Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18  All

Author Topic: Finals order [plus a point/card counter debate]  (Read 164796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18  All
 

Page created in 0.179 seconds with 21 queries.