a 0% rate of enforcement.  If the rate of enforcement is lower than it needs to be to discourage the behavior I do split the difference and act honestly out of integrity.  But when the enforcement capability is totally and fully zero, I see no point in abiding.  To me it would be like entering a tournament to see who could bully a kid most cruelly.  Because one of the metrics of the competition is, "who will act the least ethically and score 40% more wishing well draws that way?".

This doesn't directly relate to the point tracker because it is a pain to make it invisible (to my knowledge), so there's enforceability.  Just 2 centsing around
Logged

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #201 on: July 03, 2012, 09:55:40 pm »
+1

Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.

Aha.  That explains things somewhat.  The distinction as I've always understood it:

Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.

In common usage, they're the same thing.  If there's a distinction, it's that morality refers to subjective feelings of right and wrong, supposed unreachable by rational discourse.  Beliefs.  Whereas ethics refers to the logical relationships between moral principles and behavior.  As in "principle X states that murder is wrong, thus if you hold to X, it is wrong to murder Joe."  So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics -- but it's only the logical relationships between principles and behavior that are objectively knowable, or can be quantified as true or false.  Not the actual values of any particular moral principle, which are unknowable without the aid of the supernatural.

But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #202 on: July 03, 2012, 10:01:19 pm »
0

But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  It's nearly always a "code of ethics" (in school, professions, etc.) rather than a "code of morality", and there's a very good reason for that.  The distinction is important here, where hopefully we can and must agree on what the ethical thing to do is, despite having moral codes that may conflict with each other, or come from different sources.

So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics

Yes.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 10:04:07 pm by chwhite »
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #203 on: July 03, 2012, 10:21:55 pm »
+4

I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).

I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.
Unenforceable rules are dumb.  It's a truth I hold to be self-evident.  It creates an environment where those who violate the rules have an advantage over those who don't, and punishes good ethics. 

I use paper and pencil when I play dominion games online.  That subverts the rules of dominion, I'm pretty sure, haven't read base rules in a while.  But to me it's like an ethical tautology that I should not be expected to obey a rule with a 0% rate of enforcement.  If the rate of enforcement is lower than it needs to be to discourage the behavior I do split the difference and act honestly out of integrity.  But when the enforcement capability is totally and fully zero, I see no point in abiding.  To me it would be like entering a tournament to see who could bully a kid most cruelly.  Because one of the metrics of the competition is, "who will act the least ethically and score 40% more wishing well draws that way?".

This doesn't directly relate to the point tracker because it is a pain to make it invisible (to my knowledge), so there's enforceability.  Just 2 centsing around

Whether or not you like the rule or want to follow the rules is, in my view, utterly irrelevant.  If you don't obey the rule, you're playing a different game.  Period.  If you play with the PCE, you're not playing Dominion.  You're playing Dominion + PCE.  I personally have no problem with a group of people playing Dominion + PCE but, in this case, the tournament is/was a Dominion + Point Tracker + Identical Starting Hands tournament.  If you add PCE to that, you're playing a different game.  I don't get how this can be any more clear.

People keep saying "well I don't want to" and "you can't enforce it" and "I told people".  Ok, so what?  That doesn't change the fact that they weren't playing the game of the tournament.  I don't like unenforceable rules but if I want to play in the tournament, I play by them.  If somebody else cheats by violating the rule, that's on them.  It sucks for me to lose like that, but I have to decide whether I value my integrity or winning more.

If you enter an online checkers tournament and decide you want to settle your matches by playing chess instead, you shouldn't be surprised when your opponents decline.  And you shouldn't expect the tournament organizers to be "understanding" because that is clearly not the intention of the tournament.
Logged

rod-

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #204 on: July 03, 2012, 10:28:49 pm »
0

Re: Marriage / Tournament analogy
----
This is why you form an explicit agreement upon entry into the tournament / wedding / whatever.  You codify what is and is not allowed.  You make a binding contract of a social nature.

The social contract involved in entering into the qualifier tournament included absolutely no particulars that stated that (external) point counters were disallowed, in fact, the isotropic counter was to default to ON. 

If you enter into an open marriage, you don't get to say "Yeah, i said you could have sex with other people, but i'm upset because you went and did it with a girl."  Girls are people, too!

Unless, of course, you say it outright, from the beginning.  Then it's a rule. 
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #205 on: July 03, 2012, 10:31:58 pm »
0

Sure, I'm playing a different game.  I popped all my Wishing Wells and won at whatever it is.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #206 on: July 03, 2012, 10:36:23 pm »
0

@Gigaknight: so is your point that if you entered this tournament, you won't play with an opponent with PCE enabled, but is willing to play with a player who writes everything down on a paper?
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #207 on: July 03, 2012, 10:39:54 pm »
+15

I'm finding this whole discussion way off balance. Dominion is a game. The taking part is more important than the winning. It's meant to be a fun experience with friendly people.

In that context, all the tosh being written here about "unenforceable rules are dumb" and "if the rules don't prohibit this then I can do it" and "I don't want someone else to be secretly have an advantage so I'll have that advantage instead" seems plainly wrong. In a friendly game of Dominion you observe the rules as a courtesy to your fellow players even if they can't be enforced. In a friendly game of Dominion you don't try to bend the rules in unforeseen ways. In a friendly game of Dominion you don't make unwarranted assumptions about your opponents behaving badly. In a friendly game of Dominion you do not put your opponents at a disadvantage that you wouldn't appreciate yourself.

I'm sure that everyone at Rio Grande would like Dominion to still be a friendly game and are dismayed that such a weasely attitude is being shown by so many players once a tournament is organized.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #208 on: July 03, 2012, 10:49:49 pm »
+1

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #209 on: July 03, 2012, 10:56:16 pm »
0

And the three aren't mutually exclusive, unless someone decides to act unfairly.

Perhaps this is why Jay didn't want tournaments in the first place... (if I'm remembering right, at first Jay didn't want tournaments? I think I remember Donald saying something like that, but I am not sure?)
Logged

dghunter79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
  • Respect: +319
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #210 on: July 03, 2012, 11:05:38 pm »
+1

But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  It's nearly always a "code of ethics" (in school, professions, etc.) rather than a "code of morality", and there's a very good reason for that.  The distinction is important here, where hopefully we can and must agree on what the ethical thing to do is, despite having moral codes that may conflict with each other, or come from different sources.

So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics

Yes.

I feel like I didn't make myself clear.  "Ethics" is a way of describing all the different possible moralities using clear, accessible systematized language.  It isn't about reaching consensus on what's right and wrong.  A "Code of Ethics" is a code because it has the word code, not because it has the word ethics.  "Ethics" doesn't describe a code, it describes all possible codes.

Codes are great, though.  Very useful.  They are an excellent substitute for absolute  moral truth, which we humans will never have, and for agreement, which we humans will never have.  We can all agree on the code, and then agree on what the code says.  But that's not the same as having certainty on what "the ethical thing to do is."  Let alone certainty and agreement!

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #211 on: July 03, 2012, 11:09:41 pm »
+1

@Gigaknight: so is your point that if you entered this tournament, you won't play with an opponent with PCE enabled, but is willing to play with a player who writes everything down on a paper?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I would expect the tournament organizers to rule on PCE / note-taking and then, as a participant in the tournament, I would follow that rule.  If players want to cheat once a firm ruling is in place, I can't stop them.  I can report them if I have evidence of cheating, though.  And, in this case, I think theory erred by not ruling that PCE / note-taking was illegal.  If I were the organizer and Personman had told me that he would do it anyway, I would DQ him on the spot.

It's no different to me than if somebody wrote an undetectable hack.  If somebody told me in seriousness that they were going to use it, I would DQ them.  The people who don't care about integrity will use whatever tools they have access to, regardless of the policy.  If any of them would tell me about it, I would just regard them particularly stupid while DQing them.

At some point, you simply have to acknowledge that you can't control your opponents.  Some people care more about winning than integrity; that's reality.  All you can do is decide which is more important to you and then give input on things to change in the future.

Now, if future tournaments want to use the PCE to minimize cheating, that's fine too.  But this tournament had no expectation of the PCE and theory should have, IMO, brought the formal rules inline with the intentions.  It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position for him to be in, though.
Logged

yudantaiteki

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #212 on: July 03, 2012, 11:14:10 pm »
0

One other aspect is that you have to weigh the difficulty of dealing with the "open information" vs. the ease with which the add-on gives you that information.  Keeping track of score is not very hard, whereas keeping track of people's decks is not something that many people will do.  You could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #213 on: July 03, 2012, 11:27:45 pm »
0

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #214 on: July 03, 2012, 11:30:16 pm »
+8

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #215 on: July 03, 2012, 11:34:17 pm »
0

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #216 on: July 03, 2012, 11:35:37 pm »
0

Quote
You could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.

I always calculate odds about draws, even when playing without notes in real life. I don't see why a serious player wouldn't.

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

I don't, yet, no. Please explain how?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 11:36:40 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #217 on: July 03, 2012, 11:37:31 pm »
0

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.

If no-one else objects - then it isn't compromising - you're all on equal footing and everyone is in agreement.  Unless there's a piece to this story that one of the other players also wanted it off?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #218 on: July 03, 2012, 11:40:33 pm »
0

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.

If no-one else objects - then it isn't compromising - you're all on equal footing and everyone is in agreement.  Unless there's a piece to this story that one of the other players also wanted it off?
Both of the other players also wanted it off, but made clear that they didn't care enough to actually take some action.

However, this is irrelevant to the point - cheating violating the rules (happy, people?) compromises my ethics, whether or not other people are okay with it.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #219 on: July 03, 2012, 11:41:28 pm »
0

Quote
You could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.

I always calculate odds about draws, even when playing without notes in real life. I don't see why a serious player wouldn't.

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

I don't, yet, no. Please explain how?
Sure, though I've already explained a number of times. Because this is an event that means something, people need here, more than any other time, to behave fairly by following the rules.

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #220 on: July 03, 2012, 11:42:02 pm »
+1

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.

So I'm not exactly well-versed in the minutia of philosophy.  But, if theory said it was allowed, why wouldn't you use it?  I'm not understanding how your personal ethics would be violated by using a tool allowed by the organizer.

If he didn't say it was allowed, he should have warned Personman not to use it and DQ'd him if he said he was going to break the rules.  I already said that's what I would do, but I'm not seeing another course of action theory could have taken that's internally consistent.  Perhaps somebody can explain one to me?
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #221 on: July 03, 2012, 11:42:15 pm »
+2

Quote
You could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.

I always calculate odds about draws, even when playing without notes in real life. I don't see why a serious player wouldn't.

You calculate exact percentages of drawing each card when playing in real life.  Why exactly is the point counter sooo necessary then?
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #222 on: July 03, 2012, 11:48:12 pm »
+1

Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
You do realize that this makes my point exactly?

It makes both of your points.  To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.

Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.

So I'm not exactly well-versed in the minutia of philosophy.  But, if theory said it was allowed, why wouldn't you use it?  I'm not understanding how your personal ethics would be violated by using a tool allowed by the organizer.

If he didn't say it was allowed, he should have warned Personman not to use it and DQ'd him if he said he was going to break the rules.  I already said that's what I would do, but I'm not seeing another course of action theory could have taken that's internally consistent.  Perhaps somebody can explain one to me?
First of all, theory spent a long time trying not to rule. He asked that it not be used on a number of occasions. At some point, he granted that it was illegal. He also, until within half an hour of the actual final happening, made clear that there would be no DQing for using it.
As for the other points, it's very clear. I agreed to abide by the rules of the tournament. It would require me to violate them, regardless of what theory said, to use the point counter. I refuse to break my agreement, or in fact to violate the rules.
It would also require me to take the time to find it, download it, familiarize myself with it, etc. etc. the DAY OF the event, and moreover, expose my machine to any potential threats which this could pose. It further would require me to change browsers to one I refuse to, or download some kind of extension which I don't trust. So the use of it, even if you ignore the (real) ethical reasons, is not something that was going to happen.

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #223 on: July 03, 2012, 11:50:10 pm »
+1

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.

Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.

How about this?  We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY.  WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward.  Problem solved.

So... today I played a game with Masquerade,  Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver.  I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.

My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game.  My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #224 on: July 03, 2012, 11:55:55 pm »
+1

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.
I find it unreasonable that you think it unreasonable to hold ethical principles over some kind of desire to win. I see very little reason for me to have competed, and very significant reasons not to.
And in fact, I did not choose to make a stink here until a stink had already been raised.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #225 on: July 03, 2012, 11:56:24 pm »
0

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.

Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.

How about this?  We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY.  WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward.  Problem solved.

So... today I played a game with Masquerade,  Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver.  I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.

My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game.  My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)
Logged
A man on a mission.

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #226 on: July 03, 2012, 11:59:13 pm »
0

I think that you hit on the major points. Amb will be better at removing more from your hand (2 estates or 2 coppers on occasions) and getting stuff in the way for your opponent, but if you are trying to get to a price point, the +2 cards of masq, leaving you with 6 or 5 cards in hand will get you to the 5 faster.
I think it was Ed Never who did some work along these lines. If I can find it, I will edit and link to it, as I thought it was well reasoned.

Edit: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3016.msg52133#msg52133
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 12:01:33 am by clb »
Logged

shark_bait

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
  • Shuffle iT Username: shark_bait
  • Luckyfin and Land of Hinter for iso aliases
  • Respect: +1868
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #227 on: July 04, 2012, 12:00:38 am »
0

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

Imo, there are multiple questions to ask.  Is there an engine?  Do you need to get to $5 fast?  Do you need to get your deck trimmed fast?  Will BM reign supreme?  Is Colony available?

When choosing between those cards, those are the main questions going through my mind.

Engine => Usually ambassador
$5 Fast => Depends on the board
Trimmed => Ambassador
BM => Masquerade
Colony => Ambassador (most of the time)
Logged
Hello.  Name's Bruce.  It's all right.  I understand.  Why trust a shark, right?

Is quite curious - Who is the mystical "Celestial Chameleon"?

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #228 on: July 04, 2012, 12:01:09 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #229 on: July 04, 2012, 12:01:36 am »
0

@frisk: dunno. But do u not have to worry more about your imminent lynch in MIV?

@WW: Just a hypothetical question: what would you do if theory ruled that the unofficial point counter is allowed?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #230 on: July 04, 2012, 12:04:14 am »
+1

@frisk: dunno. But do u not have to worry more about your imminent lynch in MIV?

@WW: Just a hypothetical question: what would you do if theory ruled that the unofficial point counter is allowed?
Largely what I'm doing here. Withdraw and complain. He doesn't have the authority to do that.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #231 on: July 04, 2012, 12:06:12 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

I like Ambassador-Silver here, actually.  Unless there were cheaper cantrips that you're not mentioning, in which case amb-amb.

This is a game where Bishop's free trashing looks incredibly dangerous, so no Bishop until late if at all.  As for why not Masq, well whenever there are villages and draw out I have to think that gearing up to hand over two curses a turn is going to probably win in the long run.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

clb

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 424
  • Respect: +182
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #232 on: July 04, 2012, 12:07:29 am »
0

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Since the cases where you want one over the other are situational, then a straight-up CR comparison would have to take into consideration the frequency of those particular cases, the one relative to the other. To do a fair comparison, you would have to have similar effects and similar intended uses.
The over-simplification (which becomes wrong because it is too simple) seems that masq is preferred for games where quick-acquisition of $ or not-cheap cards is dominant but Amb when you are doing anything where you want to control the composition and density of cards in your deck. Perhaps?
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #233 on: July 04, 2012, 12:28:07 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

I like Ambassador-Silver here, actually.  Unless there were cheaper cantrips that you're not mentioning, in which case amb-amb.

This is a game where Bishop's free trashing looks incredibly dangerous, so no Bishop until late if at all.  As for why not Masq, well whenever there are villages and draw out I have to think that gearing up to hand over two curses a turn is going to probably win in the long run.

Unforunately - I can't provide the link.... but that is a whole seperate discussion.  The problem was that the village was bazaar - so amba + silver doesn't necessarily get to it.  My feeling was masq would let me get the Bazaar - which would enable all of the other shenanigans, and as long as I could play the masq requently enough - I could keep up with amba bloat.  I wish I could remember the other 4 cards - but they didn't stand out.  I'm just going to assume they were scout, adventurer, what else would be useless / unbuyable?  CR was the only source of +buy - which made me angry.
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #234 on: July 04, 2012, 12:36:42 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.
Logged
A man on a mission.

chwhite

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1065
  • Respect: +442
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #235 on: July 04, 2012, 12:45:59 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.

I think on this board you need to go engine whether the draws are friendly or not.  I can see the case for opening Masq on the grounds that you really do want that early Bazaar, but Masq-BM has no shot against a player who can ramp up to passing out multiple Curses a turn, then transitioning to grabbing lots of points by Bishopping Peddlers to catch up no matter the Province deficit.
Logged
To discard or not to discard?  That is the question.

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #236 on: July 04, 2012, 12:49:04 am »
0

Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y".  AT least those are my factors ;)

This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup. 

Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?

Masq just gives so much more flexibility.  If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1.  If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy.  But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine.  My 2 cents.

I think on this board you need to go engine whether the draws are friendly or not.  I can see the case for opening Masq on the grounds that you really do want that early Bazaar, but Masq-BM has no shot against a player who can ramp up to passing out multiple Curses a turn, then transitioning to grabbing lots of points by Bishopping Peddlers to catch up no matter the Province deficit.

There were peddlers?  My bad.
Logged
A man on a mission.

yudantaiteki

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
  • Respect: +167
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #237 on: July 04, 2012, 01:00:25 am »
+1

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba -

As a low level player, I like when high ranked players do the opening I would have done. :)
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #238 on: July 04, 2012, 01:41:26 am »
0

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.

Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.

How about this?  We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY.  WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward.  Problem solved.

So... today I played a game with Masquerade,  Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.

With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?

My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver.  I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.

My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game.  My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.

When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?

In player 2 seat I ignore bishop (on the open) if my opponent opens for it. and open masq silver. If my opponent doesn't or if im player 1 I probably would go bishop silver my initial take on it anyways
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #239 on: July 04, 2012, 01:57:16 am »
+1

The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable.  WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.
I find it unreasonable that you think it unreasonable to hold ethical principles over some kind of desire to win. I see very little reason for me to have competed, and very significant reasons not to.
And in fact, I did not choose to make a stink here until a stink had already been raised.

And that is, I suppose, more than partially my fault; I've always been a bit of a shit-stirrer when it comes to ethical problems, sometimes to my own detriment, and I felt this problem directly violated the community's ethics and camaraderie.  I was greatly saddened to see that WW decided not to participate in the finals, especially when it was obvious what the problem was to anyone who had been watching the various threads involved, and knowing that he probably had the best shot at winning, and then doing well at Nationals and Worlds.

I fail to see how WW's reaction to Personman's unwillingness to not use a card counting mechanism is unreasonable.  It's not yet verifiable as WW hasn't posted the email logs, but it seems Personman went too far by indicating he would violate the spirit (and possibly the letter, though that's not definitive) of the rules no matter how theory ruled on the matter.  That he did violate said rules publicly, and that other players in the finals used his public document, is in my opinion a de facto invalidation of the final.  And were I Jay, I would rule it a de jure invalidation of the tournament as a whole and, yes, disqualify the winner from the national championship.

On some level I'm glad to see that this kerfuffle has prompted Donald to recommend online tournaments not be allowed as feeders for future RGG-sanctioned tournaments.  I'm saddened it had to be done, but if the only way to keep people from cheating is to make it impossible for them to cheat, then so be it.

What do I find unreasonable?  People deciding to derail the conversation just because they're uncomfortable with it.  Hell, I think theory shutting down my thread was unreasonable, for the same basic reason.  But this thread is--I'm sorry--not about Masq vs. Ambassador vs. Bishop.  This subforum isn't for strategy discussion, it is for tournament discussion, and discussion of the card counter is, well, quite important to that.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #240 on: July 04, 2012, 02:00:46 am »
+2

In player 2 seat I ignore bishop (on the open) if my opponent opens for it. and open masq silver. If my opponent doesn't or if im player 1 I probably would go bishop silver my initial take on it anyways

Fork please.


I don't see how WW was forced to resign withdraw, as he could as well play with a (slight?) disadvantage and probably win anyway, but I can very well understand that he did.  And probably we wouldn't be on page 10 here if he didn't.

Edit: On the whole debate, what WW and dghunter said.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:02:32 am by DStu »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #241 on: July 04, 2012, 02:21:13 am »
+1

Now I'm one of the biggest advocates for the use of the PCE, but if I had received a request like that, I think I would just have agreed to disabling it and discussed afterwards. I mean, it is a tournament, so you kind of have to follow the rules set out by the refs, whatever they are, or leave the tournament. I would have used the original point counter, I mean that was allowed, right?

So I'm on WW's side and respect his decision. You must follow your own beliefs and if you think playing the finals is wrong, then don't do it.

Still I think it's sad that a solution couldn't be found. The solution couldn't have satisified everybody, but the card counting aspect of the PCE offers little more than the original point counter anyway. And if Personman wanted to write everything down instead or use some offline software, we couldn't have stopped him anyway. But it would have been easy to give WW this Pyrrhic victory and let hem believe that no one was using extra software, while it would've been easy for the others to do so.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #242 on: July 04, 2012, 02:40:36 am »
+1

Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.

I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."

That was a quote from Donald, which I see now is what you were reading as sarcastic. I don't think it was sarcastic at all, but we'll have to ask him. Or, well, that's not quite right. I think that both Donald and I are moral humans who happen to also believe that our morality is at heart arbitrary and self-chosen.

I don't want to open this can of worms too far, but it may be helpful to know that I am an atheist. I also believe strongly (as it seemed to me Donald was also saying) that atheism is consistent with morality, and that choosing to be moral is a good idea for atheists for a large number of reasons.
That quote was me making fun of the idea that you wanted someone to explain how your argument was nonsense without insulting you. I thought the previous paragraph in my post made that clear, but what can you do, we have no facial expressions and so on to go by here. ;_;
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #243 on: July 04, 2012, 02:40:58 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Saying that the tournament organizer does not have the authority to make the rules of eir own tournament is not a point worth responding to.

Donald: no, I got that, but were you not also making a (reductive, humorous) point that you ultimately do believe?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:42:19 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #244 on: July 04, 2012, 02:51:38 am »
+1

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #245 on: July 04, 2012, 02:57:14 am »
0

This is why you form an explicit agreement upon entry into the tournament / wedding / whatever.  You codify what is and is not allowed.  You make a binding contract of a social nature.
I wouldn't put it like that. Non-religious marriage is game theoretically advantageous. And then the government may give you incentives there too, and religious marriages have their own incentives. The game theory value comes from the work required to get out of the contract making it less likely that the other player will defect, rather than specific things in the contract.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #246 on: July 04, 2012, 02:57:22 am »
+2

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

When atoms is not enough, do you think it's enough to look at the movement of the electrons, protons and neutrons, or should I go down to quarks to understand this?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #247 on: July 04, 2012, 03:09:06 am »
0

Perhaps this is why Jay didn't want tournaments in the first place... (if I'm remembering right, at first Jay didn't want tournaments? I think I remember Donald saying something like that, but I am not sure?)
It's not that Jay didn't want tournaments, just that he didn't see himself running them. Obv. other people would, there would be the WBC if nothing else, but he wouldn't be spending time on that. Thus, he didn't need tournament rules. This all came up back when because of the question of, should we provide a tiebreaker rule for tournaments.

I don't know why he decided to run some tournaments after all.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #248 on: July 04, 2012, 03:09:42 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.


It sorta sounds like you are trying to argue with me, but perhaps not, because I agree entirely with everything in this post. Well put!
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #249 on: July 04, 2012, 03:11:20 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #250 on: July 04, 2012, 03:17:36 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #251 on: July 04, 2012, 03:18:53 am »
+1

I'm finding this whole discussion way off balance. Dominion is a game. The taking part is more important than the winning. It's meant to be a fun experience with friendly people.
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.

It seems to me these thoughts get to the heart, or at least the root, of this sort of conflict. Isotropic and the community that has sprung up around it have been basically friendly, relaxed and relatively informal, and this has mostly worked fine since nothing much was at stake beyond levels on the almightly leaderboard, which of course ultimately, except for a wonderful ego boost, mean squat.

As soon as a prize worth a decent amount of actual cash money comes into play however, suddenly attitudes can become very different. Maybe not for all, but inevitably for some. Suddenly our enchanting little hobby has become a 'game with stakes'. As it would seem neither Isotropic nor Dominion Strategy, to their credit, was set up with a legalistic standard of regulation and enforcement in place, it's totally predictable that despite their best efforts to make a clear set of rules, their systems, both technical and conceptual, would not be altogether equipped to handle this level of squabble.

It reminds me of why my whole life whenever I go to play chess in the park, I will never play a game for money. I know for some playing for stakes makes games much more exciting. But whatever your taste, it immediately makes it, most assuredly, a different animal. 
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #252 on: July 04, 2012, 03:34:39 am »
+3

Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #253 on: July 04, 2012, 03:54:55 am »
0

Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.


My argument there was simply that it wasn't "clear" from that quote alone.

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #254 on: July 04, 2012, 04:03:55 am »
0

I'm with Personman on this one.

The quote from Theory doesn't specify that you are not allowed to use pen and paper or some offline software which is basically the same thing. By extension, this allows the PCE to be used. Even if there were a clause that the PCE shouldn't be used, players could agree to that and still use some offline software. Then a clause may be entered: You are not allowed to use any software of any kind. Ok, firstly, how are you going to enforce this (you can't) and secondly, players will resort to pen and paper. New clause: You aren't allowed to use any tools in tournaments. Good luck with that.

I mean, it's obvious that hacking your opponents and looking at their screens to check whether they have Moats or something so you can decide whether or not to play Sea Hag is cheating. I don't think using tools to help you remember the scores (and the cards) is.

Moreover, using a counter doesn't add 10% to someone's skill. It adds 1%, at best. Using a PCE may make players better though as they will pay more attention to what they are buying and what other players are buying. If you take that away, the players who are used to checking what they have on screen will easily be able to do it without the PCE.

Still I believe that Personman could have simply turned off the PCE and used something else to postpone the debate till after the tournament was completed.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #255 on: July 04, 2012, 04:17:36 am »
+3

My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.
I think "games are different from life" is a very misleading way to look at it. Yes, in a game of Diplomacy, maybe you will backstab somebody who you would not backstab outside of a game. That's not relevant though. The issue of cheating is an issue of what people do in life. Choosing to take notes is not something you do inside the game.

If I know someone who backstabs in Diplomacy, I will be suspicious of them in Diplomacy, but not any more suspicious than usual of them outside of games. If I know someone who breaks the rules in a game, I will suspect them of breaking society's rules also. Moreso if they talk themselves into a pat on the back for what a great guy they are while they do it.

It is fair to say that you don't enjoy playing in online tournaments with significant prizes, because you expect to be up against cheaters. To me this just suggests that online tournaments should not have significant prizes, rather than somehow meaning that the game should be changed so that all is permissible. People will cheat online even with no prize, but I think there we just provide a way to block people, and don't rank games where the card mix was picked out, and then there's the issue of how you handle time-outs.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #256 on: July 04, 2012, 04:20:03 am »
+1

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #257 on: July 04, 2012, 04:23:02 am »
0

Still I believe that Personman could have simply turned off the PCE and used something else to postpone the debate till after the tournament was completed.

While being conciliatory is a valuable trait in many contexts, in a competitive gaming environment it is a great way to get taken advantage of. So yes, while I could have done that, I chose to instead stand up for what is right. I've taken an incredible amount of heat for it, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat, both because it is a firm principle of mine to stand up for the truth whenever I can, and because I think it is important that the community educate themselves and face these issues head on, rather than vaguely dancing around the issue as they have in past events, leading to players not understanding what advantages their opponents actually had, and other varieties of unfairness.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #258 on: July 04, 2012, 04:32:23 am »
0

I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.
You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.

You are making a poor assessment and justifying it not even a little bit.

EDIT: I read that again and realized that I was participating in a flame war. Really sorry about that, and I'm going to stop now. I will continue to respond to novel arguments, should any be posted.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 04:34:00 am by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Polk5440

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1708
  • Respect: +1788
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #259 on: July 04, 2012, 08:34:48 am »
0

Quote from: Personman
It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
As I and nopawnsintended pointed out earlier, the official rules cannot point out every possible thing in the universe that can be proscribed. The rules explicitly mention every possible option you could make using the standard Isotropic platform alone, and the spirit of the tournament games was, through the use of the standard Isotropic platform, to make the games ex ante identical and to find the best player to play an in person 4 player game. It's a very strange reading of the tournament rules to assume that using aids not part of the standard Isotropic platform is okay. In addition, theory should have ruled that not only is it a strange reading of the rules, it is incorrect. Regardless of how theory ruled, it's his tournament, and ultimately his decision on how the rules are applied.

Unfortunately, changing some things after the first day (e.g. seating order and points allocated for placement) may have given the impression that the rules were malleable by anyone with a complaint. Once rules are agreed to and you sign up for the tournament, abide by those rules and argue for changes in the next tournament, unless something is obviously wrong and everyone agrees to a change.

Personman, your argument that the rule is unenforceable and unfair is weak because you signed up for the tournament and agreed to play by the rules (that includes how they are interpreted and enforced by the organizer).
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #260 on: July 04, 2012, 08:45:30 am »
+1

The official rules also do not say you can hunt down where your opponent lives, break into his house and use his computer to make his moves while pretending to be him....is that acceptable?

The official rules also do not say you cannot bribe the Dougz to give you favourable draws on your Iso hands...would that be acceptable?

Repeat until fade...
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #261 on: July 04, 2012, 09:15:59 am »
+3

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Source: http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/06/22/dominionstrategy-qualifier-for-2012-us-national-championships/

Each group of players will play four games among itself.  We will post the seating arrangement for the first game, and then in each subsequent game, the players will rotate seating order (P1-P2-P3-P4, then P2-P3-P4-P1, then P3-P4-P1-P2, then P4-P1-P2-P3).  Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.

Edit: From what I understand, I do not think WW agreed with how Personman wanted the games played...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:17:19 am by RisingJaguar »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #262 on: July 04, 2012, 09:34:38 am »
+2

But that brings us back to the start.

Usage of the Iso point counter doesn't strictly exclude usage of any external tools, one of which is the highly debated extension.
And no, the rules don't state that you can't hack someone's computer and make moves for him, but the rules only deal with what's relevant and can only cover so much.

Hacking someone's computer doesn't need to be covered although it's certainly cheating, but everything not covered by the rules should be subject to ruling by a tournament official. Like in a poker game where you have floor managers who make rulings.

Why didn't the rules say: Everything not directly covered by the rules is subject to ruling by a tournament official. His ruling is binding.

Who was the tournament official in this tourney? Theory?

I mean, whenever the players can't find some agreement, an official should step in and rule one way or the other. Did Theory actually rule in Personman's favor? Theory said that they discussed while he was asleep and when he woke up, WW wanted to withdraw.

I don't fault Personman for trying to push his luck, but there's accountability on all parts:
- Theory as the tournament official
- Personman as he was forcing the issue
- WanderingWinder as the opposer and finally withdrawer

A simple ruling could have made it clear for everybody and if WW still wanted to withdraw he could have waited. Theory could have easily said something like: "We're not allowing the use of the Point Counter Extension, the point counter on Iso is the only one that you can use. However, we can't ban people from writing down information or recording it with something other than the extension." Would this have made WW happy?
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #263 on: July 04, 2012, 10:33:41 am »
0

Now I'm one of the biggest advocates for the use of the PCE, but if I had received a request like that, I think I would just have agreed to disabling it and discussed afterwards. I mean, it is a tournament, so you kind of have to follow the rules set out by the refs, whatever they are, or leave the tournament. I would have used the original point counter, I mean that was allowed, right?

So I'm on WW's side and respect his decision. You must follow your own beliefs and if you think playing the finals is wrong, then don't do it.

Still I think it's sad that a solution couldn't be found. The solution couldn't have satisified everybody, but the card counting aspect of the PCE offers little more than the original point counter anyway. And if Personman wanted to write everything down instead or use some offline software, we couldn't have stopped him anyway. But it would have been easy to give WW this Pyrrhic victory and let hem believe that no one was using extra software, while it would've been easy for the others to do so.
In fact, I don't think I would hve believed this, after what happened. But I mean, saying the PCE offers little more than the OPC is a garbage argument. If it were true, then nobody would really care if it were disabled, right? Like, if you don't think it really matters, you will yield. Not to mention that based on repeated statements from the player in question (a la 'it lets me play the game in a way that would otherwise not be possible'), he at least thinks that it makes a big difference. And I agree - well, down to the relative term big. I mean, how big is 'big'?

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #264 on: July 04, 2012, 10:36:29 am »
0

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.

No, they strictly address this issue.  Let's say you ask the question "What point counter can I use?"  Well, the rules say right in them the "official point counter."  So assuming your aid is a "Point counter" you can't use it.  Your argument is basically like saying "Well it says we need identical hands, but it doesn't say we can't have non-identical hands.  I know, we'll have non identical hands and that isn't bending the rules!"
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #265 on: July 04, 2012, 10:36:58 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."

When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).
I reject relativism.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #266 on: July 04, 2012, 10:38:09 am »
0

No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.

When atoms is not enough, do you think it's enough to look at the movement of the electrons, protons and neutrons, or should I go down to quarks to understand this?
The Higgs Boson won't help you either, even if it has been 'discovered'.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #267 on: July 04, 2012, 10:40:27 am »
+1

The discussion about enforceability is missing something: "no PCE allowed" is an enforceable rule! It announces itself at the beginning of the game. It's unlikely that anyone in the tournament would go to the length of modifying it to be silent.

I chose to instead stand up for what is right.
Taking a stand is doing what WW did: if you believe the ruling is wrong, resign in protest. Playing anyway and weaseling around the ruling is not taking a stand.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #268 on: July 04, 2012, 10:47:19 am »
0

Whether or not you like the rule or want to follow the rules is, in my view, utterly irrelevant.  If you don't obey the rule, you're playing a different game.  Period.  If you play with the PCE, you're not playing Dominion.  You're playing Dominion + PCE.  I personally have no problem with a group of people playing Dominion + PCE but, in this case, the tournament is/was a Dominion + Point Tracker + Identical Starting Hands tournament.  If you add PCE to that, you're playing a different game.  I don't get how this can be any more clear.

Good post, and Isotropic is a different game from Dominion, too. There are fundamental rule differences (not seeing top of discard, Black Market deck), presentation differences (text log, supply counts easily visible, etc.), and it plays faster. PCE not violating the purity of true Dominion, because Isotropic is not true Dominion either. It happens that 2p Isotropic+PCE is my favourite variant of 2p Dominion. (But I prefer 3p/4p to be IRL, without tracking scores on paper.)
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #269 on: July 04, 2012, 10:48:47 am »
0

I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).
I reject relativism.

Not sure if you use the same words to speak about different things. Donald's 'absolute' I understand more of as (exaggerated) "we are just some complicated wavefunctions flying around, who cares what happens to them", or maybe to the other extreme (less exaggerated) "There are millions (at least (probably)) of planets in the universe, so what we humans do to us doesn't matter anything to the universe".

Whereas for your view, you look at the "right scale" (the one that matters for us, certainly larger than wavefunctions and smaller than universes), ... can't put it exactly, but I'm confident that you know what you mean and that it is something different than the one above...

Edit: Or, maybe, after applying Donald's 'relativsm' you end up considering only things that also in your 'absolute' view are probably the important ones...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 10:51:50 am by DStu »
Logged

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #270 on: July 04, 2012, 11:02:03 am »
+1

I mean, whenever the players can't find some agreement, an official should step in and rule one way or the other.[...]
A simple ruling could have made it clear for everybody and if WW still wanted to withdraw he could have waited. Theory could have easily said something like:[...]
To follow up on my earlier point, theory's approach of initially asking the players to work it out among themselves, rather than making a firm ruling at once, may appear a bit naive in retrospect, but it could be seen as merely a failure to make a radical shift from the prevailing Isotropic culture to a suddenly much more intensely competitive one.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 11:03:10 am by joel88s »
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #271 on: July 04, 2012, 11:38:49 am »
0

What do I find unreasonable?  People deciding to derail the conversation just because they're uncomfortable with it.  Hell, I think theory shutting down my thread was unreasonable, for the same basic reason.  But this thread is--I'm sorry--not about Masq vs. Ambassador vs. Bishop.  This subforum isn't for strategy discussion, it is for tournament discussion, and discussion of the card counter is, well, quite important to that.

First off I wasn't attempting to derail and even if I did it wasn't because I felt uncomfortable with the situation. Obviously people feel the need to talk about it but a large part of what is happening here is people saying the same argument over and over.

My opinion even though I'm sure it's been said before: I don't even like the official point counter. Obviously in the day and age where everyone has smart phones, or a pen and paper or even a tablet and chisel handy people will cheat without the point counter and keep track anyways especially when they a) Won't get caught and b)something worth money is on the line. Hell people would even cheat with just a we see it all the time in online games. ANYWAYS because it can't be enforced otherwise pretty much the point counter has to be used, if people agree otherwise then well they're signing up to trust each other. Now most tournaments run online IsoDom and the DS Tourney say that unless a consensus is reached the OFFICIAL point counter is to be used. I don't know what happened with the back and forth between everyone involved but my inclination here would be that if WW objected which it's clear he did, and personman objected, then the official point counter was to be used as no consensus was reached, the extension tells other players when it's on so they would have known if he turned it off or not.

Without a lot more knowledge of what went back and forth my belief firmly boils down to
1) Although I dislike it if no consensus is reached the OFFICIAL point counter is to be used, not an extension.
2) If a consensus is reached then whatever is decided is what goes
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #272 on: July 04, 2012, 12:03:55 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #273 on: July 04, 2012, 12:11:49 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #274 on: July 04, 2012, 12:27:15 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?

What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...

My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.

Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.

One more thing to note: a lot of people cling to the rules of games as printed, or as espoused by their designers. There is certainly value in standardization, but I think this is a bad philosophy for a community long-term. Almost every healthy gaming community I can think of either a) has an active official balance team (Magic: The Gathering, many competitive video games) or b) has community-proposed and now widely accepted rules changes, new formats, new tournament procedures, etc (Chess, Backgammon, and other classic board games all have these; Super Smash Bros. and competitive Pokemon are great example of community-set tournament guidelines; online poker communities that have had to legalize various external aids are probably the most direct analogy here). Games can and should evolve over time.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 12:51:53 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #275 on: July 04, 2012, 12:47:41 pm »
+1

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?

What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...

My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.

Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.

Oh I know we both know what it does.  And I know what I call it.  My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else.  I am very curious.
Logged
A man on a mission.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #276 on: July 04, 2012, 12:53:12 pm »
0

Oh I know we both know what it does.  And I know what I call it.  My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else.  I am very curious.

Ah. I do this frequently, as I have turned many people onto it. I usually call it "the extension" or "the isotropic extension" and then provide a detailed description of what it actually does.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #277 on: July 04, 2012, 01:02:12 pm »
0

Oh I know we both know what it does.  And I know what I call it.  My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else.  I am very curious.

Ah. I do this frequently, as I have turned many people onto it. I usually call it "the extension" or "the isotropic extension" and then provide a detailed description of what it actually does.

So I ask you "What is that that you are using?  It looks cool!"  And you'd respond "I'm using the extension."  "Ooh, the extension.  What does it do?"  Basically what I'm trying to figure out, is at the very bottom of the issue, what do you consider its so to say "primary" or "fundamental" purpose to be?
Logged
A man on a mission.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #278 on: July 04, 2012, 01:03:05 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

It isn't mutually exclusive with the extension, sure.  It also isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, which means the rules don't allow it.  You can argue that the rules don't disallow it, but then there is a LOT that the rules don't explicitly disallow.  Davio argues that "well, [certain examples] are obviously cheating" but now you're drawing a line arbitrarily.  In the opinion of many here, using a CARD counter is obviously cheating, and that line is NOT arbitrary, as it is based on the rules of the official game.
Logged

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #279 on: July 04, 2012, 01:06:00 pm »
+1

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

Do you consider the extension to be a point counter?  Or do you consider it to be a card counter?

What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...

My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.

Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.

One more thing to note: a lot of people cling to the rules of games as printed, or as espoused by their designers. There is certainly value in standardization, but I think this is a bad philosophy for a community long-term. Almost every healthy gaming community I can think of either a) has an active official balance team (Magic: The Gathering, many competitive video games) or b) has community-proposed and now widely accepted rules changes, new formats, new tournament procedures, etc (Chess, Backgammon, and other classic board games all have these; Super Smash Bros. and competitive Pokemon are great example of community-set tournament guidelines; online poker communities that have had to legalize various external aids are probably the most direct analogy here). Games can and should evolve over time.
You could be very well on to something here.  You may be the person to lead us to a revolutionary change in dominion!

However doing so in the tournament finals does not seem like the best place to institute your beliefs on how the game should be played in the future.  It should not be forced upon to others.  The game should have been played a way everyone could agree or the standard rules given. 

Lets say I was playing a fighting game like street fighter.  I felt that doing combos was a silly gruntwork task.  The skill involved didn't make the game all that fun.  It is just way to intensive to learn how to do combos and put in all the time to remember what to do.  What was more interesting was the metagame involved.  So what I will do is install an auto-comboing machine so that all my combos will be hit precisely.  I mean everyone else could do it as well. 

That's how your argument as a whole sounds like overall.  Something is boring to do in a game.  So lets take that part of the game out of the game and replace it with a system that can do it for me, even though I could've done it myself if I put the time in.  I mean if I could build it/use it, then anyone else could, so its not really cheating. 
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #280 on: July 04, 2012, 01:08:54 pm »
0

So your argument is that there should be no memorization or thought process in dominion beyond what cards should I go for in this kingdom? you probably shouldn't play chess, poker or magic competitively then.

Chess -- Requires memorization of some of the key moves an opponent might make to start an endgame on you, what you have done, what you could have done and what your opponent has done and could have done, and why they might have made that decision

Poker -- Better count cards in your head, online implementations sure don't and require you to act fast or be timed out, and a "card counter" extension for real life nope

Magic -- This is where my argument gets to be super valid, in both games you have a deck of cards, in both games you benefit from knowing what the odds you draw X are, but wait magic won't tell you whats left in your deck and it CERTAINLY won't tell you what's left in your opponents deck. Even in MTGO you have to do the work yourself, sure you could cheat but your on a timelimit there and you can only calculate the odds of you doing something is, not what the odds of you Thoughtscouring their Temporal Mastery is.
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #281 on: July 04, 2012, 01:15:41 pm »
0

So your argument is that there should be no memorization or thought process in dominion beyond what cards should I go for in this kingdom? you probably shouldn't play chess, poker or magic competitively then.

Chess -- Requires memorization of some of the key moves an opponent might make to start an endgame on you, what you have done, what you could have done and what your opponent has done and could have done, and why they might have made that decision

Poker -- Better count cards in your head, online implementations sure don't and require you to act fast or be timed out, and a "card counter" extension for real life nope

Magic -- This is where my argument gets to be super valid, in both games you have a deck of cards, in both games you benefit from knowing what the odds you draw X are, but wait magic won't tell you whats left in your deck and it CERTAINLY won't tell you what's left in your opponents deck. Even in MTGO you have to do the work yourself, sure you could cheat but your on a timelimit there and you can only calculate the odds of you doing something is, not what the odds of you Thoughtscouring their Temporal Mastery is.

Well, I do play Magic competitively. Oops!

I also play Dominion competitively, without an odds calculator. I just said I think the game would be better with one. I think Magic would be too! Right now not every game is perfect, and of course, since everyone's perfect looks different, the value of having many willing opponents is often a good reason to make concessions.

Lets say I was playing a fighting game like street fighter.  I felt that doing combos was a silly gruntwork task.  The skill involved didn't make the game all that fun.  It is just way to intensive to learn how to do combos and put in all the time to remember what to do.  What was more interesting was the metagame involved.  So what I will do is install an auto-comboing machine so that all my combos will be hit precisely.  I mean everyone else could do it as well. 

That's how your argument as a whole sounds like overall.  Something is boring to do in a game.  So lets take that part of the game out of the game and replace it with a system that can do it for me, even though I could've done it myself if I put the time in.  I mean if I could build it/use it, then anyone else could, so its not really cheating. 

God, that sounds great! I hate execution difficulty in fighting games, it is seriously the stupidest thing. Even better would be playing games (Smash is a decent one, though it has other issues) where execution difficulty isn't a design principle, but sure, I would love a SF tournament with combo macros enabled.

Clearly you shouldn't use one when your opponents can't. Surely I do not have to repeat for twelfth time the difference between that situation and the DominionStrategy finals.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #282 on: July 04, 2012, 01:17:57 pm »
+3

And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.

yuma

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 695
  • Respect: +609
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #283 on: July 04, 2012, 01:21:37 pm »
+1

My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #284 on: July 04, 2012, 01:23:40 pm »
+1

My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?

Its part of the human condition to watch train wrecks unfortunately, I believe Obi posted the MJ popcorn meme earlier in the thread :P.

That said you could set this board to ignored if you dont participate in IsoDom?
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #285 on: July 04, 2012, 01:26:02 pm »
0

And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.

And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #286 on: July 04, 2012, 01:27:39 pm »
0

So your argument is that there should be no memorization or thought process in dominion beyond what cards should I go for in this kingdom? you probably shouldn't play chess, poker or magic competitively then.

Chess -- Requires memorization of some of the key moves an opponent might make to start an endgame on you, what you have done, what you could have done and what your opponent has done and could have done, and why they might have made that decision

Poker -- Better count cards in your head, online implementations sure don't and require you to act fast or be timed out, and a "card counter" extension for real life nope

Magic -- This is where my argument gets to be super valid, in both games you have a deck of cards, in both games you benefit from knowing what the odds you draw X are, but wait magic won't tell you whats left in your deck and it CERTAINLY won't tell you what's left in your opponents deck. Even in MTGO you have to do the work yourself, sure you could cheat but your on a timelimit there and you can only calculate the odds of you doing something is, not what the odds of you Thoughtscouring their Temporal Mastery is.

Well, I do play Magic competitively. Oops!

I also play Dominion competitively, without an odds calculator. I just said I think the game would be better with one. I think Magic would be too! Right now not every game is perfect, and of course, since everyone's perfect looks different, the value of having many willing opponents is often a good reason to make concessions.

Lets say I was playing a fighting game like street fighter.  I felt that doing combos was a silly gruntwork task.  The skill involved didn't make the game all that fun.  It is just way to intensive to learn how to do combos and put in all the time to remember what to do.  What was more interesting was the metagame involved.  So what I will do is install an auto-comboing machine so that all my combos will be hit precisely.  I mean everyone else could do it as well. 

That's how your argument as a whole sounds like overall.  Something is boring to do in a game.  So lets take that part of the game out of the game and replace it with a system that can do it for me, even though I could've done it myself if I put the time in.  I mean if I could build it/use it, then anyone else could, so its not really cheating. 

God, that sounds great! I hate execution difficulty in fighting games, it is seriously the stupidest thing. Even better would be playing games (Smash is a decent one, though it has other issues) where execution difficulty isn't a design principle, but sure, I would love a SF tournament with combo macros enabled.

Clearly you shouldn't use one when your opponents can't. Surely I do not have to repeat for twelfth time the difference between that situation and the DominionStrategy finals.
Okay I get it there is a BIG difference.

If I entered a street fighter tournament and had this stupid little thing on my controller (that combo-er), I would be questioned, then kicked out because I was cheating.  The rules sadly enough aren't in the future and I cannot use this.

If I enter the tournament with PCE, I would also be kicked out (if people complained blah blah) because I was breaking the rules.  Especially if my opponents don't agree to its usage.  I think we are all good up to here, I mean you didn't use it in the finals after some budging.  The next part is that counting cards/card tracker/PCE and excel-esque is illegal in person for dominion (like the example above with street fighter).  Now suddenly because I'm on the computer, away from everyone else, the same rules don't apply?  I mean lets go around counter strike and hack all day (extreme but the fundamental principle is still there, the effect on skill is different though I agree).  Better yet, lets use it in the grand finals. 

Your rationalization sounds like this to me: I mean other people could use it, so I better get ahead of the curve.  Maybe if I use it, then EVERYONE will use it.

Now the actual things you are talking about does sound relatively interesting.  Just the timing of it seems like a really bad time.  Especially since the qualifier wasn't for another online tournament, but an offline tournament where all of this moot. 

Edit: The difference was street fighter was in person, dominion was online.  If dominion was in person, or street fighter/video game was online, then the argument would sound the same.  Ie. Street fighter in person cheating = dominion person cheating.  However that same cheating in street fighter would be deemed okay because its online?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 01:37:03 pm by RisingJaguar »
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #287 on: July 04, 2012, 01:27:46 pm »
0

Oh I know we both know what it does.  And I know what I call it.  My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else.  I am very curious.

Ah. I do this frequently, as I have turned many people onto it. I usually call it "the extension" or "the isotropic extension" and then provide a detailed description of what it actually does.

So I ask you "What is that that you are using?  It looks cool!"  And you'd respond "I'm using the extension."  "Ooh, the extension.  What does it do?"  Basically what I'm trying to figure out, is at the very bottom of the issue, what do you consider its so to say "primary" or "fundamental" purpose to be?
I know you didn't ask my opinion, but the #1 thing I like about the PCE is the display of points and (to a lesser extent) deck size next to the chat box. (Together, IIRC, this gives you what you'd see with "!status".) Hooray for no info button lag and for current point counts (rather than beginning-of-turn points), and seeing deck size makes Amb tennis more interesting. This is why I originally installed the PCE, back before "!details" info was added to the supply area.

If PCE ends up being generally banned in tournaments, I'd consider creating a version that does nothing except show current point counts next to the chat box, since it seems like most people don't mind that functionality. Then maybe that version would be allowed in tournaments.

(Edit: What I'm not clear on is how much concern there is over the other info displayed by "!status": things like deck size, number of uniques, number of dukes, etc., that are relevant in alt VP games.)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 01:29:29 pm by blueblimp »
Logged

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #288 on: July 04, 2012, 01:29:52 pm »
+2

My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?

Its part of the human condition to watch train wrecks unfortunately, I believe Obi posted the MJ popcorn meme earlier in the thread :P.

That said you could set this board to ignored if you dont participate in IsoDom?

Thanks for the idea.  I am this close to doing it!  But what would I watch with this tub of popcorn?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #289 on: July 04, 2012, 01:35:19 pm »
0

My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?

Its part of the human condition to watch train wrecks unfortunately, I believe Obi posted the MJ popcorn meme earlier in the thread :P.

That said you could set this board to ignored if you dont participate in IsoDom?

Thanks for the idea.  I am this close to doing it!  But what would I watch with this tub of popcorn?

That is a bit of a dilemma, maybe a movie? or if its mostly your concern of losing respect for people here you could start a BGG thread about how Money beats everything in dominion ;)
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #290 on: July 04, 2012, 01:43:44 pm »
+1

Thanks for the idea.  I am this close to doing it!  But what would I watch with this tub of popcorn?

Who knows, maybe some less confrontational and more scintillating fireworks will appear in your area shortly.
Logged

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #291 on: July 04, 2012, 01:49:34 pm »
+1

I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.

Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?

Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:

If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.

No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.

Ok if i quote the full quote of theory in the DominionStrategy Tournament RUles:

Players may, upon mutual consent, agree to play under any constraints they wish (e.g., with/without veto mode, sets limited to a particular expansion, with/without point counter).  If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.  (Although we understand the objections to point counters, we have no choice but to permit their use because we simply cannot effectively enforce otherwise.)
Since this paragraph concerns all add-ons and constraints, it is clearly implied that if players do not agree, then only the things mentioned are allowed. Now for the National tournament the rules where much more sloppy, but still one should from the wording expect that this wouldn't be allowed in this tournament either.

Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #292 on: July 04, 2012, 01:52:59 pm »
+1

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

It isn't mutually exclusive with the extension, sure.  It also isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, which means the rules don't allow it.  You can argue that the rules don't disallow it, but then there is a LOT that the rules don't explicitly disallow.  Davio argues that "well, [certain examples] are obviously cheating" but now you're drawing a line arbitrarily.  In the opinion of many here, using a CARD counter is obviously cheating, and that line is NOT arbitrary, as it is based on the rules of the official game.
The official rules?

You mean the ones that were created for offline real life Dominion and can, by nature of impossible enforcement and impossible life-to-web translations, only be a guideline for the online version?

Or the not-so-official tournament rules? Imho the tournament rules didn't cover what it needed to cover. You can go both ways with this. You can think: "Well, everything that's not in there is allowed." This leads to exaggerated examples, I agree. Or you could go with: "Ok, we can only do what is says here." But that leads to players using spreadsheets instead of the extension and doesn't really make the problem go away.

It would have been funny if Personman had agreed not to use the PCE, this discussion would have never happened and they would have played the final with WW. Now what if Personman said afterwards: "Okay, I confess! I have used a spreadsheet!" Would this have been regarded as cheating? If you think so, good luck with enforcing that one. If not, go take a hypocrisy test, there is no difference from the spreadsheet and the PCE. The PCE makes it easier yes, but the end result is exactly the same.

Well, if the PCE ends up being banned from tournaments, I'm making an offline version that doesn't have the courtesy to tell the other players I'm using it and I will make it freely available to anyone, even the PCE haters, just to prove my point.

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #293 on: July 04, 2012, 02:00:59 pm »
0

Using the poker as an example that has been previously mentioned.   BEFORE all the poker sites legalized the use of them online, if you used it to benefit your game, was it cheating then while the poker sites were... 'silent'. 

Edit: On second thought, it sounds very similar to using steroids in baseball before they were properly banned.  Cheating?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:02:21 pm by RisingJaguar »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #294 on: July 04, 2012, 02:04:12 pm »
+3

And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.

And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.

Anyway,, re-reading your posts, you are less agreeable than I had thought yesterday. So I'm going to lay out the argument, step by step, and you can tell me where you disagree with it, ok?

1. This was a tournament which qualified the winner for dominion nationals. (Ok, this isn't relevant, but I want to make sure you'll have something you absolutely can agree with).
2. The tournament was played on isotropic, on the internet.
3. There were rules to this tournament.
4. Special tournament rules were posted on the blog and in these forums.
5. Those rules include that the official point tracker was to be used, identical starting hands ensured.
6. Those rules do not state that the PCE can be used.
7. Those rules say that modifications to the rules may be made with the agreement of ALL participants.
8. We got into a situation where some kinds of negotiations were going on for the finals.
9. There were several parties privy to these negotiations, including you, me, theory, jtl005, and ednever.
10. After understanding what PCE did, both jtl005 and ednever stated preference that you do not use the PCE.
11. I made my claim very clear that I consider the PCE to be in violation of the rules.
12. theory asked you not to use the PCE.
13. theory later told you not to use the PCE - still before he outright 'banned' it.
14. Throughout this period, you made your intentions to use the PCE quite clear.
15. There is no codification of rules written up to supersede, on general grounds, the dominion rules, despite being specific rule adaptions for specific events.
16. Except insofar as expressly countermanded by specific tournament rules (including the mutual agreement clause), the rules of Dominion should remain in effect in this tournament, as there is no alternative objective baseline which is a rival to them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
17. The rules of dominion do not explicitly allow for external memory aids.
18. Actions pertinent to a game, which are not expressly allowed by the game's rules, are implicitly prohibited by the game's rules.
19. PCE is relevant to the game.
20. PCE was not explicitly allowed.
21. PCE is ergo implicitly prohibited.
22. Rules are rules, regardless of whether or not they can be enforced. They may be stupid rules, or bad rules, but they are rules.
23. You agreed to the rules when signing up for the tournament.
24. The cooperation of all other involved parties clause cannot be invoked here, as there was at least one other involved party, namely myself, which did not agree with PCE use.
25. People ought to do what they agree to do, where possible.
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.
27. Breaking one's agreements violates that person's integrity, without some kind of extenuating change of circumstance between the time of making the agreement and the time at which the agreed upon action is to be undertaken.
28. A rule which there are no consequences for violating is nevertheless a rule.
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.

Which of these do you find problem with?

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #295 on: July 04, 2012, 02:05:02 pm »
+1

Using the poker as an example that has been previously mentioned.   BEFORE all the poker sites legalized the use of them online, if you used it to benefit your game, was it cheating then while the poker sites were... 'silent'. 

Edit: On second thought, it sounds very similar to using steroids in baseball before they were properly banned.  Cheating?

If theory prohibits use of the extension, then it is properly banned (aka illegal/cheating), no matter if he can enforce it or not.

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.

But then he would be cheating, something he claims he would never do, so he could not have done that.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #296 on: July 04, 2012, 02:06:12 pm »
+1

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.

No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.

Of course, perhaps no one will believe me, because I have a reputation for standing up for the line of argument that people will cheat under those circumstances, so clearly I must be referring to myself, right? In fact, theory even said to me directly that he felt he could not trust me not to cheat if he ruled the counter illegal, which is sad for me on a personal level, but also the absolutely correct position for theory to take, and perfectly good grounds for him NOT to make spreadsheet use illegal. I only wish his distrust extended to everyone, rather than just me. It sucks to be thought of as a cheater just because you are aware of and concerned about the methods and motivations for cheating.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #297 on: July 04, 2012, 02:10:59 pm »
0

A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.

Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.

It isn't mutually exclusive with the extension, sure.  It also isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, which means the rules don't allow it.  You can argue that the rules don't disallow it, but then there is a LOT that the rules don't explicitly disallow.  Davio argues that "well, [certain examples] are obviously cheating" but now you're drawing a line arbitrarily.  In the opinion of many here, using a CARD counter is obviously cheating, and that line is NOT arbitrary, as it is based on the rules of the official game.
The official rules?

You mean the ones that were created for offline real life Dominion and can, by nature of impossible enforcement and impossible life-to-web translations, only be a guideline for the online version?
First of all, it is not impossible to enforce them. Second, they can absolutely be the rules for an online version of the game. There is no reason why they cannot. You might think it makes for a lousy online game, but they are not impossible to implement.

Quote
Or the not-so-official tournament rules? Imho the tournament rules didn't cover what it needed to cover. You can go both ways with this. You can think: "Well, everything that's not in there is allowed." This leads to exaggerated examples, I agree. Or you could go with: "Ok, we can only do what is says here." But that leads to players using spreadsheets instead of the extension and doesn't really make the problem go away.
No, going the second way, the rules are clear. It is unclear how they are intended to be enforced, but the rules are clear. The problem shifts from having total anarchy because there are no rules, to having problems of enforcing them.

Quote
It would have been funny if Personman had agreed not to use the PCE, this discussion would have never happened and they would have played the final with WW. Now what if Personman said afterwards: "Okay, I confess! I have used a spreadsheet!" Would this have been regarded as cheating? If you think so, good luck with enforcing that one. If not, go take a hypocrisy test, there is no difference from the spreadsheet and the PCE. The PCE makes it easier yes, but the end result is exactly the same.
This would actually be quite easy to enforce, as he has confessed, in your scenario, to cheating. However, it is nevertheless cheating, even if he were to do this without confessing. That it is difficult to enforce is a separate problem.
Furthermore, Personman DID implicity agree to this by entering the tournament.

Quote
Well, if the PCE ends up being banned from tournaments, I'm making an offline version that doesn't have the courtesy to tell the other players I'm using it and I will make it freely available to anyone, even the PCE haters, just to prove my point.
Ok, so you think it is fine to cheat, so long as you can get away with it. Glad we're square on that.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #298 on: July 04, 2012, 02:12:23 pm »
0

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.

No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.

Of course, perhaps no one will believe me, because I have a reputation for standing up for the line of argument that people will cheat under those circumstances, so clearly I must be referring to myself, right? In fact, theory even said to me directly that he felt he could not trust me not to cheat if he ruled the counter illegal, which is sad for me on a personal level, but also the absolutely correct position for theory to take, and perfectly good grounds for him NOT to make spreadsheet use illegal. I only wish his distrust extended to everyone, rather than just me. It sucks to be thought of as a cheater just because you are aware of and concerned about the methods and motivations for cheating.
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #300 on: July 04, 2012, 02:16:59 pm »
0

In my previous post, there's a link to the quicktopic with the actual conversation that went down.
If that is taken down, PM me, or e-mail me.

If this is taken down, there are people who know how to get a hold of me.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #301 on: July 04, 2012, 02:21:58 pm »
0

Yay! Serious discussion! Thanks WW, this is the level of discourse I've wished we were having all along.

And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.

And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.

Anyway,, re-reading your posts, you are less agreeable than I had thought yesterday. So I'm going to lay out the argument, step by step, and you can tell me where you disagree with it, ok?

1. This was a tournament which qualified the winner for dominion nationals. (Ok, this isn't relevant, but I want to make sure you'll have something you absolutely can agree with).
2. The tournament was played on isotropic, on the internet.
3. There were rules to this tournament.
4. Special tournament rules were posted on the blog and in these forums.
5. Those rules include that the official point tracker was to be used, identical starting hands ensured.
6. Those rules do not state that the PCE can be used.

I'm with you this far.

Quote
7. Those rules say that modifications to the rules may be made with the agreement of ALL participants.

This is where you first lose me. The rules give defaults for a few variables in the case of disagreement on those variables. Those variables do not include the extension.

Quote
8. We got into a situation where some kinds of negotiations were going on for the finals.
9. There were several parties privy to these negotiations, including you, me, theory, jtl005, and ednever.
10. After understanding what PCE did, both jtl005 and ednever stated preference that you do not use the PCE.
11. I made my claim very clear that I consider the PCE to be in violation of the rules.
12. theory asked you not to use the PCE.

I agree with all these.

Quote
13. theory later told you not to use the PCE - still before he outright 'banned' it.
14. Throughout this period, you made your intentions to use the PCE quite clear.

These feel pretty wrong. The first one has some basis in fact, but the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension" (or very similar) because he went on to say "..but I won't DQ you for it", which, as I have said about fifty times, constitutes explicit legalization of the point counter. Theory and you both wish to maintain that there is some middle ground between "legal" and "illegal" (like "legal but I asked you not to") but that is so ridiculous.

The second one is also totally wrong. I never said that I would use it if it were ruled illegal, and it was, and I didn't. So I don't even know where you are coming from with that one.

Quote
15. There is no codification of rules written up to supersede, on general grounds, the dominion rules, despite being specific rule adaptions for specific events.

Sure, I guess.

Quote
16. Except insofar as expressly countermanded by specific tournament rules (including the mutual agreement clause), the rules of Dominion should remain in effect in this tournament, as there is no alternative objective baseline which is a rival to them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

I disagree. The rules of online Dominion (which don't exist) should remain in effect, since that's what we were playing. It really bears little relation to paper Dominion, as I've been over in several other posts. Since those rules don't exist, we can only go by common sense and precedent. Precedent WITHIN THIS VERY TOURNAMENT was clear that the extension was legal, and that coincided with my common sense (that unenforceable rules shouldn't exist).

Quote
17. The rules of dominion do not explicitly allow for external memory aids.

True.

Quote
18. Actions pertinent to a game, which are not expressly allowed by the game's rules, are implicitly prohibited by the game's rules.

False! Nowhere does Dominion expressly allow you to try to sit there and remember what you bought last turn. Do you think that is implicitly prohibited too? Cheater! Surely you must agree that rules are never complete specifications one way or the other, and we must always fall back on common sense and social norms to determine the acceptableness of various actions.

Quote
19. PCE is relevant to the game.
20. PCE was not explicitly allowed.
21. PCE is ergo implicitly prohibited.

See above.

Quote
22. Rules are rules, regardless of whether or not they can be enforced. They may be stupid rules, or bad rules, but they are rules.
23. You agreed to the rules when signing up for the tournament.
24. The cooperation of all other involved parties clause cannot be invoked here, as there was at least one other involved party, namely myself, which did not agree with PCE use.
25. People ought to do what they agree to do, where possible.

These are fine.

Quote
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.

Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.

Quote
27. Breaking one's agreements violates that person's integrity, without some kind of extenuating change of circumstance between the time of making the agreement and the time at which the agreed upon action is to be undertaken.
28. A rule which there are no consequences for violating is nevertheless a rule.

Yep.

Quote
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.


What? No, not even a little bit.

Quote
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.

Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.

Quote from: Other WW post
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.

Please point to quotes from the conversation you posted where you think I declared my intention to cheat or exhibited duplicity. I soundly deny that I have done either.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:24:04 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #302 on: July 04, 2012, 02:27:33 pm »
0

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.

No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.

Of course, perhaps no one will believe me, because I have a reputation for standing up for the line of argument that people will cheat under those circumstances, so clearly I must be referring to myself, right? In fact, theory even said to me directly that he felt he could not trust me not to cheat if he ruled the counter illegal, which is sad for me on a personal level, but also the absolutely correct position for theory to take, and perfectly good grounds for him NOT to make spreadsheet use illegal. I only wish his distrust extended to everyone, rather than just me. It sucks to be thought of as a cheater just because you are aware of and concerned about the methods and motivations for cheating.
Could you reexplain the different methods people could be cheating again?  From what I remember it was only PCE and pen/paper.

Then, why/how does PCE cover the gap? I mean that is the reason you use PCE right? To combat those furious cheaters.

Edit: Maybe this wasn't clear the first time.  But the bolded looks like you are accusing those that use PCE and excel as cheaters. To combat this, you use PCE. 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:48:03 pm by RisingJaguar »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #303 on: July 04, 2012, 02:30:02 pm »
0

Or you could go with: "Ok, we can only do what is says here." But that leads to players using spreadsheets instead of the extension and doesn't really make the problem go away.

Uh, no?  If you only do what it says in the rules, then players using spreadsheets would be cheating.  That particular cheating would be undetectable (unless they were slow about it), but that's a completely different issue.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #304 on: July 04, 2012, 02:34:49 pm »
+2

Quote from: Turambar
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?
Used them without telling him, obviously.

No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.

It only puts you at a disadvantage if someone else cheats and you don't.  If you all follow the rules and do not cheat, you are on an EVEN PLAYING FIELD.  What you are saying implies that you expect your opponents to cheat, and that you feel you must do the same for it to be fair.  That is a ridiculous position to take.  Have some respect for your fellow players and trust that they will follow the rules just as you say you would.
Logged

joel88s

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #305 on: July 04, 2012, 02:37:41 pm »
+2

In summation, two words: Rationalization.

Damn, guess I need a word-counter extension.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #306 on: July 04, 2012, 02:39:58 pm »
0

In summation, two words: Rationalization.

Damn, guess I need a word-counter extension.

I lol'd.

But seriously, rationalization for which illegal action that I took? I don't believe I have anything to rationalize. I argued for the rules to be consistent and fair, and then when a ruling I didn't agree with was handed down, I abided by it.

eHalcyon, go read the thread. The point you are raising has been discussed many times.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 02:41:17 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #307 on: July 04, 2012, 02:50:09 pm »
0

There are either 2 possibilities for PCE.

1)  It offers no competitive advantage to a player using it over a player not using it.
2)  It offers a competitive advantage (no matter how small) to a player using it over a player not using it.

Before I continue my argument, which is considered true?
Logged
A man on a mission.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #308 on: July 04, 2012, 02:57:02 pm »
0

Yay! Serious discussion! Thanks WW, this is the level of discourse I've wished we were having all along.

And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.

And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.

Anyway,, re-reading your posts, you are less agreeable than I had thought yesterday. So I'm going to lay out the argument, step by step, and you can tell me where you disagree with it, ok?

1. This was a tournament which qualified the winner for dominion nationals. (Ok, this isn't relevant, but I want to make sure you'll have something you absolutely can agree with).
2. The tournament was played on isotropic, on the internet.
3. There were rules to this tournament.
4. Special tournament rules were posted on the blog and in these forums.
5. Those rules include that the official point tracker was to be used, identical starting hands ensured.
6. Those rules do not state that the PCE can be used.

I'm with you this far.

Quote
7. Those rules say that modifications to the rules may be made with the agreement of ALL participants.

This is where you first lose me. The rules give defaults for a few variables in the case of disagreement on those variables. Those variables do not include the extension.

Okay. Don't know how you really want to stand by this, guess I'll just let everyone else realize the flat absurdity that the POINT COUNTER extension is not covered in a rule about the POINT COUNTER.

Quote
Quote
8. We got into a situation where some kinds of negotiations were going on for the finals.
9. There were several parties privy to these negotiations, including you, me, theory, jtl005, and ednever.
10. After understanding what PCE did, both jtl005 and ednever stated preference that you do not use the PCE.
11. I made my claim very clear that I consider the PCE to be in violation of the rules.
12. theory asked you not to use the PCE.

I agree with all these.

Quote
13. theory later told you not to use the PCE - still before he outright 'banned' it.
14. Throughout this period, you made your intentions to use the PCE quite clear.

These feel pretty wrong. The first one has some basis in fact, but the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension" (or very similar) because he went on to say "..but I won't DQ you for it", which, as I have said about fifty times, constitutes explicit legalization of the point counter. Theory and you both wish to maintain that there is some middle ground between "legal" and "illegal" (like "legal but I asked you not to") but that is so ridiculous.

The second one is also totally wrong. I never said that I would use it if it were ruled illegal, and it was, and I didn't. So I don't even know where you are coming from with that one.
I actually am coming from the first one on the second one. I don't hold this middle ground. theory was holding that the thing was illegal (he would have done better to state it more bluntly), but that he would not disqualify you for it. Illegal with no consequences is, once again, not the same thing as legal.

Quote
Quote
15. There is no codification of rules written up to supersede, on general grounds, the dominion rules, despite being specific rule adaptions for specific events.

Sure, I guess.

Quote
16. Except insofar as expressly countermanded by specific tournament rules (including the mutual agreement clause), the rules of Dominion should remain in effect in this tournament, as there is no alternative objective baseline which is a rival to them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

I disagree. The rules of online Dominion (which don't exist) should remain in effect, since that's what we were playing. It really bears little relation to paper Dominion, as I've been over in several other posts. Since those rules don't exist, we can only go by common sense and precedent. Precedent WITHIN THIS VERY TOURNAMENT was clear that the extension was legal, and that coincided with my common sense (that unenforceable rules shouldn't exist).
Okay, so we should magically obey rules that don't exist? Tell me how that one works? Because if that's the case, I win the game by claiming it - you can't show me where in the rules it says I can't do that, because the rules don't exist.
Furthermore, precedent in NO WAY showed that it was legal. Furthermore, here's a great example of duplicity. You have already admitted that you do believe that, at least for some things, unenforceable rules SHOULD exist. But going back to the precedent thing, that you did it before and no one complained is in no way a precedent that you're good to go. That is ridiculous.

Quote
Quote
17. The rules of dominion do not explicitly allow for external memory aids.

True.

Quote
18. Actions pertinent to a game, which are not expressly allowed by the game's rules, are implicitly prohibited by the game's rules.

False! Nowhere does Dominion expressly allow you to try to sit there and remember what you bought last turn. Do you think that is implicitly prohibited too? Cheater! Surely you must agree that rules are never complete specifications one way or the other, and we must always fall back on common sense and social norms to determine the acceptableness of various actions.
The first four words of page 2 of the dominion rulebook make it clear that thinking is allowed. I agree that there is some need for common sense, but clearly the sense that being able to take notes is allowed is not something which is not common, and certainly not self-evident.

Quote
Quote
19. PCE is relevant to the game.
20. PCE was not explicitly allowed.
21. PCE is ergo implicitly prohibited.

See above.

Quote
22. Rules are rules, regardless of whether or not they can be enforced. They may be stupid rules, or bad rules, but they are rules.
23. You agreed to the rules when signing up for the tournament.
24. The cooperation of all other involved parties clause cannot be invoked here, as there was at least one other involved party, namely myself, which did not agree with PCE use.
25. People ought to do what they agree to do, where possible.

These are fine.

Quote
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.

Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
I weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.

Quote
Quote
27. Breaking one's agreements violates that person's integrity, without some kind of extenuating change of circumstance between the time of making the agreement and the time at which the agreed upon action is to be undertaken.
28. A rule which there are no consequences for violating is nevertheless a rule.

Yep.

Quote
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.


What? No, not even a little bit.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.

Quote
Quote
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.

Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
Clearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.

Quote
Quote from: Other WW post
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.

Please point to quotes from the conversation you posted where you think I declared my intention to cheat or exhibited duplicity. I soundly deny that I have done either.

Will do... in another post.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #309 on: July 04, 2012, 03:09:02 pm »
0

Okay, here we go.
"I don't see why we should change the rules at one player's request (and to his advantage - WanderingWinder is on record as saying that he is against the point counter largely because he enjoys and is very good at memorization)."
"Given that some of my opponents might want to win, I should assume that they will do so, and thus I should too if I don't want to be at a disadvantage, and to prevent all of that nonsense it should just be legal."
Furthermore, the other people make it clear that it is there request as well that you don't use it, and implicitly that by their interpretation, it's against the rules. So is one person's request, to their advantage, reason to change the rules, or not? You argue both sides.

There's this gem from very early on: "I can't really believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion." Who is the one blowing it out of proportion, now, man?

"Given his definitions in a private correspondence, he is now accusing the tournament organizer of announcing his intention to cheat. I feel that this is a pretty clear objective indicator that it is his definitions that need adjustment, rather than mine."
theory later makes it clear that he considers PCE cheating, and you don't change definitions. So is this a clear objective indicator or not?

Finally, there's the innumerable places where you're all over the place on whether or not the thing gives you an advantage. It gives an advantage, it gives no advantage, it gives a small advantage, it doesn't really matter. And you keep arguing all over. So I am consistent here, I think it's a significant advantage, and if you didn't think it was, by your arguments, you should have no problem disabling it.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #310 on: July 04, 2012, 03:26:46 pm »
0

Okay. Don't know how you really want to stand by this, guess I'll just let everyone else realize the flat absurdity that the POINT COUNTER extension is not covered in a rule about the POINT COUNTER.

If you think that is absurd, I don't know what else to say to you. I think this is a part of our disagreement where we've reached the bottom and we just differ on how language and implication work.

Quote
I actually am coming from the first one on the second one. I don't hold this middle ground. theory was holding that the thing was illegal (he would have done better to state it more bluntly), but that he would not disqualify you for it. Illegal with no consequences is, once again, not the same thing as legal.

This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:

1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.

Quote
Okay, so we should magically obey rules that don't exist? Tell me how that one works? Because if that's the case, I win the game by claiming it - you can't show me where in the rules it says I can't do that, because the rules don't exist.
Furthermore, precedent in NO WAY showed that it was legal. Furthermore, here's a great example of duplicity. You have already admitted that you do believe that, at least for some things, unenforceable rules SHOULD exist. But going back to the precedent thing, that you did it before and no one complained is in no way a precedent that you're good to go. That is ridiculous.

We've already been over how it is reasonable from both of our perspectives to have seen precedent as on our side, and I wish you would admit. I saw other players use it without complaint, I used it without complaint, and I am not alone in believing that its use was legal and precedented. Your position on this is also understandable, given your differing starting assumptions and your differing experience during the tournament. Can we please agree that neither of us is being "ridiculous" on this bit?

I agree that it's tragic and difficult that the rules for the game we were playing aren't written down anywhere. Theory did his best to give us a tournament on short notice, and there were holes. Oh well. We have to do our best.

Quote
The first four words of page 2 of the dominion rulebook make it clear that thinking is allowed. I agree that there is some need for common sense, but clearly the sense that being able to take notes is allowed is not something which is not common, and certainly not self-evident.

On the contrary, it is common in communities other than yours. People have such a hard time realizing that the internet is putting them in touch with people who come from very different places. In the competitive Magic community, for instance, it is taken for granted at this point that these kinds of in-game notes are perfectly permissible, and used by most players in most tournaments.

Quote
Quote
Quote
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.

Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
I weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.

This is at heart a religious argument, and I think we should stay away. From my perspective, if you are dead, nothing can possibly matter to you, so it is incoherent to suggest that something could matter more than survival.

There is one complication to this, which is that there are states of life that seem to be clearly worse than not existing. In those cases (such as when facing extreme torture, or when facing the guilt of not having sacrificed yourself to save 50 orphans) self-sacrifice can be reasonable.

Quote
Quote
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.

What? No, not even a little bit.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.[/quote]

Even given the resources to do that, no. What if I devise a system for encoding notes to myself in what look like friendly chat message to the other players? What if fiddling with the pencils on my desk is a code? No observer will ever be able to distinguish memory-aid from not-memory-aid.

Quote
Quote
Quote
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.

Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
Clearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.

I do it because it is what I believe strongly is fair and right. It's less about my own interest (you can easily see this from the fact that I volunteered to share my spreadsheet publicly with the other contestants) and more about the principle of the thing.

If I were self-interested, I would have dropped all discussion as soon as theory said he wouldn't DQ me for the point counter, I would have used it, and that would have been that. Instead, I pushed for a more rigorously fair ruleset, and as a result I got one that was much less to my liking and much less to my advantage.

If I were self-interested, I would not have started posting videos of my thought process right before the finals. If I were self-interested, I would not have mentioned publicly that I intended to use the extension. Your reading of the facts here is obnoxiously selective.
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Other WW post
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.

Please point to quotes from the conversation you posted where you think I declared my intention to cheat or exhibited duplicity. I soundly deny that I have done either.

Will do... in another post.

Can't wait.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #311 on: July 04, 2012, 03:31:41 pm »
0

Okay, here we go.
"I don't see why we should change the rules at one player's request (and to his advantage - WanderingWinder is on record as saying that he is against the point counter largely because he enjoys and is very good at memorization)."
"Given that some of my opponents might want to win, I should assume that they will do so, and thus I should too if I don't want to be at a disadvantage, and to prevent all of that nonsense it should just be legal."
Furthermore, the other people make it clear that it is there request as well that you don't use it, and implicitly that by their interpretation, it's against the rules. So is one person's request, to their advantage, reason to change the rules, or not? You argue both sides.

The issue here is that I didn't (and don't) believe I was advocating for a change in the rules. I was advocating against making the extension illegal when it had been legal all along. I know you disagree, but please remember my base assumptions before you accuse me of hypocrisy.

Quote
There's this gem from very early on: "I can't really believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion." Who is the one blowing it out of proportion, now, man?

Uh... you? You've left out the context of that quote, which if anyone cares to actually click on your link, they will see is a direct response to your spurious threat of legal action, which remains the high water mark of insanity in all this.

Quote
"Given his definitions in a private correspondence, he is now accusing the tournament organizer of announcing his intention to cheat. I feel that this is a pretty clear objective indicator that it is his definitions that need adjustment, rather than mine."
theory later makes it clear that he considers PCE cheating, and you don't change definitions. So is this a clear objective indicator or not?

Finally, there's the innumerable places where you're all over the place on whether or not the thing gives you an advantage. It gives an advantage, it gives no advantage, it gives a small advantage, it doesn't really matter. And you keep arguing all over. So I am consistent here, I think it's a significant advantage, and if you didn't think it was, by your arguments, you should have no problem disabling it.

What? It's definitely an advantage. I don't think I've said anything else. I certainly don't think it gives five isotropic levels worth of advantage, and the anecdotal evidence seems to support me strongly.

EDIT: Doing something else for 30-60 minutes, I'll be back.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 03:42:19 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #312 on: July 04, 2012, 03:52:33 pm »
0

This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:

1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?

Quote
We've already been over how it is reasonable from both of our perspectives to have seen precedent as on our side, and I wish you would admit. I saw other players use it without complaint, I used it without complaint, and I am not alone in believing that its use was legal and precedented. Your position on this is also understandable, given your differing starting assumptions and your differing experience during the tournament. Can we please agree that neither of us is being "ridiculous" on this bit?
You are misrepresenting my position here. I don't believe either of us could have seen precedents on our side, as there were no precedents. There were in fact no rulings, it hadn't been brought up as a question. So no no, you clearly don't understand the meaning of precedent here, as I am using it.

Quote
I agree that it's tragic and difficult that the rules for the game we were playing aren't written down anywhere. Theory did his best to give us a tournament on short notice, and there were holes. Oh well. We have to do our best.
But there are rules. You just choose to ignore them because you don't like them. They CAN apply, you just don't think they should, or don't want them to, or something.
Quote
On the contrary, it is common in communities other than yours. People have such a hard time realizing that the internet is putting them in touch with people who come from very different places. In the competitive Magic community, for instance, it is taken for granted at this point that these kinds of in-game notes are perfectly permissible, and used by most players in most tournaments.
Yeah, but the point is that makes it uncommon. It's not universally held. Allowing one to think is more or less universally held. Allowing someone to take notes is not. So I don't buy the common sense argument here, or that they are analogous. I think you can see the difference between the two. If you can't, there's not much point in arguing with you.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.

Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
I weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.

This is at heart a religious argument, and I think we should stay away. From my perspective, if you are dead, nothing can possibly matter to you, so it is incoherent to suggest that something could matter more than survival.
There is one complication to this, which is that there are states of life that seem to be clearly worse than not existing. In those cases (such as when facing extreme torture, or when facing the guilt of not having sacrificed yourself to save 50 orphans) self-sacrifice can be reasonable.
Not at all on the religious front. My atheist friends agree with this statement as well. Of course, they view that it is possible to live in a state which is worse than nothingness, as you suggest, which I disagree with, but religion is not necessary to hold integrity above survival. Atheists have sacrificed their lives for others, as you say. And I am saying that the guilt that ought to be associated with loss of integrity outweighs necessity of survival, infinitely. Your argument is also largely dependent on accepting consequentialism, which I reject as a system of practical ethics, as it requires you to calculate the consequences of the action in question until the end of time (or in your case, the end of your lifetime, if you are certain that nothing after the end of your life will affect you within your life; of course, you would also have to know when your life will end), which is something you cannot do.
Instead, your argument is entirely self-centered, which I mean quite literally. You claim that nothing can matter to you after you are dead, which inherently implies that all that you value is related to your self.

Quote
Quote
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.

What? No, not even a little bit.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.[/quote]

Even given the resources to do that, no. What if I devise a system for encoding notes to myself in what look like friendly chat message to the other players? What if fiddling with the pencils on my desk is a code? No observer will ever be able to distinguish memory-aid from not-memory-aid.[/quote]
If you want to go to extremes, nothing is enforceable. Great, we should have no laws!

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.

Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
Clearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.

I do it because it is what I believe strongly is fair and right. It's less about my own interest (you can easily see this from the fact that I volunteered to share my spreadsheet publicly with the other contestants) and more about the principle of the thing.

If I were self-interested, I would have dropped all discussion as soon as theory said he wouldn't DQ me for the point counter, I would have used it, and that would have been that. Instead, I pushed for a more rigorously fair ruleset, and as a result I got one that was much less to my liking and much less to my advantage.

If I were self-interested, I would not have started posting videos of my thought process right before the finals. If I were self-interested, I would not have mentioned publicly that I intended to use the extension. Your reading of the facts here is obnoxiously selective.
Not at all. There are other ways in which things affect your self-interest other than what you have posted here. You have some self-interest in believing you are being reasonable, some self-interest in believing you are acting ethically, some self-interest in APPEARING to be all of these things, etc. etc. Self-interest has a much greater scope than what you are saying.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #313 on: July 04, 2012, 04:01:29 pm »
0

Okay, here we go.
"I don't see why we should change the rules at one player's request (and to his advantage - WanderingWinder is on record as saying that he is against the point counter largely because he enjoys and is very good at memorization)."
"Given that some of my opponents might want to win, I should assume that they will do so, and thus I should too if I don't want to be at a disadvantage, and to prevent all of that nonsense it should just be legal."
Furthermore, the other people make it clear that it is there request as well that you don't use it, and implicitly that by their interpretation, it's against the rules. So is one person's request, to their advantage, reason to change the rules, or not? You argue both sides.

The issue here is that I didn't (and don't) believe I was advocating for a change in the rules. I was advocating against making the extension illegal when it had been legal all along. I know you disagree, but please remember my base assumptions before you accuse me of hypocrisy.
No, I am remembering that. See, that has nothing to do with your duplicity here. What you are saying in the first case, is that one player's request is insignificant, whereas later, when it is your own request, it is significant. Further, you can look at THIS as duplicitous, because you yourself made that original statement clearly knowing that I thought that this was NOT a change in the rules - in that instance, it is you who clearly were not talking into account my belief that asking for the prohibition was not a change in the rules.

Quote
Quote
There's this gem from very early on: "I can't really believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion." Who is the one blowing it out of proportion, now, man?

Uh... you? You've left out the context of that quote, which if anyone cares to actually click on your link, they will see is a direct response to your spurious threat of legal action, which remains the high water mark of insanity in all this.
Not more so than this is taken out of context. I never threatened legal action. I said that suing was an option open to me, which is clearly true, but at the same time, I clearly stated my lack of desire to actually do it.
Nevertheless, that context is irrelevant to your accusation that I am blowing things out of proportion, when you are the one envisioning some grand change to the way entire things are run, and making all kinds of other claims. Indeed, I don't feel you're being terribly more out there than I am. But you aren't being less so.

Quote
Quote
"Given his definitions in a private correspondence, he is now accusing the tournament organizer of announcing his intention to cheat. I feel that this is a pretty clear objective indicator that it is his definitions that need adjustment, rather than mine."
theory later makes it clear that he considers PCE cheating, and you don't change definitions. So is this a clear objective indicator or not?
You don't respond to this one, so I'm guessing you see this as really duplicitous. Glad you can see one of them, anyway.

Quote
Finally, there's the innumerable places where you're all over the place on whether or not the thing gives you an advantage. It gives an advantage, it gives no advantage, it gives a small advantage, it doesn't really matter. And you keep arguing all over. So I am consistent here, I think it's a significant advantage, and if you didn't think it was, by your arguments, you should have no problem disabling it.

What? It's definitely an advantage. I don't think I've said anything else. I certainly don't think it gives five isotropic levels worth of advantage, and the anecdotal evidence seems to support me strongly.

EDIT: Doing something else for 30-60 minutes, I'll be back.
Guess I'll give you this one, I'm sorry. Definitely seen a bunch of people saying this, but after carefully checking, I can't find a case where you did. I apologize.

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #314 on: July 04, 2012, 04:30:01 pm »
+9

Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.

>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.

Done.  End of topic.  The tournament organizer said don't use it.  The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.
Logged

philosophyguy

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 575
  • Respect: +299
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #315 on: July 04, 2012, 04:34:09 pm »
+4

Quoting Personman:
Quote
I disagree. The rules of online Dominion (which don't exist) should remain in effect, since that's what we were playing. It really bears little relation to paper Dominion, as I've been over in several other posts. Since those rules don't exist…

I'm confused where the idea that there are no rules for online Dominion comes from. "Online Dominion" isn't some ontologically distinct game from Dominion; it is the game of Dominion, played online. Isotropic implements the rules of Dominion; it doesn't magically create new rules that accidentally coincide with the rules of paper Dominion. You start with a deck of 7 Coppers and 3 Estates because that's the rule for Dominion. There is a trash pile because that's the rule for Dominion. Just because the "cards" are represented digitally and the trash pile is a list on a computer screen rather than a physical pile doesn't mean that "online Dominion" is a different game. It's a different medium for playing the same game.

Once we drop the pretense that online Dominion is a separate game, then the ridiculousness of Personman's position becomes apparent. Donald X. has clarified numerous times (in the threads on shuffling, point counters, etc.) that the rules of the game tell you what is allowed. Anything not specified is not automatically allowed; he's been very emphatic in his examples of how it's not possible to explicitly prohibit everything else. The default assumption is: if the rules don't speak to that option, you can't use that option.

The use of the official point counter is a variant. The tournament rules specify that this particular variant is not only allowed but is the default choice unless everyone agrees otherwise.

The PCE is a variant. It is not specified in the rules of Dominion. It is not specified in the rules of the tournament. Thus, it is not explicitly prohibited, but there is also no official sanction for it. Donald X. has said that, if it's not explicitly prohibited, it's a variant. The tournament rules are clear that, without the consent of everyone, no variations from the official tournament defaults (official point counter, random kingdom cards, etc.) are permissible.

This is not hard. Attempts to obfuscate the issue by claiming that "online Dominion" is a different game that has no rules, or that anything not explicitly banned is permitted, or that a rule about what point counters are allowed without the consent of everyone (official point counter) doesn't prohibit someone from unilaterally deciding to use an unofficial point counter, are naked examples of self-interested sophistry.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 04:35:49 pm by philosophyguy »
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #316 on: July 04, 2012, 04:36:05 pm »
+1

This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:

1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?

You haven't addressed my logic at all. Yes, of course we need some trust in society at large (or at least, everyone's lives are much better since we do). We nevertheless have penalties for breaking that trust, whether they be legal or social, and if there are no such penalties for a thing, I think that's usually the same as that thing being okay.

In a tournament environment, especially one against strangers over the internet, you have to assume that social consequences go out the window, since the prize is likely all that matters to an unknown participant. Therefore, we need tournament regulations. To actually be regulations, they need to have consequences, or else they fail to regulate anything.

Quote
Quote
We've already been over how it is reasonable from both of our perspectives to have seen precedent as on our side, and I wish you would admit. I saw other players use it without complaint, I used it without complaint, and I am not alone in believing that its use was legal and precedented. Your position on this is also understandable, given your differing starting assumptions and your differing experience during the tournament. Can we please agree that neither of us is being "ridiculous" on this bit?
You are misrepresenting my position here. I don't believe either of us could have seen precedents on our side, as there were no precedents. There were in fact no rulings, it hadn't been brought up as a question. So no no, you clearly don't understand the meaning of precedent here, as I am using it.

You're right, I'm not using precedent to mean "previously handed-down judicial decisions". I'm using it to mean "previously community-accepted behavior". I'm sorry I misunderstood your position; I continue to maintain that given our respective preconditions, we both came to reasonable, contradictory conclusions on this front.

Quote
Quote
I agree that it's tragic and difficult that the rules for the game we were playing aren't written down anywhere. Theory did his best to give us a tournament on short notice, and there were holes. Oh well. We have to do our best.
But there are rules. You just choose to ignore them because you don't like them. They CAN apply, you just don't think they should, or don't want them to, or something.

Stop repeating this without addressing my reasoning for why it is false. Online dominion is a very different beast from paper dominion, and has no particular reason to fall back on the rulebook AT ALL. If it did, the differences between isotropic and the real rules would result in people "cheating" all the time, e.g. by hiding the top card of their discard pile.

Quote
Quote
On the contrary, it is common in communities other than yours. People have such a hard time realizing that the internet is putting them in touch with people who come from very different places. In the competitive Magic community, for instance, it is taken for granted at this point that these kinds of in-game notes are perfectly permissible, and used by most players in most tournaments.
Yeah, but the point is that makes it uncommon. It's not universally held. Allowing one to think is more or less universally held. Allowing someone to take notes is not. So I don't buy the common sense argument here, or that they are analogous. I think you can see the difference between the two. If you can't, there's not much point in arguing with you.

Notes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.

I'm going to pass on continuing the whole integrity debate. We obviously have some really fundamental differences there and I have no desire to try to resolve them further.

Ditto for the bit about how I'm self-interested in various ways. It's a long semantic argument that I don't really feel like having, and that most people reading probably aren't interested in. I think I've demonstrated beyond all doubt that I have acted in good faith within the scope of the tournament itself.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.

What? No, not even a little bit.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.

Even given the resources to do that, no. What if I devise a system for encoding notes to myself in what look like friendly chat message to the other players? What if fiddling with the pencils on my desk is a code? No observer will ever be able to distinguish memory-aid from not-memory-aid.

If you want to go to extremes, nothing is enforceable. Great, we should have no laws!

Stop switching between in-game and legal perspectives. Laws that are difficult to enforce are often a good idea because a) when they CAN be enforced you don't want to let the culprit off the hook because there is no law on the books and b) their mere existence is a strong moral deterrent for some people, and we should do whatever we can to stop people from doing things that are ACTUALLY BAD for society.

In-game, only enforcing things when you happen to be able to is terrible and unfair, and using the extension does not cause any real harm to society, so there are no justifications for avoidable unenforceable rules.

There's a really important point here that I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by more people, so I'm being liberal with my use of bold. I freely admit that there are unavoidable unenforceable rules in online Dominion. The obvious example is collusion/collaboration. Two players in a multiplayer game could be sitting next to each other, or use any communication device, to conspire against another. One "player" could in fact be a whole room full of Dominion experts conferring about what to do. These are obviously against the rules, and obviously unenforceable. This is an unsolvable structural flaw with all online competition, and it is a compelling reason not to use online competition for things that REALLY matter. I accept that we have to trust people not to do these things, because there is simply no alternative except not holding online competitions. However, this is not a good reason to add additional, unnecessary unenforceable rules. I agree that the line is blurry, and I don't think anyone can draw it. My opinion about where the extension falls in relation to that line is inevitably colored by the fact that I think it makes it a better game, or at least those who do not accept my arguments will always see it as so colored. I think this is the strongest argument against my position, and I'm really surprised that it has only come up once, in passing, near the beginning of the thread.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 04:44:17 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #317 on: July 04, 2012, 04:36:56 pm »
+1

Consider the following scenario:
There is  a monopoly tournament. A participant asks the organizer "can I steal money from the bank assuming that don't get caught"
The organizer says "you may not do so, but if you do so I will not disqualify you" (he won't, of course, since he wouldn't have caught him.)
I think in this case I think everyone will agree that stealing is still against the rules. Since it's very hard to imagine that the organizer can change the facts by saying a virtual tautology ('I will not disqualify those whom I don't catch').
Now what I don't understand is why is this case any different from the one we are discussing?
The obvious answer is that once the phrase "I Will not disqualify you for x" is no longer a tautology it has the extra implied meaning of "it is legal to do x"
But I guess my point is that obviously people can be disqualified without cheating (because they are not US residents, in this case) and they can cheat without being disqualified (if they don't get caught) so why would we think that when someone says the words "you will not be disqualified for x" he means anything other than what he said that you will not be disqualified for x? not because x is legal but because
a) the organizer is to lazy to disqualify you
b) the organizer just doesn't like disqualifying people
c) the organizer will assume you only did x by mistake
d) the organizer believes that the world will end tomorrow so he wont get around to disqualifying you.
And even if you think that the phrase "I will not disqualify you for x" does sometimes have certain implications other than what it literally means, if those implications are explicitly contradicted the one who uttered the phrase (as they were in this case) than clearly the phrase should not take on its implied meaning
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #318 on: July 04, 2012, 04:40:58 pm »
+4

the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"

This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.

The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #319 on: July 04, 2012, 04:41:58 pm »
0

the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"

This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.

The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?

Obligatory blue dog joke.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #320 on: July 04, 2012, 04:42:34 pm »
0

Consider the following scenario:
There is  a monopoly tournament. A participant asks the organizer "can I steal money from the bank assuming that don't get caught"
The organizer says "you may not do so, but if you do so I will not disqualify you" (he won't, of course, since he wouldn't have caught him.)
I think in this case I think everyone will agree that stealing is still against the rules. Since it's very hard to imagine that the organizer can change the facts by saying a virtual tautology ('I will not disqualify those whom I don't catch').
Now what I don't understand is why is this case any different from the one we are discussing?

It's different because he said he wouldn't DQ me even if he did "catch" me, ie, even if I used it openly and posted video of myself using it. He also gave his reasons for not DQing me, and they were on the grounds of fairness and unenforceability.

I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter. I believe that in that conversation, theory clearly demonstrated a full understanding of and agreement with my logic, but simply had different priorities, ie, he held his desire for the participants to play harmoniously, and his desire to trust them not to cheat, above his desire for everything to proceed in the most strictly, rigorously fair fashion.

That is a position I do not hold, but it is a reasonable one and one I respect him for.

the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"

This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.

The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?

God this is frustrating. I understand the bind theory was in, but I do think he really messed up when he said that. Here's the whole quote (now that it's public, I hope theory forgives me for quoting him...):

Quote
Here's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals).  But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.

This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it. Yes, it is great fodder for making fun of me, since it contains a phrase but means its opposite. Other people might have different priorities, and might have decided to shut up and "be nice" to theory and trust their opponents. And quite honestly, I do think I trust the guys my opponents turned out to be. But I'll never know for sure. They will always just be guys on the other side of the internet. And since they too know that there will be no penalty for using the extension, I'm sure as hell going to use it too.

Again, I feel for him, but I think what theory did here was really wrong. It made politeness and certain kinds of morals into selected-against qualities, and that's not good for a community ever. It made me play, and WW quit. WW says he would have quit anyway if theory's ruling had been unambiguously in favor of the extension, but that's his own problem. Competitions should NEVER EVER have soft pressure like this. It can only make nice people less likely to win.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 04:52:32 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #321 on: July 04, 2012, 04:46:24 pm »
+1

Side comment about enforceability - basically every sport and game has rules which are not enforceable UNLESS you have an umpire standing over every player's shoulder at all times.

At the highest levels of competition, that's what actually happens. You have umpires who stand there and make sure that no rules get broken.

Typically, at lower levels of competition, when having an umpire present in person within eyesight of each player isn't practical, the rules stay the same, but some of them end up being enforced only by the players themselves, or not enforced at all. But the rules don't change.
Logged

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #322 on: July 04, 2012, 04:48:13 pm »
0

Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #323 on: July 04, 2012, 04:54:59 pm »
0

Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it

To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #324 on: July 04, 2012, 04:58:47 pm »
0

Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it

To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
Because a CHAT box, was intended to be used for CHATTING.  Anything else should be considered at the very least as devious. 
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #325 on: July 04, 2012, 05:01:15 pm »
0

Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.

>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.

Done.  End of topic.  The tournament organizer said don't use it.  The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.

QFT

For the life of me, I can't figure out how Personman got past #2 in the timeline, both in the version posted by him and by theory.
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #326 on: July 04, 2012, 05:02:23 pm »
0

Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it

To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
Because a CHAT box, was intended to be used for CHATTING.  Anything else should be considered at the very least as devious. 

o_O so I have to use every part of the game in accordance with its designers intentions, or I'm being "devious"? So if I ironworks a Cutpurse when my opponent has no coppers, because I know I can draw my whole deck anyway and I need to be able to see what's in eir hand right now before I decide whether to buy the second to last province, that's "devious"? If Donald wants to step in and claim that he foresaw that potential use when he designed the card, I'll gladly think of another example...
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Captain_Frisk

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1257
  • Respect: +1263
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #327 on: July 04, 2012, 05:06:40 pm »
+5


I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.

If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
Logged
I support funsockets.... taking as much time as they need to get it right.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #328 on: July 04, 2012, 05:06:46 pm »
+1

Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.

>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.

Done.  End of topic.  The tournament organizer said don't use it.  The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.

QFT

For the life of me, I can't figure out how Personman got past #2 in the timeline, both in the version posted by him and by theory.

That's strange, since I explained it in detail on the very same page of this thread that you have quoted. Here, I will make it easy for you:

the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"

This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.

The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?

God this is frustrating. I understand the bind theory was in, but I do think he really messed up when he said that. Here's the whole quote (now that it's public, I hope theory forgives me for quoting him...):

Quote
Here's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals).  But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.

This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it. Yes, it is great fodder for making fun of me, since it contains a phrase but means its opposite. Other people might have different priorities, and might have decided to shut up and "be nice" to theory and trust their opponents. And quite honestly, I do think I trust the guys my opponents turned out to be. But I'll never know for sure. They will always just be guys on the other side of the internet. And since they too know that there will be no penalty for using the extension, I'm sure as hell going to use it too.

Again, I feel for him, but I think what theory did here was really wrong. It made politeness and certain kinds of morals into selected-against qualities, and that's not good for a community ever. It made me play, and WW quit. WW says he would have quit anyway if theory's ruling had been unambiguously in favor of the extension, but that's his own problem. Competitions should NEVER EVER have soft pressure like this. It can only make nice people less likely to win.

You are free to take issue with some part of my argument and tell me why you think it is wrong, but repeating your opinion with exaggerated claims of its obviousness is not very productive.

I have done my best to back up my opinions thoroughly and consistently, and have been met with a barrage of utterly unprincipled proclamations and insults, and it is really not very kind. I am pretty good at not getting mad about words on the internet, but it does hurt a little. Please be more considerate.

WanderingWinder has been quite good about this, despite a few things that felt to me like personal attacks (his initial reaction email aside, I still can't quite get over how overboard that was). He has laid out his arguments plainly and explicitly, and I have generally enjoyed communicating with him about this issue, and I hope he feels the same for me, despite our large disagreements. I think that over the course of this thread we have come to understand each other a little better, though I am sure we will never see eye to eye.

That's what I'm here for. The kind of oblivious yelling on display in some other people's posts is just sad.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 05:11:53 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #329 on: July 04, 2012, 05:07:26 pm »
0


I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.

If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?

This is pure, unadulterated trolling. I hope that it makes you laugh!
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #330 on: July 04, 2012, 05:07:40 pm »
0


I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.

If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #331 on: July 04, 2012, 05:13:41 pm »
+1

Quote
Here's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals).  But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.

This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it.
Yes, there is.  The sane way to read it is "don't use the point counter."  What part about don't use the point counter don't you understand?
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #332 on: July 04, 2012, 05:14:21 pm »
0


I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.

If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.

I asked permission to post the thread before WW mentioned a desire to do so, and I still wish it had been granted. I understand WW's position that all communications to him can be fairly made public by him, but I also understand theory's position that what was said in private has a reasonable expectation of remaining private. If this were some sort of government conspiracy, I might act differently, and play the whistleblower, but since it was a request from someone I like and respect, I made the simple human decision to honor it. WW has chosen differently, and, well, I can't stop him, and I find some parts of what he has done useful. It's not a black and white issue, and I'm not posturing.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

czechvarmander

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #333 on: July 04, 2012, 05:19:18 pm »
+3


I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.

If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.

I asked permission to post the thread before WW mentioned a desire to do so, and I still wish it had been granted. I understand WW's position that all communications to him can be fairly made public by him, but I also understand theory's position that what was said in private has a reasonable expectation of remaining private. If this were some sort of government conspiracy, I might act differently, and play the whistleblower, but since it was a request from someone I like and respect, I made the simple human decision to honor it. WW has chosen differently, and, well, I can't stop him, and I find some parts of what he has done useful. It's not a black and white issue, and I'm not posturing.

But if there was a prize for releasing the conversation or if it had been part of a "game" then it would have been alright to go against the request from someone you like and respect?
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #334 on: July 04, 2012, 05:24:11 pm »
0

Quote
repeating your opinion with exaggerated claims of its obviousness is not very productive.

Well the post you were referring to was my first one here, so I was hardly repeating anything yet.

Unless quoting a post I had already +1'd containing an opinion I agreed with counts as repeating, which I guess could be the case, but calling that repeating definitely doesn't come to my mind right away, hence my immediate reaction in the last sentence about not repeating :P

Quote
since it was a request from someone I like and respect, I made the simple human decision to honor it.
But it was too much to honor theory's explicit "don't use the point counter"? I haz a confused. Just seems like at that point the sportsmanlike thing to do there would have been to drop the issue and not play with the point counter, rather than take advantage of theory's admittance that there was not realistically much that could be done to enforce it.

Anyway I knew I shouldn't post in this train wreck, but for some reason couldn't resist, and now of course regret getting myself involved since no good will come of it.
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #335 on: July 04, 2012, 05:24:55 pm »
0

You're buying groceries and have 12 items to check out.  Now, there are several lines you could join, but you decide to line up in the shortest one -- the Express checkout.  The Express checkout is only for people with 10 items or less.

Read: "Please do not come to this till with more than 10 items."

You get to the cashier.  You have more than 10 items.  What is the cashier going to do?  Make a big fuss, call security and get you to leave?  No.  The cashier is going to check out your 12 items.  In fact, other people have probably gone through with even more items than you.

You didn't get penalized.  You were allowed to check out more than 10 items in the "10 items or less" line. 

You still broke the rules.
Logged

Insomniac

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 785
  • Respect: +392
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #336 on: July 04, 2012, 05:25:27 pm »
0

Guys the thread is devolving into personal attacks instead of a DEBATE like mentioned in the topic title, can we try and get back to debating instead of arguing and making personal attacks
Logged
"It is one of [Insomniacs] badges of pride that he will bus anyone, at any time, and he has done it over and over on day 1. I am completely serious, it is like the biggest part of his meta." - Dsell

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #337 on: July 04, 2012, 05:30:00 pm »
+1

Personman, you are getting crazy.

Originally I was (sort of) on your side. I do like games with PCE better, and I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.

If theory had not told you explicitly that he would not like you to use the PCE, I would say you are okay. Rules can have different interpretations. Enable the official one but not the unofficial one does make things muddy.

But here you are just twisting his logic. His logic is pretty clear to me. He said:
0. I would not like you to use the PCE.
1. this is qualification for the nationals.
2. In the nationals you cannot use any point counter.
3. For the purpose of the tournament (that is to find the best player) it is thus best not to use a point counter.

And you simply ignores this. You only read this part:
4. I won't disqualify you if you are using PCE, just as I cannot disqualify someone using pen and paper.

This part is he sympathizing you. If you are really not self-interested (I mean not necessarily only interested in winning the tournament, but also maybe winning the argument with WW) and have a common interest with the rest of us trying to find the best player for the nationals, the only reasonable thing I can see is to not use PCE (and maybe suggest to turn off the official one as well.) It seems to me keeping things fair has become your dominant interest (which is coming from the fact that your original justifying reason for using the point counter is to keep things fair). But if you are that interested in fairness to the extent that you don't care about what this tournament is about and what the tournament director says, you may as well just play paper, scissors, stone.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #338 on: July 04, 2012, 05:30:56 pm »
0

Using the PCE in dominion is like the little brother of using a dictionary in Scrabble.  I don't think either is strictly prohibited in the rules (Correct me if I'm wrong on Scrabble, I might have missed it), but both go against the rules none-the-less.
Logged
A man on a mission.

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #339 on: July 04, 2012, 05:35:27 pm »
0

Again, I feel for him, but I think what theory did here was really wrong. It made politeness and certain kinds of morals into selected-against qualities, and that's not good for a community ever. ... Competitions should NEVER EVER have soft pressure like this. It can only make nice people less likely to win.

Competitions of all kinds HAVE to have soft pressure like this at all levels below the level where it becomes practical to have umpires standing around each player. Don't forget that.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #340 on: July 04, 2012, 05:37:14 pm »
0

Personman, you are getting crazy.

Originally I was (sort of) on your side. I do like games with PCE better, and I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.

If theory had not told you explicitly that he would not like you to use the PCE, I would say you are okay. Rules can have different interpretations. Enable the official one but not the unofficial one does make things muddy.

But here you are just twisting his logic. His logic is pretty clear to me. He said:
0. I would not like you to use the PCE.
1. this is qualification for the nationals.
2. In the nationals you cannot use any point counter.
3. For the purpose of the tournament (that is to find the best player) it is thus best not to use a point counter.

And you simply ignores this. You only read this part:
4. I won't disqualify you if you are using PCE, just as I cannot disqualify someone using pen and paper.

This part is he sympathizing you. If you are really not self-interested (I mean not necessarily only interested in winning the tournament, but also maybe winning the argument with WW) and have a common interest with the rest of us trying to find the best player for the nationals, the only reasonable thing I can see is to not use PCE (and maybe suggest to turn off the official one as well.) It seems to me keeping things fair has become your dominant interest (which is coming from the fact that your original justifying reason for using the point counter is to keep things fair). But if you are that interested in fairness to the extent that you don't care about what this tournament is about and what the tournament director says, you may as well just play paper, scissors, stone.

You have called me crazy, and repeated other people's arguments without responding to any of mine. This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.

Other people have presented rebuttals, and I have responded to them. To further the discussion, you must respond to those responses, not make the original statement more forecefully. Please? I would really appreciate it.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #341 on: July 04, 2012, 05:45:18 pm »
0

This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.

Is this the crux of the issue then?  Everyone else (even those who originally sided with you) seems to agree that the first part of theory's statement, where he asks you not to use the extension, is the more important part.  So I'm not sure why you are making it sound like you are in the right and it's weird that everyone else doesn't agree with your position.
Logged

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #342 on: July 04, 2012, 05:49:17 pm »
0

This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.

That is what we are pointing out.  You may think that it is legal based on what he said; no one else does.  If theory meant to allow using the PCE, then why wouldn't he just say it is allowed?  He said explicitly not to use it.  You may think you are some sort of clever rules lawyer, but "don't use the point counter" means exactly that.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #343 on: July 04, 2012, 05:50:14 pm »
+3

To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
And hey, what about writing notes on your belly in your own blood at a tournament in real life? It's your blood.

People are great believers in false things; interested parties can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases. Part of believing a false thing is thinking it's not false! So it's no surprise that this is going nowhere.

It's nice that Personman is so good-natured as he pats himself on the back for promoting cheating as a way to defend justice. I am ruder about these things, I don't know what to tell you. To me the important things are 1) to have it always be clear to casual readers that some people do not believe a word of Personman's nonsense, wow harsh, and 2) that people using the online program have a way to block people. And then, guys, you can just block Personman and never play him. That might keep you out of large tournaments, but well there are probably more Personmen in them anyway.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #344 on: July 04, 2012, 05:56:43 pm »
+2

I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.

BTW, I can answer this one; I enjoy playing without any counters. It's just one more skill to add on. I definitely worked on learning to remember what's left; it's a pretty nice feeling to be able to end the game by three-piling with a tied score and winning on turns, and knowing that that's a skill that I learned and acquired, a win possibility that I caught but my opponent didn't. It certainly wouldn't be as exciting to do that if I could just look at the point counter and see the score and be like "okay, well, I guess I end the game with a win now."

It's like playing with a simulator. If I can run a some sims at the beginning of the game and check the speed of a few available strategies, that takes some of the fun and skill out of picking a strategy. I mean, you can argue that that still leaves the skill remaining in, say, duchy-dancing, or in executing the strategy precisely - and it does, a simulator available wouldn't help that much. And of course there's lots and lots of boards where a sim doesn't help at all. But there's  some boards where it does, and there's no sense of accomplishment in that, so might as well keep that out, especially since it's not available in IRL dominion games.

So I prefer the rules as they are, with no point counters. It's not a big hurdle to jump through, it's not like it's locking people out of playing this game until they learn lots of memorization techniques, it's one more thing that you can learn to do to give you a slight advantage and feel good about when you get it to work.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #345 on: July 04, 2012, 06:00:54 pm »
+1

If theory told me not to open Sea Hag because it would accentuate first player advantage and thus decrease the accuracy of the tournament in predicting who will do best in nationals, but said, "but if you do it, I won't disqualify you for it, even if I know you did it." then I totally agree with his sentiment.  But I'm going to open Sea Hag because I'm trying to win, even though I know I'm damaging the accuracy of the competition itself.  Because that's what a player does by definition, he takes any legal action available that increases his probability of winning.  If Sea Hag happened to somehow do little or nothing at all to my probability of winning - unlikely, for my example, but maybe if it was Young Witch with a good bane, eh - then I would indulge theory and not take the opening.  The only value in theory's statement is that that might be the case.  If Personman did not gain much benefit from the extension and was not very good at utilizing it, he might have just turned it off.  But since he actually is very good at utilizing it, he shouldn't be expected to turn it off any more than he should be expected to open copper/copper because he's trying to win.


As an example of an actual case where something could increase the accuracy of a competition in producing proper finalists, but have little impact on one's chance of winning, I offer this - In one of the Isodoms, against opponents whose relative skills I didn't know much about, I offered to ban Familiar by mutual agreement.  According to councilroom I'm sorta somewhat maybe good with the card, but the loss of advantage is very small, while the increased chance of an appropriate finalist for isodom which probably will be decided by skill more so than 2p seemed worth it to me.

Against Young Nick, who I had an 0-2 record against on councilroom, I didn't ban Familiar.  I purposely subverted the accuracy of the tournament in order to win.  As a player that's what I should be expected to do.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #346 on: July 04, 2012, 06:02:07 pm »
0

To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
And hey, what about writing notes on your belly in your own blood at a tournament in real life? It's your blood.

People are great believers in false things; interested parties can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases. Part of believing a false thing is thinking it's not false! So it's no surprise that this is going nowhere.

It's nice that Personman is so good-natured as he pats himself on the back for promoting cheating as a way to defend justice. I am ruder about these things, I don't know what to tell you. To me the important things are 1) to have it always be clear to casual readers that some people do not believe a word of Personman's nonsense, wow harsh, and 2) that people using the online program have a way to block people. And then, guys, you can just block Personman and never play him. That might keep you out of large tournaments, but well there are probably more Personmen in them anyway.


What you quote was not a legitimate belief that people who think note taking is illegal ought to think that using the chat box is legal. I'm just trying to generally problematize the notion that you can enforce or even define what "note taking" is - what about your own blood on your belly? If there were a lot at stake and it weren't outlawed, perhaps someone would try it! And that, I'm sure we all agree, would be horrible. This is a big part of the reason why I think note taking should be legal: it just dodges all of this reductive nonsense, and you never have to argue with anyone about whether what they are doing is note taking.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #347 on: July 04, 2012, 06:02:56 pm »
0

Why would you refuse to play with someone just because they have nonstandard beliefs about language?
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #348 on: July 04, 2012, 06:03:25 pm »
0

Yeah, Sorry. Was talking to Personman, so that part was probably a bit exaggerated. I do admit personally I have no interest in the memory department though. Certainly I can only speak for myself.
Logged

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #349 on: July 04, 2012, 06:06:19 pm »
+1

Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #350 on: July 04, 2012, 06:07:42 pm »
+1

I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.

BTW, I can answer this one; I enjoy playing without any counters. It's just one more skill to add on. I definitely worked on learning to remember what's left; it's a pretty nice feeling to be able to end the game by three-piling with a tied score and winning on turns, and knowing that that's a skill that I learned and acquired, a win possibility that I caught but my opponent didn't. It certainly wouldn't be as exciting to do that if I could just look at the point counter and see the score and be like "okay, well, I guess I end the game with a win now."

It's like playing with a simulator. If I can run a some sims at the beginning of the game and check the speed of a few available strategies, that takes some of the fun and skill out of picking a strategy. I mean, you can argue that that still leaves the skill remaining in, say, duchy-dancing, or in executing the strategy precisely - and it does, a simulator available wouldn't help that much. And of course there's lots and lots of boards where a sim doesn't help at all. But there's  some boards where it does, and there's no sense of accomplishment in that, so might as well keep that out, especially since it's not available in IRL dominion games.

So I prefer the rules as they are, with no point counters. It's not a big hurdle to jump through, it's not like it's locking people out of playing this game until they learn lots of memorization techniques, it's one more thing that you can learn to do to give you a slight advantage and feel good about when you get it to work.

I know this is besides the point, but how do you end the game and win on turns?  Can't you only lose or tie on turns when you end?
Logged
A man on a mission.

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #351 on: July 04, 2012, 06:11:48 pm »
+1

Personman, it's you who is ignoring me first. But ok, forget what theory had said, let me just be plain and ask a few question here:

(1) do you agree or not that since this tournament is qualification for the nationals where point counters are clearly not allowed, it is better to play with point counter disabled? (please for now suppose players won't cheat)

If you don't agree, I don't think there can be any more beneficial discussion. Suppose you agree:

(2) Now as you said there can be incentive for one player to cheat. But how does it help by using the PCE yourself?

I dunno your answer, but all I can see is that at most it can help you compete with cheaters. But that does not help the overall situation, as we dunno whether you are better at this memory department as well.

In short: I can understand and agree why you think the point counter should be allowed, but I have no way justifying your insistence on using it once your opponent disagrees and the tournament director directly tells you not to do so.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 06:14:12 pm by timchen »
Logged

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #352 on: July 04, 2012, 06:13:14 pm »
0

Personman, to answer your question if note taking is illegal that definitely includes the chat box and your own blood - it is still notes! So I don't think its undefinable. (Well in a philosophical rigorous sense, it is but then again what isn't) Still waiting on the ruling from Donald about verbal point tracking though.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #353 on: July 04, 2012, 06:14:15 pm »
0

Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?

I can't wait to see what Donald says, but here are my thoughts:

On isotropic, yes, you are allowed to talk to yourself. I was talking about the game (and sometimes the score) into my microphone the whole time, and I had announced my intention to do commentary on the games as they happened before, and no one took any issue.

In an in-person tournament, I think most people would interpret talking about the score as helping your opponents, and thus would not say anything. However, there is potential for abuse via lying about the score out loud. In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play). Dominion could come up with similar rules, or it could just allow talking and lying in general. Trying to enforce silence seems like a pretty bad idea, since decisions need to be made for cards, and point totals could be indicated with hand gestures, etc. You could try to have a judge determine whether any player was doing something suspiciously like trying to communicate point totals, but that outlaws what I think is a pretty common thing: on the last turn, when you don't mind giving away information anymore, talking through your memory of the game to try to reconstruct who bought what and make sure you are safe to end it. I've done that in an actual paper Dominion tournament before (a private one) and everyone thought it was normal.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #354 on: July 04, 2012, 06:16:47 pm »
0

Personman, it's you who is ignoring me first. But ok, forget what theory had said, let me just be plain and ask a few question here:

(1) do you agree or not that since this tournament is qualification for the nationals where point counters are clearly not allowed, it is better to play with point counter disabled? (please for now suppose players won't cheat)

If you don't agree, I don't think there can be any more beneficial discussion. Suppose you agree:

(2) Now as you said there can be incentive for one player to cheat. But how does it help by using the PCE yourself?

I dunno your answer, but all I can see is that at most it can help you compete with cheaters. But that does not help the overall situation, as we dunno whether you are better at this memory department as well.

In short: I can understand and agree why you think the point counter should be allowed, but I have no way justifying your insistence on using it once your opponent disagrees and the tournament director directly tells you not to do so.


Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #355 on: July 04, 2012, 06:19:53 pm »
+1

Personman, it's you who is ignoring me first. But ok, forget what theory had said, let me just be plain and ask a few question here:

(1) do you agree or not that since this tournament is qualification for the nationals where point counters are clearly not allowed, it is better to play with point counter disabled? (please for now suppose players won't cheat)

If you don't agree, I don't think there can be any more beneficial discussion. Suppose you agree:

(2) Now as you said there can be incentive for one player to cheat. But how does it help by using the PCE yourself?

I dunno your answer, but all I can see is that at most it can help you compete with cheaters. But that does not help the overall situation, as we dunno whether you are better at this memory department as well.

In short: I can understand and agree why you think the point counter should be allowed, but I have no way justifying your insistence on using it once your opponent disagrees and the tournament director directly tells you not to do so.


Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

Its totally ridiculous to have a qualifier for an event simulate the event in any way shape or form?  Alright.  Next time, Theory can pick the winner based on who he likes the best :)
Logged
A man on a mission.

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #356 on: July 04, 2012, 06:27:31 pm »
0

Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?

I can't wait to see what Donald says, but here are my thoughts:

On isotropic, yes, you are allowed to talk to yourself. I was talking about the game (and sometimes the score) into my microphone the whole time, and I had announced my intention to do commentary on the games as they happened before, and no one took any issue.

In an in-person tournament, I think most people would interpret talking about the score as helping your opponents, and thus would not say anything. However, there is potential for abuse via lying about the score out loud. In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play). Dominion could come up with similar rules, or it could just allow talking and lying in general. Trying to enforce silence seems like a pretty bad idea, since decisions need to be made for cards, and point totals could be indicated with hand gestures, etc. You could try to have a judge determine whether any player was doing something suspiciously like trying to communicate point totals, but that outlaws what I think is a pretty common thing: on the last turn, when you don't mind giving away information anymore, talking through your memory of the game to try to reconstruct who bought what and make sure you are safe to end it. I've done that in an actual paper Dominion tournament before (a private one) and everyone thought it was normal.

Helping your opponents, in anything but a 2 player game, does not have to be allowed.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #357 on: July 04, 2012, 06:38:30 pm »
0

Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?

IANDXV, but this seems clearly okay online. You aren't using an external aid, and besides there's not much difference between saying something and imagining saying it.

IRL, the only problem I see is that it could annoy your opponent, in which case you obviously shouldn't do it, but because of general good sportsmanship and not because it violates the rules of the game.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #358 on: July 04, 2012, 06:43:18 pm »
0

Quote
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 06:44:51 pm by timchen »
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #359 on: July 04, 2012, 06:43:41 pm »
0

Quote
In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).

Sort of off-topic now, but this bit interested me--what is there that you can lie about that doesn't have to do with the game state that can actually get you an advantage? I'm curious about this.

(FWIW I've played Magic IRL like twice, and a bit on the digital version on PSN; so there's plenty I don't know about it)
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #360 on: July 04, 2012, 06:43:44 pm »
0

@Powerman and winning on turns - lol yes I'm an idiot for that comment. I actually did have an IRL win by one point game this weekend, and an IRL game where my opponent lost on turns after ending the game, but when posting the comment I thought it would be more dramatic to merge those into one, and of course skipped the fact that that's not actually possible. I feel dumb now. Sorry.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #361 on: July 04, 2012, 06:45:07 pm »
+1

Quote
In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).

Sort of off-topic now, but this bit interested me--what is there that you can lie about that doesn't have to do with the game state that can actually get you an advantage? I'm curious about this.

(FWIW I've played Magic IRL like twice, and a bit on the digital version on PSN; so there's plenty I don't know about it)

I told someone I was a hot girl in real life and he let me win!*

(*May not actually be a true story)
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

samath

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Shuffle iT Username: SamE
  • Respect: +678
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #362 on: July 04, 2012, 06:48:45 pm »
+2

This thread does have the potential to be insightful for anyone willing to read all the way through it. But yeah, now that I have, there are so many things to say...

I think I've had enough of the theory-bashing. Theory was under a lot of time pressure to get this tournament to happen, and also clearly hoped that the general friendly play of people on isotropic would prevail, rather than having to sit down and think through a foolproof ruleset. And as we're discovering, foolproof rulesets are hard to come up with. Enforceability is a big issue, but as Personman has discovered (re: collusion), it's rather tough to actually have in an online tournament. Still, theory tried to enforce it by encouraging people to record the finals and reserving the right to DQ afterwards from those videos. And so in the end, even if it was only half an hour before the finals, theory arrived at at least a pretty decent ruling.

One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling. I can offer some possibilities:
1) He was unhappy that theory was changing the rules. First, it's at least a little ambiguous that spreadsheets are disallowed in the rules. If you have to dig up a post by Donald X on the forum to get the official ruling that's further than most players will go. It's certainly more ambiguous than "identical starting hands" for those who want to argue that theory arbitrarily ruling "okay, so in the finals you guys don't get identical starting hands" would be unfair. So a clarification was certainly in order. Second, the rules never said, "Any changes to the rules must be approved by all players"; that clause is pretty clear about only applying to use or not of the official point counter. But most importantly, we all know how little time theory had to plan this tournament out, and as such, should cut him some slack with clarifying or redefining rules.
2) He expected Personman to cheat and use the PCE anyways. I think this is very unfair to both what Personman's words explicitly said and to WW's own arguments themselves. Personman was not actually planning on cheating; he was just giving the usual unenforceability argument he's repeated several times in this thread. And what do you know, in the real match he didn't cheat at all. I don't see a reason to suspect he would have with WW playing.
3) He objected to playing a game with someone who used Personman's style of reasoning, whether you want to call it relativist, or consequentialist, or what have you. Well, all I can say is that that would be like not playing with atheists. It doesn't actually affect the game and seems a bit non-sequitur. He'd certainly have the right to do that, like anyone has the right to be racist in who they live near, but I'd at least be disappointed if that was his final reason.
4) He didn't think through everything as clearly as he can now (happens to all of us) and would have re-entered had he had more time to think it through.
5) He was away from the computer for the half hour between theory's ruling and the start of the match.
I don't really have evidence against 4 or 5, except for the lack of WW complaining about the timing or apologizing and saying he would have re-entered on second thought.

Of course, WW doesn't have to respond to this if he wants to keep his reasons private. But he's entered the conversation so far, so if he's willing, I'm curious what he has to say to this.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #363 on: July 04, 2012, 06:49:20 pm »
0

Quote
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing?  The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #364 on: July 04, 2012, 06:50:51 pm »
+2

Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?

Quote
I am fine with saying the score out loud or using Ars Memorativa or what have you. When you write on yourself, you're using yourself as a notebook; it's a weird thing that only comes up to try to get around the rules. If you say the score out loud to help you remember, that's normal.
source

Quote
I am cool with people playing Dominion by whatever variants they want, provided that all players have agreed to them, including using an automatic score tracker.
source

Quote
Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. You can't do things that rules don't let you, inside the game. Outside the game, whatever. If a rulebook mentions that you can't do something, that's just to answer common questions from foolish people; if you aren't told you can, you can't, that is what it means to be rules.

It should be clear that rules work this way, because games are just utterly messed up otherwise. People can produce ridiculous questions all day. Can you put a card from your hand on your deck for next turn whenever you want? Hey maybe the rulebook covers that, I am not checking. It for sure does not answer every ridiculous question of this nature because there is no end to them.

If you accept that rules say what you can do, rather than what you can't - and why would you, this is the internet - then the question becomes, is taking notes like eating or is it actually relevant. And of course it's relevant. The game has a memory component, and of course there are games that are nothing but memory, to make it clear that memory can be an element of a game.

Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.
source
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #365 on: July 04, 2012, 06:51:59 pm »
+1

Quote
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing?  The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)

Woah, I agree!

can you stop the round and round arguments now and debate this, because it has just Rock(-paper-scissors)'ed my world!

Could be worse, it could be Rock Paper Scissors Laser Spock!
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #366 on: July 04, 2012, 06:56:09 pm »
0

It's always been Rock-Paper-Scissors for me. And, FWIW, I'm from Michigan, so if that's a regional thing where I'm from we call it that. Also, we call carbonated beverages pop, not soda where I'm from.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #367 on: July 04, 2012, 06:59:00 pm »
+1

Quote
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing?  The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)

Woah, I agree!

can you stop the round and round arguments now and debate this, because it has just Rock(-paper-scissors)'ed my world!

Could be worse, it could be Rock Paper Scissors Laser Spock!

Lizard*  ;)
Logged
A man on a mission.

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #368 on: July 04, 2012, 06:59:07 pm »
0

It's always been Rock-Paper-Scissors for me. And, FWIW, I'm from Michigan, so if that's a regional thing where I'm from we call it that. Also, we call carbonated beverages pop, not soda where I'm from.

UK here.
And we call carbonated beverages....well I dont know really, probably just 'Soft Drinks'
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #369 on: July 04, 2012, 06:59:39 pm »
0

Quote
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing?  The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)

Woah, I agree!

can you stop the round and round arguments now and debate this, because it has just Rock(-paper-scissors)'ed my world!

Could be worse, it could be Rock Paper Scissors Laser Spock!

Lizard*  ;)

Well, thats one thing you got right and I agree with so far in this thread then! *grins*

(And I spent ages deciding what version of Laser/Lazer to use as well! )
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #370 on: July 04, 2012, 07:05:45 pm »
+2

Quote
In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).

Sort of off-topic now, but this bit interested me--what is there that you can lie about that doesn't have to do with the game state that can actually get you an advantage? I'm curious about this.

(FWIW I've played Magic IRL like twice, and a bit on the digital version on PSN; so there's plenty I don't know about it)

I wasn't quite precise. You can't lie about the public game state.

You can lie about the contents of your deck. You can lie about how you sideboarded. You can lie about what you just drew, or what's in your hand - this is the most common one, as you can say something like "I have the [card that you know is in my deck that wins the game], scoop?" and if they do (to 'scoop' is to concede) then you win, even if you didn't have the card.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #371 on: July 04, 2012, 07:50:32 pm »
0

After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")
Logged

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #372 on: July 04, 2012, 07:54:02 pm »
0


One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling.
Because he held that even after Theory's ruling the spreadsheet was illegal and so didn't want to play with it available since he didn't want to cheat himself (I think)
Logged

samath

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Shuffle iT Username: SamE
  • Respect: +678
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #373 on: July 04, 2012, 08:00:26 pm »
0


One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling.
Because he held that even after Theory's ruling the spreadsheet was illegal and so didn't want to play with it available since he didn't want to cheat himself (I think)

...which basically amounts to saying that theory is not allowed to change the rules, because theory said that the spreadsheet was legal. That's option #1, and again, quite a strenuous demand on theory ("get the rules right the first time for a last-minute tournament with all unstated rules interpreted in one particular way, and no takebacks!").
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #374 on: July 04, 2012, 08:05:06 pm »
0

After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")

This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #375 on: July 04, 2012, 08:10:23 pm »
0

I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

He said "don't use the point counter."  Why do we have to say that so many times?  What part of that don't you understand?
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #376 on: July 04, 2012, 08:18:06 pm »
0

Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

Because lots of things that are not DQ-able can still be inappropriate/cheating/whatever.

One more analogy - it's the difference between someone being "actually innocent" versus "found not guilty in a court of law". The two aren't the same; "This is illegal but no court will ever convict you" is a statement that makes sense and is roughly analogous to "Don't do this, but I won't DQ you if you do".
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #377 on: July 04, 2012, 08:26:19 pm »
0

I registered long ago that other people think differently than me about what "don't do this but I won't DQ you" means. You don't have to say it more than once; I got it.

If you want to convince me of it, you'll certainly have to do more than repeat it.

What I don't understand is why people still express confusion over my interpretation. It's like

Me: I think X.
Someone: Why?
Me: Because Z.
Someone: But I think Z is wrong. So why do think X!?!?!?!?!?!?

Which is pretty frustrating. You can convince me that Z is false, or you can agree to disagree, but you can't say "I don't like your premise, so you must be an idiot for deriving your conclusion from it."

This very difference in opinion about what "Don't do X but I won't DQ you for it" means is exactly why I think it was irresponsible of theory to say that. Some people will take it the way I do. Other people will take it a different way. And I will thereby gain an advantage over those people for no good reason at all.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

czechvarmander

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #378 on: July 04, 2012, 08:32:26 pm »
+1

This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

There's a number of reasons you have to say it so many times, the largest being that it makes no sense.

Particularly when you tried to take the "principled" stance in regards to theory telling you not to make the e-mail chain public.

In that case there also would have been no consequences had you disregarded what theory told you, yet then you said you didn't want to publish the conversation because you respect theory and want to do as he requests.

I'm still curious why you think his request for you to not use the PCE is not the same. In both cases there would have been no consequences, yet in one case you acquiesced and in the other you did not.

Did you not respect theory when he made the first request and found that respect when he made the second? Does there being a prize override the ethics that guided your second decision?

Why did you take the noble stand of listening to theory's request one time and the noble stand of not listening to theory's request the other?
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #379 on: July 04, 2012, 08:36:22 pm »
0

This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

There's a number of reasons you have to say it so many times, the largest being that it makes no sense.

Particularly when you tried to take the "principled" stance in regards to theory telling you not to make the e-mail chain public.

In that case there also would have been no consequences had you disregarded what theory told you, yet then you said you didn't want to publish the conversation because you respect theory and want to do as he requests.

I'm still curious why you think his request for you to not use the PCE is not the same. In both cases there would have been no consequences, yet in one case you acquiesced and in the other you did not.

Did you not respect theory when he made the first request and found that respect when he made the second? Does there being a prize override the ethics that guided your second decision?

Why did you take the noble stand of listening to theory's request one time and the noble stand of not listening to theory's request the other?

I am really close to the end of my rope here. If I simply start ignoring you, it is because, as with this post and so many previous ones, you have simply ignored many things I've already said. But I will give it one more go:

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

czechvarmander

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #380 on: July 04, 2012, 08:41:35 pm »
+3

I am really close to the end of my rope here. If I simply start ignoring you, it is because, as with this post and so many previous ones, you have simply ignored many things I've already said. But I will give it one more go:

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.

Ohhh, that clears it up perfectly and is not at all flawed logic.

So you're cool if your significant other and myself play a game of Adulteryball? 'Cause having an affair is part of that game and is therefore somehow distinct from real life.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #381 on: July 04, 2012, 08:44:42 pm »
+1

Look, when someone says something and you know that what they mean is "X" and you know that how everyone besides you will interpret that is "X", then "X" is the right interpretation of the words that were written/spoken. That's the point of communication. And you're deliberately picking interpretation "Y" , and then wondering why everyone is disagreeing with any conclusions you drew from interpretation Y.

Quote
I registered long ago that other people think differently than me about what "don't do this but I won't DQ you" means. You don't have to say it more than once; I got it.

So, you registered it long ago, but you refuse to accept it? That when someone says "don't do this" , they ACTUALLY MEAN "don't do this"?

You sound like one of those cartoonish lawyers, twisting peoples words to mean something other than what they intended them to mean and something other than what everybody else hears them to mean, just because there is another technically correct interpretation of the sentence.
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #382 on: July 04, 2012, 08:45:29 pm »
0

This thread reminds me of a horrible accident. You are shocked and a bit disgusted by it, but you still keep reading...

To be honest, now it kinda feels like people are just trying to tell each other what they think, and not really listening to the other. The last 10 or so pages has basically just been a long:

"I BELIVE THIS!"
"I BELIEVE SOMETHING ELSE!"
"WHY DON'T YOU GET ME?"
"WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET?"
"BUT I BELIEVE THIS!"
"I ALSO BELIEVE THIS, BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY!"
And then go back to the top and repeat.

I'll try to stay away from this train wreck, but then again. It's hard to look away.
Logged

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #383 on: July 04, 2012, 08:49:58 pm »
+2

It's like

Me: I think X.
Someone: Why?
Me: Because Z.
Someone: But I think Z is wrong. So why do think X!?!?!?!?!?!?
No, it's more like this:

Personman: I think X.
Someone: X is against the rules
Personman: But Z!
Someone: What does Z have to do with anything?
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #384 on: July 04, 2012, 08:50:03 pm »
0

This thread reminds me of a horrible accident. You are shocked and a bit disgusted by it, but you still keep reading...

To be honest, now it kinda feels like people are just trying to tell each other what they think, and not really listening to the other. The last 10 or so pages has basically just been a long:

"I BELIVE THIS!"
"I BELIEVE SOMETHING ELSE!"
"WHY DON'T YOU GET ME?"
"WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET?"
"BUT I BELIEVE THIS!"
"I ALSO BELIEVE THIS, BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY!"
And then go back to the top and repeat.

I'll try to stay away from this train wreck, but then again. It's hard to look away.

I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #385 on: July 04, 2012, 08:50:46 pm »
0

After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")

This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.

What's kind of right? My understanding of why you understood Theory the way you did or my understanding of what Theory actually meant?
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #386 on: July 04, 2012, 08:54:25 pm »
0

Quote
I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
I would appreciate if you confirm the following:

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
Logged

methods of rationality

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #387 on: July 04, 2012, 08:55:10 pm »
0

After thinking about this a little more it appears to me that the reason Personman interpreted Theory's "you will not be disqualified" as "its legal" is because he Personman could not understand why he would not be disqualified if it was, in fact, illegal.
Personman, is this correct?
If so, than I would like to offer you another explanation as to why Theory would not disqualify you for the point counter which holds even if its illegal. When you said "and I know what I'd do in this situation: take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically." he interpreted you to mean "I, Personman, will take meticulous notes on the game and slow the pace dramatically even if doing so is against the rules" He held, in acordance with Donald's rulling, that doing so is against the rules. Since he would rather you cheat without gaining an advantage (by making the point counter publicly available) than cheat with gaining an advantage (by taking meticulous notes by your self) he told you that either way you will not be disqualified.
Now even if you did not think of that explanation as to why Theory said what he said at the time, do you know see that it is probably what he meant and that what you did is in fact wrong? (note that the line "this is the ruling" immediately precedes the phrase "don't use the point counter")

This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by "by definition". Words are the only things with definitions. What word's definition implies that your interpretation of the phrase non-DQ able is correct?
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #388 on: July 04, 2012, 08:56:46 pm »
0

Look, when someone says something and you know that what they mean is "X" and you know that how everyone besides you will interpret that is "X", then "X" is the right interpretation of the words that were written/spoken. That's the point of communication. And you're deliberately picking interpretation "Y" , and then wondering why everyone is disagreeing with any conclusions you drew from interpretation Y.

Quote
I registered long ago that other people think differently than me about what "don't do this but I won't DQ you" means. You don't have to say it more than once; I got it.

So, you registered it long ago, but you refuse to accept it? That when someone says "don't do this" , they ACTUALLY MEAN "don't do this"?

You sound like one of those cartoonish lawyers, twisting peoples words to mean something other than what they intended them to mean and something other than what everybody else hears them to mean, just because there is another technically correct interpretation of the sentence.


Okay, this is actually slightly new content. You think that I willfully interpreted theory's statement in a way that I knew was not how most people would interpret it. This is false. I don't know how I can prove it to you, but this is really how I think. I really cannot imagine reading a statement like "Don't do it but I won't DQ you for it" as anything other than "go ahead and do it". The first part of the statement is just.. wiped out by the second. It's a contradiction, but the second part is more specific and thus stronger, so that is the part I accept. I am not trying to twist anything. That's really, really, actually, truly, how I read and continue to read it.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #389 on: July 04, 2012, 08:57:01 pm »
+2

It's always been Rock-Paper-Scissors for me. And, FWIW, I'm from Michigan, so if that's a regional thing where I'm from we call it that. Also, we call carbonated beverages pop, not soda where I'm from.

UK here.
And we call carbonated beverages....well I dont know really, probably just 'Soft Drinks'
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gif

The interesting things for me are 1) some people call them Cokes, wtf, and 2) St. Louis should be a state.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #390 on: July 04, 2012, 09:01:06 pm »
0


REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

Sure, that's a point of view I understand, but a debate about what the rules of a game SHOULD be isn't part of the game itself.

How would you make that distinction, Personman? What, in your mind, is "REAL LIFE" and what's "GAME"? Because the rules of Dominion or the tournament don't say anything about the card-counter extension or about a googledoc spreadsheet, so what brings that into the sort of thing into the game realm where you're supposed to do everything you can to win, rather than the many real-life things you can do to cheat at a game that aren't explicitly discussed by its rules?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #391 on: July 04, 2012, 09:01:39 pm »
+2

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.
And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #392 on: July 04, 2012, 09:01:58 pm »
0

It's always been Rock-Paper-Scissors for me. And, FWIW, I'm from Michigan, so if that's a regional thing where I'm from we call it that. Also, we call carbonated beverages pop, not soda where I'm from.

UK here.
And we call carbonated beverages....well I dont know really, probably just 'Soft Drinks'
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gif

The interesting things for me are 1) some people call them Cokes, wtf, and 2) St. Louis should be a state.


I had not seen that. All I know is that I go to school at the Michigan-Wisconsin border, and it starts a lot of silly debate. That map makes a lot of sense.

Also, WTF, coke? I agree that's weird.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #393 on: July 04, 2012, 09:03:01 pm »
0

It's always been Rock-Paper-Scissors for me. And, FWIW, I'm from Michigan, so if that's a regional thing where I'm from we call it that. Also, we call carbonated beverages pop, not soda where I'm from.

UK here.
And we call carbonated beverages....well I dont know really, probably just 'Soft Drinks'
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gif

The interesting things for me are 1) some people call them Cokes, wtf, and 2) St. Louis should be a state.

I live in one of the "Coke" regions and I don't think I have ever heard anyone refer to soda as coke as a general term.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #394 on: July 04, 2012, 09:05:29 pm »
0

Quote
I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
I would appreciate if you confirm the following:

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

No, of course it's not. I can't really believe I have to write this out, but people are on such different planes of understanding that I suppose I do. Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament). We could use different language, like "different variant" or "different rules" or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a conceptual divide between them, and that arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" and "X is not what Nationals will be testing for, so it's not what we should be testing for either" are 100% invalid, and myriad counterexamples abound that no one is complaining about.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #395 on: July 04, 2012, 09:07:10 pm »
0

Quote
I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
I would appreciate if you confirm the following:

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

No, of course it's not. I can't really believe I have to write this out, but people are on such different planes of understanding that I suppose I do. Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament). We could use different language, like "different variant" or "different rules" or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a conceptual divide between them, and that arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" and "X is not what Nationals will be testing for, so it's not what we should be testing for either" are 100% invalid, and myriad counterexamples abound that no one is complaining about.

They're not "completely different games." Monopoly and Scrabble are "completely different." Online and IRL dominion are almost entirely the same, except that there are some rules you can't enforce in online dominion. That's a false premise, so please reconsider using it as an argument.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #396 on: July 04, 2012, 09:09:23 pm »
0

They're not "completely different games." Monopoly and Scrabble are "completely different." Online and IRL dominion are almost entirely the same, except that there are some rules you can't enforce in online dominion. That's a false premise, so please reconsider using it as an argument.

I said they were "undeniably similar" and "reasonable to mix in a tournament"; if that's not enough for you, replace "completely different" with "distinct enough that you can't make the kinds of arguments I go on to talk about".
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #397 on: July 04, 2012, 09:11:40 pm »
0

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.
And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.


And for anyone looking up THAT post, there's one after it where I shoot it down better! And then there's a whole threadful of us and other people shooting each other down, up, and sideways.

Isn't it great?
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #398 on: July 04, 2012, 09:16:40 pm »
0

They're not "completely different games." Monopoly and Scrabble are "completely different." Online and IRL dominion are almost entirely the same, except that there are some rules you can't enforce in online dominion. That's a false premise, so please reconsider using it as an argument.

I said they were "undeniably similar" and "reasonable to mix in a tournament"; if that's not enough for you, replace "completely different" with "distinct enough that you can't make the kinds of arguments I go on to talk about".

Weren't you among the group of people criticizing WW for how he used the word cheating? I stand by what I said, they're not completely different, and should have similar rules, especially as a qualifier for an IRL tournament. You can try to say that it doesn't matter that nationals are IRL all you want, it doesn't make it correct. You can say that that variant is the "best" variant all you want, when it comes to official tournaments, you use the official rules whenever possible.

You can keep saying your opinion and stuff, but there needs to be a definitively right answer in a qualifier like this. And the definitive answer should always fall back on the official rules where there is disagreement. You've had several people, including the maker of the game, clarify what the official rule is on this. Yelling from the rooftops that your dominion is better than his doesn't make it right.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #399 on: July 04, 2012, 09:17:37 pm »
+2

Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament).

The bolded words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean.  If two things are utterly different, they are not similar at all.

As it is, Dominion is Dominion whether you play it online or offline.  They are the same game with a difference in medium.  It's like playing soccer (football for non-North-Americans) on a grass field vs. artificial grass field.  Same game, minor differences.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #400 on: July 04, 2012, 09:20:04 pm »
0

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.
And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.


And for anyone looking up THAT post, there's one after it where I shoot it down better! And then there's a whole threadful of us and other people shooting each other down, up, and sideways.

Isn't it great?

...actually, I did look it up, and as far as I could tell you never addressed it... specifically, Donald X's post at #255.
Logged

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #401 on: July 04, 2012, 09:22:25 pm »
0

arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" ... [is] 100% invalid
Nice strawman.  The argument is X is illegal in Isotropic dominion(National qualifiers variant), as stated by the tournament organizer.  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.  Claiming that you get to reinvent all sorts of rules because you're playing on a computer is silly.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #402 on: July 04, 2012, 09:25:51 pm »
0

They're not "completely different games." Monopoly and Scrabble are "completely different." Online and IRL dominion are almost entirely the same, except that there are some rules you can't enforce in online dominion. That's a false premise, so please reconsider using it as an argument.

I said they were "undeniably similar" and "reasonable to mix in a tournament"; if that's not enough for you, replace "completely different" with "distinct enough that you can't make the kinds of arguments I go on to talk about".

Weren't you among the group of people criticizing WW for how he used the word cheating? I stand by what I said, they're not completely different, and should have similar rules, especially as a qualifier for an IRL tournament. You can try to say that it doesn't matter that nationals are IRL all you want, it doesn't make it correct. You can say that that variant is the "best" variant all you want, when it comes to official tournaments, you use the official rules whenever possible.

You can keep saying your opinion and stuff, but there needs to be a definitively right answer in a qualifier like this. And the definitive answer should always fall back on the official rules where there is disagreement. You've had several people, including the maker of the game, clarify what the official rule is on this. Yelling from the rooftops that your dominion is better than his doesn't make it right.

My "opinion" that they are different games is well supported by fact. Many facts of life in Isotropic Dominion are cheating in offline dominion, and thus, as I said, an argument of the form "X is illegal in offline dominion so it is illegal in isotropic dominion" can be immediately rejected.

Now, you can reasonably posit bringing them in line where possible as a goal. That's fine. I probably even share that goal. However, I have a higher goal, and I think everyone else should share it (and I think they do, actually): fairness. We should not compromise the fairness of isotropic dominion in an attempt to make it more like offline dominion. Are you with me so far?

HERE is where I believe disagreement starts. I believe it is an objective fact that a rule against the extension is unfair. Other people disagree. I have tried to back this opinion up throughout the thread as thoroughly as possible; I do not believe I have been merely trumpeting its correctness from the rooftops. If you wish to bring a new objection to those arguments forward, please do. If you simply wish to ignore what I have actually done and tell me that I have done something else, this conversation is over.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #403 on: July 04, 2012, 09:28:42 pm »
0

arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" ... [is] 100% invalid
Nice strawman.  The argument is X is illegal in Isotropic dominion(National qualifiers variant), as stated by the tournament organizer.  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.  Claiming that you get to reinvent all sorts of rules because you're playing on a computer is silly.

No, your face is silly!

...did you get anything useful out of that? No? Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.

Sorry I've started getting a bit more acerbic, it's been a long day.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #404 on: July 04, 2012, 09:30:59 pm »
0

Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.

  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:54:37 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #405 on: July 04, 2012, 09:33:47 pm »
0

This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:

1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?

You haven't addressed my logic at all. Yes, of course we need some trust in society at large (or at least, everyone's lives are much better since we do). We nevertheless have penalties for breaking that trust, whether they be legal or social, and if there are no such penalties for a thing, I think that's usually the same as that thing being okay.

In a tournament environment, especially one against strangers over the internet, you have to assume that social consequences go out the window, since the prize is likely all that matters to an unknown participant. Therefore, we need tournament regulations. To actually be regulations, they need to have consequences, or else they fail to regulate anything.
Okay. But your logic does not actually lead to the conclusion that such a regulation IS not a rule. It leads to the conclusion that it SHOULD NOT be a rule. Even if we are to accept it, which I don't. However, my larger point there was that it is not incoherent. And you know, I am not the only one who finds it coherent, so maybe you are incapable of understanding it (which would truly be sad, if true), but that doesn't make it incoherent. You're just going to have to trust us on this.
Quote

You're right, I'm not using precedent to mean "previously handed-down judicial decisions". I'm using it to mean "previously community-accepted behavior". I'm sorry I misunderstood your position; I continue to maintain that given our respective preconditions, we both came to reasonable, contradictory conclusions on this front.
I mean, beforehand, I agree, and I could well see how you might be like "I don't see why this is against the rules", if you hadn't taken the time to really study the matter. But when it is explained, you should be like "oh shoot, you're right." Because they're pretty straightforward. In any case, that you got away with it before is certainly no basis for it to actually be legal, only some slight basis for you to perhaps think that it is so.
Quote
Stop repeating this without addressing my reasoning for why it is false. Online dominion is a very different beast from paper dominion, and has no particular reason to fall back on the rulebook AT ALL. If it did, the differences between isotropic and the real rules would result in people "cheating" all the time, e.g. by hiding the top card of their discard pile.
Stop ignoring my point that the rulebook for offline dominion is perfectly able to be realized online, and that you in fact give no objective reason why it cannot be. I mean, you give some reasons why you think it SHOULD not be, I grant. But that does not mean that it CANNOT be. You keep asserting that they're different, but you have not actually established that.
Quote
Notes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.
This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Follow that?

Quote
Stop switching between in-game and legal perspectives. Laws that are difficult to enforce are often a good idea because a) when they CAN be enforced you don't want to let the culprit off the hook because there is no law on the books and b) their mere existence is a strong moral deterrent for some people, and we should do whatever we can to stop people from doing things that are ACTUALLY BAD for society.

In-game, only enforcing things when you happen to be able to is terrible and unfair, and using the extension does not cause any real harm to society, so there are no justifications for avoidable unenforceable rules.
Again, we can have discussions like this on what the rules SHOULD be, but these reasons have no bearing on what the rules actually ARE.

Quote
There's a really important point here that I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by more people, so I'm being liberal with my use of bold. I freely admit that there are unavoidable unenforceable rules in online Dominion. The obvious example is collusion/collaboration. Two players in a multiplayer game could be sitting next to each other, or use any communication device, to conspire against another. One "player" could in fact be a whole room full of Dominion experts conferring about what to do. These are obviously against the rules, and obviously unenforceable. This is an unsolvable structural flaw with all online competition, and it is a compelling reason not to use online competition for things that REALLY matter. I accept that we have to trust people not to do these things, because there is simply no alternative except not holding online competitions. However, this is not a good reason to add additional, unnecessary unenforceable rules. I agree that the line is blurry, and I don't think anyone can draw it. My opinion about where the extension falls in relation to that line is inevitably colored by the fact that I think it makes it a better game, or at least those who do not accept my arguments will always see it as so colored. I think this is the strongest argument against my position, and I'm really surprised that it has only come up once, in passing, near the beginning of the thread.
Because the whole thing is irrelevant. We are not discussing what the best game would be. If we were, I would be talking about re-wording throne room, buffing scout, doing all kinds of stuff. But no. We are talking about what the rules ARE. Whether they are enforceable or not does not change whether they are rules. Ontologically, they cannot be anything else. You can argue that they don't exist, but man, I can point to them. So I mean, that is not the argument. Furthermore, these rules CAN be enforced, it just has some level of tediousness to do so. But again, that's not relevant if everyone just lives up to the agreements they've made.

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #406 on: July 04, 2012, 09:42:30 pm »
0

REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.

You can go find the earlier post where I wrote at length on this topic if you want to know more about my reasoning. My fingers are too tired to type more things over again.
And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.


And for anyone looking up THAT post, there's one after it where I shoot it down better! And then there's a whole threadful of us and other people shooting each other down, up, and sideways.

Isn't it great?

...actually, I did look it up, and as far as I could tell you never addressed it... specifically, Donald X's post at #255.

You know, you are totally right. I'll do it now! Here's that post:

Quote from: Donald X
I think "games are different from life" is a very misleading way to look at it. Yes, in a game of Diplomacy, maybe you will backstab somebody who you would not backstab outside of a game. That's not relevant though. The issue of cheating is an issue of what people do in life. Choosing to take notes is not something you do inside the game.

Choosing to take notes once that has been ruled illegal is cheating. Choosing to take notes when it is legal is a valid use of your resources during gameplay.

This issue is sort of tangential though. The entire point of separating life from games was to make a point about why a certain school of thought is appropriate when writing rulesets for tournaments that is blatantly not appropriate when evaluating real life situations. My argument was never "this is just a game, so I can cheat", which seems to be what Donald is refuting here.

Quote
It is fair to say that you don't enjoy playing in online tournaments with significant prizes, because you expect to be up against cheaters. To me this just suggests that online tournaments should not have significant prizes, rather than somehow meaning that the game should be changed so that all is permissible. People will cheat online even with no prize, but I think there we just provide a way to block people, and don't rank games where the card mix was picked out, and then there's the issue of how you handle time-outs.

All of this is reasonable but does not attempt to refute anything I said.

Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

czechvarmander

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +25
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #407 on: July 04, 2012, 09:43:01 pm »
0


Now, you can reasonably posit bringing them in line where possible as a goal. That's fine. I probably even share that goal. However, I have a higher goal, and I think everyone else should share it (and I think they do, actually): fairness. We should not compromise the fairness of isotropic dominion in an attempt to make it more like offline dominion. Are you with me so far?

HERE is where I believe disagreement starts. I believe it is an objective fact that a rule against the extension is unfair.

Bolded words added by me for emphasis.

An objective fact? Really? REALLY? You truly believe that there is an objective standard of fairness? Not just in a Dominion tournament, but anywhere?

I believe your argument was that the PCE enhanced fairness because everyone would have access to the information (forget that fact that it displays in a far more user-friendly way for the person with the app installed) and that that would mitigate the advantage you felt WW had by having a stronger ability to memorize this information without the app.

You believe that WW having a stronger memory than others is unfair? Or that it would force you to resort to pen and paper note-taking (which is also against the rules).

I AGREE! It's also UNFAIR that WW and the other tippity top players have more experience and analytic skills than me. Were there available tools or extensions to replicate these skills I think it would totally fine for me to utilize them, even if the tournament organizer told me not to.

Everyone else can use it to, you know because it's an OBJECTIVE FACT that leveling the playing field so everyone is at the same skill level is what is meant by fairness.

This way, everyone has an equal chance of winning without unfair natural advantages getting in the way. Heck, the tournaments can be way faster if we just use a random number generator to pick the winner. IT'S AN OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THAT IS THE FAIREST WAY TO DECIDE THE BEST DOMINION PLAYER.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #408 on: July 04, 2012, 09:44:29 pm »
0

Choosing to take notes once that has been ruled illegal is cheating. Choosing to take notes when it is legal is a valid use of your resources during gameplay.

Quote
Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.
source
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #409 on: July 04, 2012, 09:46:15 pm »
+1

No matter what side you're on here, caps lock is not classy.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #410 on: July 04, 2012, 09:47:03 pm »
+3

My "opinion" that they are different games is well supported by fact. Many facts of life in Isotropic Dominion are cheating in offline dominion, and thus, as I said, an argument of the form "X is illegal in offline dominion so it is illegal in isotropic dominion" can be immediately rejected.

Now, you can reasonably posit bringing them in line where possible as a goal. That's fine. I probably even share that goal. However, I have a higher goal, and I think everyone else should share it (and I think they do, actually): fairness. We should not compromise the fairness of isotropic dominion in an attempt to make it more like offline dominion. Are you with me so far?

HERE is where I believe disagreement starts. I believe it is an objective fact that a rule against the extension is unfair. Other people disagree. I have tried to back this opinion up throughout the thread as thoroughly as possible; I do not believe I have been merely trumpeting its correctness from the rooftops. If you wish to bring a new objection to those arguments forward, please do. If you simply wish to ignore what I have actually done and tell me that I have done something else, this conversation is over.

You have not given a decent reason why a rule against the extension is unfair.  Fair means that everyone starts on an even playing field.  If everyone uses the extension, that is fair.  If everyone does NOT use the extension, that is ALSO fair.  A rule against the extension is fair so long as everyone is expected to abide by it, and they are, because it's a rule.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that it is unfair if there is a rule against it and someone uses it anyway.  Well yeah, that is unfair.  Someone is cheating.  Cheating is unfair.

But you cannot say a rule is unfair on the basis that someone might break it.  That is true of every rule.  The logic here leads to the conclusion that there should be no rules at all.

So instead of removing a rule because it could conceivably be broken, you should trust that your opponents have the integrity to obey the rules.
Logged

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #411 on: July 04, 2012, 10:07:48 pm »
0

Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.
Sure, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy used to promote a position by constructing a false version of the opponents position and knocking it down.  In this case, the opponent's position is "x was ruled illegal in this tournament, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  The strawman constructed was "x is illegal in offline dominion, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  I am not claiming that doing x in this tournament is wrong because you should not do X in offline dominion.  I am claiming that you should not do X in this tournament because the tournament organizer said not to do it.  Your argument is invalid because you are taking my position, and constructing a strawman.  This is a logical fallacy.
Logged

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #412 on: July 04, 2012, 10:12:21 pm »
0

Quote
Notes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.
This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Follow that?

I need to step away from this thread for the night; I intend to respond to your full post tomorrow. But I want to pick out this section because I think it's an amazingly clear example of you using strictly faulty logic.

1. Some communities (for instance A) think that the default state of things is that note taking in games is legal.
2. Some communities (for instance B) think the opposite.
3. Dominion, and in particular this tournament, does not specify.
4. People from A and people from B may have different starting beliefs about the rules of this tournament for this reason.
5. When this discrepancy is discovered, resorting to the rules does not satisfy: people from A will say "It's not mentioned here, so it goes to the default: notes are legal!" People from B will say the obvious similar thing.

You have said "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board." but this is nonsense; I can recast it from my perspective and has the same logical content, ie, none: "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN'T do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board."

You can quote me Donald's quote about things not permitted being illegal, but it's just totally false as we've already covered. He himself has said you can say the score out loud as you play; that's not obvious to everyone and it's not in the rules. Nor are all manner of benign things like turning duration cards sideways to note that they are old, etc. etc. It's just that for some people from communities like B, note taking is "obviously" not in the same class as those things, so they find this argument silly. But for people like me, from a community like A, the reverse is just as true.

I'm not lying when I say it still fundamentally baffles me that people can't see why note taking (up to a time limit) is beneficial and not cheating in any relevant game. Like, i can wrap my head around the fact that different people have come from different communities, and end up thinking differently, just like I grudgingly accept that some people legitimately believe in God, or the Republican Party's platform. But it takes conscious effort to remind myself that other people don't see things the same way I do.

Perhaps, instead of assuming duplicity on my part, you should try making a similar effort to believe that I actually sincerely hold the views that I have expressed in this thread, no matter how outlandish they initially seem.
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

Personman

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +62
    • View Profile
    • My Friendfeed
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #413 on: July 04, 2012, 10:17:59 pm »
0

Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.
Sure, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy used to promote a position by constructing a false version of the opponents position and knocking it down.  In this case, the opponent's position is "x was ruled illegal in this tournament, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  The strawman constructed was "x is illegal in offline dominion, thus you should not do x in this tournament."  I am not claiming that doing x in this tournament is wrong because you should not do X in offline dominion.  I am claiming that you should not do X in this tournament because the tournament organizer said not to do it.  Your argument is invalid because you are taking my position, and constructing a strawman.  This is a logical fallacy.

Thank you for taking the time to rigorously state your case. I truly appreciate it.

The part that I take exception to is the part where you claim that the extension was ruled illegal. (Well, it eventually was, I didn't use it. But that is not what you are talking about.) As I have repeatedly explained, I find the phrase "Don't do it but I won't DQ you" to be made out of two contradictory parts, "I request that you don't do it" and "I won't DQ you if you do it" == "Doing it is explicitly legal." I also find the latter statement, which concerns legality and consequences, to be much stronger than the former, which is a personal request. Therefore, I have no choice but to accept that the latter statement overrides the former.

You will note, however, that I did not simply silently accept my own logic and proceed to use the extension. Instead, I brought up the issues with such a self-contradictory phraseology, and the resulting discussion ended with a less contradictory one that actually DID ban the extension, and I went on TO NOT USE IT.

And now I'm actually out, at least for several hours, and probably til tomorrow. To those that have listened and been patient, thank you.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 10:21:12 pm by Personman »
Logged
My youtube channel. Isoptropic games with commentary!

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #414 on: July 04, 2012, 10:25:51 pm »
0

Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.

  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
Ok, this is an interesting idea and is linked to Personman's argument.  The argument goes like this.  There are certain things you have to do in real life dominion that translate poorly to a computer version.  One example is viewing the top card of the discard pile.  In real life it's trivial to decide what you want on top of the discard pile.  If you discard cards from your hand during cleanup phase, you can gain an advantage by choosing which cards to discard - ie, I drew both of my moats, played one, and my opponent has a witch, but doesn't want to play it if I have a moat in hand.  I can discard my unplayed moat under an estate to hide that information from him.  In the computer version, that implies you need to control the order of every discard.  That would suck, so the solution is to not show the discard pile.  This is a concession made to the online format, because in online, discarding in an arbitrary order is easy, discarding in a chosen order is annoying.  In offline dominion, both are about equal.
The part where this breaks down is to extend it to any arbitrary rule.  Isotropic does include a point counter, but does not include a deck tracker.  The Tournament rules explicitly discussed the point counter and did not mention the deck tracking extension(since it is not a part of isotropic).  Claiming that the kinds of changes(such as above) authorize using any extension is dubious logic.  In the first case, it is officially supported by the site.  In the PCE case, it is not officially supported by the site, and the only mention was to the closest thing to it(the official point counter), in which it was explicitly mentioned that it(the PC) would be used.  The obvious takeaway is that a point counter, deck tracker, etc cannot be used in a tournament setting unless explicitly allowed by the rules.
But that's not even what we're discussing.  That line of argument is about whether point trackers and deck trackers should be used for online tournament play in general.  In this specific case, the organizer explicitly said not to use it.  The rules said not to use it.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Logged

samath

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Shuffle iT Username: SamE
  • Respect: +678
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #415 on: July 04, 2012, 10:45:25 pm »
+1

Unfortunately, you can't expect everyone to have read Donald X's posts in this forum. Thus, it seems rules like "you can/can't take notes in a spreadsheet" need to be spelled out at the beginning of a tournament.

Can we get off of the topic of how Personman interpreted theory's unfortunate e-mail? However he interpreted it, it wasn't theory's final decision and thus didn't matter much at all. And once theory came down hard on deciding against the point counter but allowing the spreadsheet, Personman accepted it and played accordingly. So yes, when theory said not to use it, Personman didn't use it.

A more interesting question is what the skills needed for online Dominion are. In that quoted conversation, Donald X. backs up his ruling that note-taking is illegal in real-life Dominion by saying that memorization is part of the game. My question is, should memorization be part of online Dominion? If we say that no, it should not be a part, then the deck tracker should be allowed, and more widely accepted. If we say that yes, it should be part of the game, then the point counter probably should be disabled for important play like this. If we come up with some kind of compromise, we're going to have to be super clear about what has to be memorized and what doesn't have to. And the best argument I can see for drawing the line at the point counter is that it's simply the way that most people are used to and answers most of the questions you might have.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #416 on: July 04, 2012, 10:49:12 pm »
0

Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.

  Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
Ok, this is an interesting idea and is linked to Personman's argument.  The argument goes like this.  There are certain things you have to do in real life dominion that translate poorly to a computer version.  One example is viewing the top card of the discard pile.  In real life it's trivial to decide what you want on top of the discard pile.  If you discard cards from your hand during cleanup phase, you can gain an advantage by choosing which cards to discard - ie, I drew both of my moats, played one, and my opponent has a witch, but doesn't want to play it if I have a moat in hand.  I can discard my unplayed moat under an estate to hide that information from him.  In the computer version, that implies you need to control the order of every discard.  That would suck, so the solution is to not show the discard pile.  This is a concession made to the online format, because in online, discarding in an arbitrary order is easy, discarding in a chosen order is annoying.  In offline dominion, both are about equal.
The part where this breaks down is to extend it to any arbitrary rule.  Isotropic does include a point counter, but does not include a deck tracker.  The Tournament rules explicitly discussed the point counter and did not mention the deck tracking extension(since it is not a part of isotropic).  Claiming that the kinds of changes(such as above) authorize using any extension is dubious logic.  In the first case, it is officially supported by the site.  In the PCE case, it is not officially supported by the site, and the only mention was to the closest thing to it(the official point counter), in which it was explicitly mentioned that it(the PC) would be used.  The obvious takeaway is that a point counter, deck tracker, etc cannot be used in a tournament setting unless explicitly allowed by the rules.
But that's not even what we're discussing.  That line of argument is about whether point trackers and deck trackers should be used for online tournament play in general.  In this specific case, the organizer explicitly said not to use it.  The rules said not to use it.  Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.

Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right.  If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there.  If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating.  If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating.  Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.

The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample.  Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".

EDIT: btw, I'm confused as to why the topic is so hot if the extension never actually got used?  Is it only because WW withdrew?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 10:56:50 pm by popsofctown »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #417 on: July 04, 2012, 11:00:36 pm »
+12

Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other.
For example, when offline Dominion got Hinterland's when-gain cards, Isotropic got a tower defense game.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #418 on: July 04, 2012, 11:02:51 pm »
+2

This thread does have the potential to be insightful for anyone willing to read all the way through it. But yeah, now that I have, there are so many things to say...

I think I've had enough of the theory-bashing. Theory was under a lot of time pressure to get this tournament to happen, and also clearly hoped that the general friendly play of people on isotropic would prevail, rather than having to sit down and think through a foolproof ruleset. And as we're discovering, foolproof rulesets are hard to come up with. Enforceability is a big issue, but as Personman has discovered (re: collusion), it's rather tough to actually have in an online tournament. Still, theory tried to enforce it by encouraging people to record the finals and reserving the right to DQ afterwards from those videos. And so in the end, even if it was only half an hour before the finals, theory arrived at at least a pretty decent ruling.
I understand the ruling theory came up with in the end. Personman has some pretty legit concerns about inequity. I of course strongly disagree with how he handled stuff pretty much every step of the way. I can point to several decisions I think he made which were wrong, mostly in not sticking to the original rules. And I don't believe he has the authority to change them afterwards, though I do think he has the authority to DQ someone for breaking them, which he said he 'couldn't' do at some point. But you know, I can sympathize with not wanting to. I wouldn't want to have to DQ anybody. Indeed, this is part of why I withdrew - seemed clear to me that neither Personman nor I was going to budge, so one almost has to go - and I'm pretty sure Personman cares about it more than I do, so I bowed out. So I think theory made a lot of wrong decisions, but you know, I wouldn't call that bashing him. I will freely admit to you that I can't count the number of wrong decisions I've made in the past week - there are too many. Anyway, so there's that.

Quote
One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling. I can offer some possibilities:
1) He was unhappy that theory was changing the rules. First, it's at least a little ambiguous that spreadsheets are disallowed in the rules. If you have to dig up a post by Donald X on the forum to get the official ruling that's further than most players will go. It's certainly more ambiguous than "identical starting hands" for those who want to argue that theory arbitrarily ruling "okay, so in the finals you guys don't get identical starting hands" would be unfair. So a clarification was certainly in order. Second, the rules never said, "Any changes to the rules must be approved by all players"; that clause is pretty clear about only applying to use or not of the official point counter. But most importantly, we all know how little time theory had to plan this tournament out, and as such, should cut him some slack with clarifying or redefining rules.
2) He expected Personman to cheat and use the PCE anyways. I think this is very unfair to both what Personman's words explicitly said and to WW's own arguments themselves. Personman was not actually planning on cheating; he was just giving the usual unenforceability argument he's repeated several times in this thread. And what do you know, in the real match he didn't cheat at all. I don't see a reason to suspect he would have with WW playing.
3) He objected to playing a game with someone who used Personman's style of reasoning, whether you want to call it relativist, or consequentialist, or what have you. Well, all I can say is that that would be like not playing with atheists. It doesn't actually affect the game and seems a bit non-sequitur. He'd certainly have the right to do that, like anyone has the right to be racist in who they live near, but I'd at least be disappointed if that was his final reason.
4) He didn't think through everything as clearly as he can now (happens to all of us) and would have re-entered had he had more time to think it through.
5) He was away from the computer for the half hour between theory's ruling and the start of the match.
I don't really have evidence against 4 or 5, except for the lack of WW complaining about the timing or apologizing and saying he would have re-entered on second thought.

Of course, WW doesn't have to respond to this if he wants to keep his reasons private. But he's entered the conversation so far, so if he's willing, I'm curious what he has to say to this.

Okay, so it's actually a really complicated multi-pronged thing. One is that it just does not mean that much to me. I mean, I guess going to Chicago would be nice, but... eh. It's sorta meh. I'm much more interested in actually playing, so it's not a huge huge deal for me to miss. And as I've explained, I agreed to the set of rules that were in place at sign-up, I'm not going to cheat and break my word by breaking those rules, and I'm not going to cooperate with someone else breaking them either. At the same time, I don't believe theory has the authority to post facto change the rules. All of which goes without mentioning the lack of a trusting atmosphere that was built up, and well, it's just too much stress for something that's so unimportant. And with so little benefit. I mean, I have other things to do. I just heard from my dearest friend for the first time in over 6 months, what the heck am I still doing here?
(Note, I actually did take a several hour break in the middle of writing this). So basically, I have principled reasons not to compete, and very little reason to compete. And my ethical advisor concurred.

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #419 on: July 04, 2012, 11:05:21 pm »
+1

This issue is sort of tangential though. The entire point of separating life from games was to make a point about why a certain school of thought is appropriate when writing rulesets for tournaments that is blatantly not appropriate when evaluating real life situations. My argument was never "this is just a game, so I can cheat", which seems to be what Donald is refuting here.
So when you say "real life is different from games" you mean "we should expect people to be cheaters if they can't be caught in games but not in real life?" I am not seeing so far how "real life is different from games" is trying to communicate a true thing in an understandable way.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #420 on: July 04, 2012, 11:09:09 pm »
+1

1. Some communities (for instance A) think that the default state of things is that note taking in games is legal.
2. Some communities (for instance B) think the opposite.
3. Dominion, and in particular this tournament, does not specify.
No, by not explicitly making note-taking legal it makes note-taking illegal. All else is madness, and I have covered this at length elsewhere.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #421 on: July 04, 2012, 11:16:26 pm »
0

Quote
Notes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.
This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Follow that?

I need to step away from this thread for the night; I intend to respond to your full post tomorrow. But I want to pick out this section because I think it's an amazingly clear example of you using strictly faulty logic.

1. Some communities (for instance A) think that the default state of things is that note taking in games is legal.
2. Some communities (for instance B) think the opposite.
3. Dominion, and in particular this tournament, does not specify.
4. People from A and people from B may have different starting beliefs about the rules of this tournament for this reason.
5. When this discrepancy is discovered, resorting to the rules does not satisfy: people from A will say "It's not mentioned here, so it goes to the default: notes are legal!" People from B will say the obvious similar thing.

You have said "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board." but this is nonsense; I can recast it from my perspective and has the same logical content, ie, none: "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN'T do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board."

You can quote me Donald's quote about things not permitted being illegal, but it's just totally false as we've already covered.
Uh, no, he's right there. You make rules which define what IS allowable behaviour in the context of the game, because you can't possibly outlaw everything that needs to be illegal. It is not false, we did not cover it being false, and I most certainly did not agree to that.
Quote
He himself has said you can say the score out loud as you play; that's not obvious to everyone and it's not in the rules. Nor are all manner of benign things like turning duration cards sideways to note that they are old, etc. etc. It's just that for some people from communities like B, note taking is "obviously" not in the same class as those things, so they find this argument silly. But for people like me, from a community like A, the reverse is just as true.
The reason why the speaking is fine, is because there is no particular difference, gameplay-wise, between thinking it and saying it. And of course it is fine to think it. They don't need to have a rule saying you can think, because it is absolutely absurd - you can't force yourself to not think - and entirely self-defeating. Now you're going to tell me that the no point counter rule is just as absurd, but man, if you can't see the difference there... I'm sorry. There's no convincing you, so there's not much point. I can tell you you're wrong, but if you won't accept that p and not p computes to false, well, I can't PROVE that. You are right.

Quote
I'm not lying when I say it still fundamentally baffles me that people can't see why note taking (up to a time limit) is beneficial and not cheating in any relevant game.
Every played memory? that is the whole point of the game. The point of the game is defeated if you can take notes. So the question is, is Dominion a game where having a good memory is relevant - obviously it is - and should we seek to keep that as part of the game or not? Well, I think yes, Donald thinks yes, you think no. Well, that's fine, we have different opinions. But the point is, the game Dominion, as constituted, keeps that.
Quote
...just like I grudgingly accept that some people legitimately believe in God, or the Republican Party's platform
Yeah, you're the one who is trying to not get into a kerfluffle here. Right.
It is highly apparent that you struggle with accepting that there are people not like you. You need to be able to do a better job of that, for life in general.

Quote
Perhaps, instead of assuming duplicity on my part, you should try making a similar effort to believe that I actually sincerely hold the views that I have expressed in this thread, no matter how outlandish they initially seem.
The claims of duplicity actually arise from me dong that, as much as possible, but not being able to fully, as what you are saying seems to contradict itself. Which is... the whole point of duplicity? I mean, I actually think you have tricked yourself into thinking you are being consistent. But it is evident to me, and to several others it seems, that you are not. And I know you're not going to see that. Don't know what else to tell you.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #422 on: July 04, 2012, 11:21:06 pm »
0

Quote
I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
I would appreciate if you confirm the following:

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

No, of course it's not. I can't really believe I have to write this out, but people are on such different planes of understanding that I suppose I do. Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament). We could use different language, like "different variant" or "different rules" or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a conceptual divide between them, and that arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" and "X is not what Nationals will be testing for, so it's not what we should be testing for either" are 100% invalid, and myriad counterexamples abound that no one is complaining about.

Just want to point out that Isotropic Dominion is not equivalent to Online Dominion. Also though, from the very beginning of the Isotropic FAQ: "This is my implementation of the game Dominion" - dougz thinks it's dominion. DonaldX thinks it's Dominion. The vast majority of people in this thread think it's dominion. So you, and maybe Davio, and mostly no one else (I might be missing a couple, I grant), think that it is not Dominion.
I certainly don't think it is a *ridiculous* thing to say that it is dominion.

sjelkjd

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Respect: +32
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #423 on: July 04, 2012, 11:24:33 pm »
+1

I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.

Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right.  If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there.  If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating.  If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating.  Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.

The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample.  Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".
Well, I said "by default," as in, if the experience with that rule is significantly poorer(ie, the discard thing), then we should consider changing it, otherwise not.  I'm not saying preserve all the offline rules.  I'm saying do so if there is no good reason not to.  The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #424 on: July 04, 2012, 11:28:40 pm »
+3

The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.

This.  This, over and over again.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #425 on: July 04, 2012, 11:30:11 pm »
+1

Quote
I've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.
I would appreciate if you confirm the following:

I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?

No, of course it's not. I can't really believe I have to write this out, but people are on such different planes of understanding that I suppose I do. Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament). We could use different language, like "different variant" or "different rules" or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a conceptual divide between them, and that arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" and "X is not what Nationals will be testing for, so it's not what we should be testing for either" are 100% invalid, and myriad counterexamples abound that no one is complaining about.
I mean, seriously, if this is true, why does silver cost $3? Why are there 8 provinces for 2 -player? Why are there 12 provinces for 4-player? Why are any of the things the way they are? Of course, it's because the rules isotropic uses are by-and-large inherited from dominion. Yes, there are some small differences, like you can't see discards. But in general, all the rules are inherited, with only specific exceptions. The null assumption on any particular rule would be that it stands.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #426 on: July 04, 2012, 11:34:01 pm »
0

Isotropic Dominion is a Dominion variant. It's not exactly the same as Dominion as described in the rulebooks. (For example, can't see the top of discard.) Saying it's "not Dominion" is silly, but then again, I also think saying Isotropic+PCE is "not Dominion" is silly. I don't think it's consistent to say that Isotropic Dominion "is Dominion" but Isotropic+PCE "isn't Dominion". They are both variants.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #427 on: July 04, 2012, 11:38:13 pm »
0

Isotropic Dominion is a Dominion variant. It's not exactly the same as Dominion as described in the rulebooks. (For example, can't see the top of discard.) Saying it's "not Dominion" is silly, but then again, I also think saying Isotropic+PCE is "not Dominion" is silly. I don't think it's consistent to say that Isotropic Dominion "is Dominion" but Isotropic+PCE "isn't Dominion". They are both variants.
I'd agree with this, largely. If both players agree to one of them, it's fine - it's a dominion variant, which isn't straight dominion, but is under the umbrella.
This is why I don't really have any problem with disableable PCE.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 11:39:31 pm by WanderingWinder »
Logged

zxcvbn2

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 193
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #428 on: July 04, 2012, 11:40:21 pm »
0

Isotropic Dominion is a Dominion variant. It's not exactly the same as Dominion as described in the rulebooks. (For example, can't see the top of discard.) Saying it's "not Dominion" is silly, but then again, I also think saying Isotropic+PCE is "not Dominion" is silly. I don't think it's consistent to say that Isotropic Dominion "is Dominion" but Isotropic+PCE "isn't Dominion". They are both variants.

But one is clearly closer to, well, "Dominion." Neither is exactly like playing IRL, but you can't say they're equally different from "I only play exactly by the official rules with the real cards and IRL Dominion."

I will say that you are absolutely right, though. Neither is exactly as Dominion was intended to be played, and there's nothing inherently wrong with either of them.
Logged
One Day Cup II Champion: qmech III: Rabid IV: Qvist

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #429 on: July 04, 2012, 11:57:49 pm »
0

What I find most amusing is the talking about whether things are allowed or not allowed in the rules, while the creator of the game and rules specifically says they are not allowed (or they are cheating).  I mean come on.  If the game designer does not know the rules, who does?
Logged
A man on a mission.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #430 on: July 05, 2012, 12:18:11 am »
+3

As I've been reading the last six pages or so, this has been running through my head:

"Person Man, Person Man/Hit on the head with a frying pan
Lives his life in a garbage can/Person Man
Is he depressed or is he a mess?/Does he feel totally worthless?
Who came up with Person Man?/Degraded man, Person Man" -- TMBG

----

"I am of course very disappointed that Personman flouts the intent of this qualifying tournament. But it's not grounds for disqualification, so I don't know what else you want me to do." -- theory

"tl;dr: No point counter. Maybe you'll take notes, and we won't know, but you'll be constrained by the Isotropic time limit. We assume good faith among all players and reserve the right to post hoc DQ anyone based on the post-game video, although we sincerely hope we will not have to." --theory, with suggestions from rrenaud

----

Listen, Personman.  It is clear that you flouted the intent of the tournament.  It is clear that you bent the rules of the tournament almost to the breaking point, thus forcing theory's hand into either changing the rules or allowing what is clearly public cheating.  You did this through semantic and extremely pedantic arguments, beyond nitpicking.  What you then did, though technically legal in the tournament, would have been cheating in any other reasonable Dominion game, and this has been affirmed by Donald X multiple times just in this thread.

You have come to the forum and advocated the position that cheating ought to be legal because it cannot be enforced, a position which has now been crushed into the ground by multiple people.  You have tried to represent yourself as decent by acceeding to theory's requests about emails, but previously you refused to acceed to theory's repeated requests to not use the PCE/card counter, and after he officially banned it, still found a way around it.  You did so publicly, and on video.  You have admitted to it in this thread.

Yet you still attempt not only to insist on your correctness but to insist that you maintain the ethical high ground, despite the fact that at no point have you acted in good faith.

This goes beyond mere cognitive bias.  This is pure doublethink.  You ignore facts and ideas when convenient, then use the same facts and ideas when they can bolster your argument by being twisted ever so slightly.  You have used circular reasoning several times.  You have done all of this enough that even those who once supported you have started to wonder what you're talking about, and reconsidered their own views.

All for the sake of making an esoteric point about the unenforceability of a small subset of rules under a small subset of conditions, you have effectively invalidated the entire tournament, and made future online tournaments useless for entry into the national competition.  You have shown yourself as a cheat and a fraud, and yet you continue to claim otherwise.

This is madness.  (Fine, insert pic of Leonidas here.)

To sum up:

Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #431 on: July 05, 2012, 12:31:26 am »
0

I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.

Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right.  If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there.  If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating.  If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating.  Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.

The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample.  Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".
Well, I said "by default," as in, if the experience with that rule is significantly poorer(ie, the discard thing), then we should consider changing it, otherwise not.  I'm not saying preserve all the offline rules.  I'm saying do so if there is no good reason not to.  The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.
Now it's about your opinion on the change, not a rigid adherence to the default rules.  And that's okay.  As long as your argument isn't "I'm holding the base Dominion rulebook, I have the high ground Anakin".  I was perceiving your argument as being that no reasoning at all could justify a change to online dominion that contradicts offline dominion.

Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2860
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #432 on: July 05, 2012, 12:35:53 am »
+1

You have done all of this enough that even those who once supported you have started to wonder what you're talking about, and reconsidered their own views.
Fwiw, I still support his actions given the events as I currently understand them. You will not have one stark mad black sheep lunatic of the forum, you will have at least one other, and you shall call him pops.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 12:43:32 am by popsofctown »
Logged

RisingJaguar

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • Respect: +184
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #433 on: July 05, 2012, 12:37:11 am »
0

Maybe I am just naive, but does anybody on the isotropics keep track of cards in other people's deck.  I honestly would never have thought about doing that.  If I want to keep track of cards, I just... focus.
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #434 on: July 05, 2012, 12:39:02 am »
0

Maybe I am just naive, but does anybody on the isotropics keep track of cards in other people's deck.  I honestly would never have thought about doing that.  If I want to keep track of cards, I just... focus.

I try to always remember what's in both of our decks, yes.  At least of the important cards.
Logged
A man on a mission.

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #435 on: July 05, 2012, 12:48:45 am »
0

Maybe I am just naive, but does anybody on the isotropics keep track of cards in other people's deck.  I honestly would never have thought about doing that.  If I want to keep track of cards, I just... focus.
I don't think I'd keep track beyond a single number. So if isotropic's built-in point counter is off, I'd only be remembering points and not any particular card. If the counter is on, maybe the split on some key card.
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #436 on: July 05, 2012, 12:52:56 am »
+4

You know, the way this thread has gone on for 18 pages, with countless arguments and counter-arguments, pleas for quotes to back up claims and accusations of inconsistencies, as well as pointing out who's siding with who, all vaguely reminds me of something else...what was it...

Oh, that's right.

Vote: Personman
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #437 on: July 05, 2012, 12:54:34 am »
0

Actually, I just realized someone else has been suspiciously quiet. Unvote

Vote: Robz
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

Jfrisch

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
  • Respect: +166
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #438 on: July 05, 2012, 12:59:57 am »
0

@Personman somewhat confused by your beliefs. Is there an explicit rule in the tournament against, for example, using dominion simulators to deterine an optimal strategy. I don't think it was explicitly mentioned but it is clearly against the rules. Is asking a strong friend for help explicitly against the rules? Would you do those?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #439 on: July 05, 2012, 02:53:11 am »
+49

Actually, I just realized someone else has been suspiciously quiet. Unvote

Vote: Robz
Too late, that was a lynch.

Personman (22) - michaeljb, ftl, sjelkjd, eHalcyon, czechvarmander, zxcvbn2, timchen, methods of rationality, Captain_Frisk, joel88s, philosophyguy, Turambar, RisingJaguar, Ozle, Polk5440, Kirian, GigaKnight, DG, chwhite, nopawnsintended, yuma, Powerman [no relation]
Wandering Winder (3) - Davio, popsofctown, Personman
Not voting - Wandering Winder, Robz888

A crowd gathers at Personman's house. They tear down the door, they climb through the windows, they break down the walls. "We know you're in here, Personman!" And so he is, in plain sight. They drag him out to the town square.

"We're all friends!" he says politely and calmly. "Sure I killed them - and I'd do it again! They could kill me if they wanted to, by talking the mod into modkilling me, so it was only fair that I kill them. It was necessary to avoid breeding suspicion. It prevented anyone from having to argue about who could kill who. It was justice! Wow I'm kind of a great guy for doing it, when you think about it. Also the mod flat out said I could kill people when he said I had no abilities. Consult my previous posts if you find this hard to follow."

They toss a rope over a tree branch. "Anyway it wasn't killing, it was killing with an axe. They're utterly different." Michaeljb ties a noose. "But you haven't said anything new!" Personman protests. "You have to endlessly produce new ways to explain that nonsense is false, or be quiet. That's only reasonable! Thanks for having this dialogue, guys." They stand him on a chair, and put the noose around his neck.

"What?" Personman somehow doesn't understand. "My perspective has been advantageous to me every step of the way, so how could it possibly be flawed? You guys don't know what you're doing! Here, pretend this is relevant and says something and isn't just tossing around some words that sound good together and hoping no-one will call me on it: Life isn't a game!"

"Yeah, life isn't a game," says Donald X., putting a foot on the chair. "Unfortunately for you, this is a game." And he kicks the chair away.

Personman, townie Sociopath, is dead.

Night has begun. Get in your PM's, people. The thread is now locked.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #440 on: July 05, 2012, 03:21:42 am »
0

Donald X, forum mafia.

What.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #441 on: July 05, 2012, 03:22:13 am »
0

Personman (22) - michaeljb, ftl, sjelkjd, eHalcyon, czechvarmander, zxcvbn2, timchen, methods of rationality, Captain_Frisk, joel88s, philosophyguy, Turambar, RisingJaguar, Ozle, Polk5440, Kirian, GigaKnight, DG, chwhite, nopawnsintended, yuma, Powerman [no relation]
Wandering Winder (3) - Davio, popsofctown, Personman
Not voting - Wandering Winder, Robz888

But the mod arguing all the way along with the town is also a 'variant' of mafia, isn't it?

+1 though
Logged

samath

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
  • Shuffle iT Username: SamE
  • Respect: +678
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #442 on: July 05, 2012, 03:36:45 am »
+1

Wow, and here I was thinking game designers were above trolling. Haha, that was pretty funny, though.

We seem to like logic trains, so here's another one.

1. Where the rules are unclear in a tournament, the tournament director is allowed to clarify.
2. The rules were not crystal clear about whether note-taking was permitted. The standard I use here is: If you have to refer someone to anything that is not in the official (offline) Dominion rules or in the tournament rules, it's not clear. Donald X's forum post saying that note-taking is cheating certainly falls outside of those two. You can't expect everyone to have read the entire forum before entering.
3. theory (with rrenaud's help) ultimately decided to ban the PCE, but to allow note-taking.
4. Personman, after clarifying that keeping such a spreadsheet was legal note-taking, played honestly and fairly and lost. Though his develop engine in game 4 was pretty awesome.

Therefore, no cheating actually occurred. I want this to be clear because while we might disagree with Personman's stance that the PCE should be enabled, I have no objections to his actual play in this tournament.

On the other hand, it does appear overwhelmingly clear that (and here are some things we can vote on!)
Proposition 1. This Dominion community, on the whole, approves of and plans to abide by unenforceable rules for online Dominion, even when there are actual prizes.
Proposition 2. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that note-taking (on a spreadsheet or on pen and paper) be disallowed in online tournament play. (Of course, this would need to actually be stated in the rules.)
Proposition 3. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that official tournament play allow for the official point counter and disallow the unofficial point counter, possibly (in both cases) unless all players in that particular game agree otherwise.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #443 on: July 05, 2012, 03:41:07 am »
0

Epic post by DX.

Being killed by the game designer, it's almost like... divine intervention.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #444 on: July 05, 2012, 05:51:10 am »
0

Wow, and here I was thinking game designers were above trolling. Haha, that was pretty funny, though.
Man, that's not trolling. Trolls write short posts that provoke long posts. I don't think anyone's trolling here. I guess you could count my tower defense line, but that was just a delightful moment of comic relief to help us get through these hard times.

On the other hand, it does appear overwhelmingly clear that (and here are some things we can vote on!)
Proposition 1. This Dominion community, on the whole, approves of and plans to abide by unenforceable rules for online Dominion, even when there are actual prizes.
Proposition 2. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that note-taking (on a spreadsheet or on pen and paper) be disallowed in online tournament play. (Of course, this would need to actually be stated in the rules.)
Proposition 3. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that official tournament play allow for the official point counter and disallow the unofficial point counter, possibly (in both cases) unless all players in that particular game agree otherwise.
Saying that people are in favor of abiding by unenforceable rules is at best a misleading way to talk about what's been going down. The conversation topics have been more specific than that.

Note-taking does not need to be explicitly forbidden, I can repeat this endlessly. It would probably get explicitly forbidden as a FAQ if we had official rules, but it is madness to think that you can do anything that hasn't been forbidden. It breaks all games, except possibly Step-on-feet.

This Dominion community is being represented here by its most vocal members, further limited to those who have the stomach for this thread. So I dunno. I expect there are a decent number of people who like having a point-counter; I guess you could check what people pick on isotropic. I expect that most people are against note-taking because they don't want to feel like they should be taking notes - being illegal means they can avoid that work without giving up an advantage (hey this is a neat complement to Personman's stance). There are people like clearclaw (a BGG guy) who are strongly in favor of tracking any trackable information, but I don't think there are enough of them playing Dominion to ever go as far as providing a card-tracker in the online version (though there are probably enough who want a point-counter to provide that).
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #445 on: July 05, 2012, 06:08:50 am »
+1

Well, I could live with the decision to ban the PCE, but let players take notes if they so wish.

If someone wants to go through the trouble of tracking by hand to squeeze out an extra percentage point of winning chance, good luck with that. In reality, I think people don't care enough to make the effort and only a few will actually do it. I can live with a few, I don't care about a few. If I'm playing with someone and he tells me he tracks the game with P&P, I'll tell him: as long as you don't slow the game down, which is, of course, impossible, but if he could somehow play at normal speed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The randomizer probably plays a bigger role in deciding who wins than his mighty pencil.

I know I had threatened to provide some offline software to prove my earlier point, but hey, even that's too much trouble for me. While there is no difference in theory between using the PCE and using P&P, there is in practice. I will stand by my point that whatever rule is eventually decided on is unenforceable and that I would have liked a built-in PCE.

It could be just like Diablo III where you have a character sheet where you can check your main stats and a details sheet where all of your stats are visbile. If the consensus is against such a thing, I can accept it and move on.

I realize I may have made friends and enemies by defending Personman's point of view, sometimes with confrontational and spiteful posts, but I'm here to make neither friends nor enemies. I'm here to have a good time. So I apologize if I've offended anyone.

I just hope the different branches can merge and become a tree again.

Though I must admit, this topic has been a lot of fun. It was nice to break the daily routine like that. Still, 18 pages is a lot, especially since it can be condensed in 1 page, so I won't throw any more fuel on the fire and will readily accept whichever way the consensus goes.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

ST218

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #446 on: July 05, 2012, 08:05:20 am »
0

I have very little input that has not been said, but I wish to note that DXV's posts have given me some very enjoyable laughter, and for that, I thank you all.
Logged

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #447 on: July 05, 2012, 08:52:37 am »
+2

I haven't read most of this thread, but I find it a shame that a lot of the community seems to be tied up in arguing while others are doing awesome and fun things on this forum, like Qvist's card lists and rinkworks' design contests. I think Dominion is about having fun, not getting mad, so those threads are going to be where I spend my time, not here.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]
« Reply #448 on: July 05, 2012, 09:10:49 am »
0

I think I would have to agree.  I'm more than happy to start another topic on this subject, where you can debate how future online tournaments ought to rule on the card-counter.  But debating whether one individual's actions during this past tournament were moral, ethical, immoral, or unethical is starting to beat a dead horse. 

On the other hand, the rest of the topic went surprisingly well, considering the subject matter. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 18 [All]
 

Page created in 0.443 seconds with 20 queries.