Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Rule questions 2012  (Read 22371 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Rule questions 2012
« on: December 01, 2012, 08:32:44 pm »
0

I have the following two rule questions:

1. Under numeral 6 of the rules it says:

Quote from: 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, and the official point counter. Use of unofficial point counters, notepads, etc. is not prohibited.

I am not quite certain whether this means that you can use the Chrome point counter extension (or alternatively simply a notepad) if the players don't reach an agreement on that. I guess it depends on if "official point counter" is meant in contrast to "Chrome point counter extension" / "notepad" - I wouldn't really see it as a contrast to that because the official point counter is also used when using the extension (or a notepad). But I am uncertain if the author meant it this way.
Could the organinzer please straighten that out for me?

2. Numeral 7 of the rules states:

Quote from: Rules
First player in the first game of the match is randomly determined.

That is very sensible of course, but how do we achieve that? How can I be sure that my opponent hasn't just played and lost a game in which case the first player would not be randomly determined if I have just logged on?
I would propose that both players take turns watching each other log out prior to the first game. Or is there a better way?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 08:44:48 pm by Varsinor »
Logged

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2012, 08:42:34 pm »
0

For #2, doesn't the Tournament lobby automatically take care of this?
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2012, 08:55:08 pm »
0

For #2, doesn't the Tournament lobby automatically take care of this?

No. If nothing has changed, Iso sorts players into two groups: Those that have lost their last game (and are still logged on) and those that have either won their last game or have just logged on (not sure about ties, my guess would be that they are counted as a victory).
Only if all players are in the same group, player order is determined randomly. Otherwise, players from the first group go first.

Which I find an extremely stupid rule (especially but not only with regards to tournaments), but unless we can get Doug to change it very soon, we need to find a way to deal with it. In my opinion, just disregarding it would not be a very fair option.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 08:59:52 pm by Varsinor »
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2012, 09:09:34 pm »
0

i'll defer to theory in case i get some of this a little off, but i think i can answer well enough.

- i believe the intent behind the point counter extension ruling was to allow it, largely because it is impossible to enforce. but at the same time, we didn't exactly want to encourage it's use either, or make players feel as if they are obligated to go obtain this extension. and as with any other variant, it is preferable if both players can reach an agreement on it's use for their set. i think that any potential confusion on the matter is likely due to our just copying the rules from last year and adding a few slight changes.
- as for seating, i believe that this has traditionally been done by both players just logging on and off quickly. if this solution is not adequate than i can talk with theory and jonts and we can just do a coin flip or something for each set and tell you who goes first.

as for dougz making any changes, i wouldn't count on it. he expressed way back in his ama that he wasn't interested in making many changes, and i doubt that his motivation to do so has increased with goko's impending release looming larger over time.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2012, 09:17:27 pm »
+1

I think the tournament lobby lets you set the turn order.
But doesn't let you choose random.

I think the best solution is to meet in Secret Chamber, then both log off & on just before the match.
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2012, 09:20:13 am »
+1

- i believe the intent behind the point counter extension ruling was to allow it, largely because it is impossible to enforce. but at the same time, we didn't exactly want to encourage it's use either, or make players feel as if they are obligated to go obtain this extension. and as with any other variant, it is preferable if both players can reach an agreement on it's use for their set. i think that any potential confusion on the matter is likely due to our just copying the rules from last year and adding a few slight changes.

I have read that this issue has caused a sizeable conflict on a past tournament, so I think it is imperative to make the rules on this absolutely crystal clear to avoid new quarrel.

I personally love the Chrome point counter extension and think Dominion is a much better game with it. I have explained in detail my reasons for this and also why I think that it should especially be allowed in tournaments here (*click*). (Points #1-#3 are mostly the ones explaining my personal taste and #4 and #5 are the ones particularly pertaining to tournaments.)

But anyway, my view on it is not the issue. I really don't want to start a new discussion about it here. I realize there are people who disagree with my opinion and I absolutely respect that.
So in a tournament, it is simply a question of what the rules say. Everyone has to respect the rules and either refrain from using the extension or refrain from criticizing anyone for using it. Period. So:

Is it clearly forbidden for everyone to use the extension if the opponent doesn't want him to? If it is not forbidden, I will use it in every game. If it is clearly forbidden, I will honor that rule of course.

So please state the rules on that clearly and publicly
(and as soon as possible, as tomorrow the games will start). Thanks in advance! :D
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2012, 09:42:32 am »
0

I think the best solution is to meet in Secret Chamber, then both log off & on just before the match.

Is there a way for the remaining player to distinguish logging off from just changing to one of the other two lobbies?

If no, I'd prefer greatexpectations' proposal to draw lots for the beginner of the first game and set that up in the Tournament lobby (although someone would need to tell me how that is done ;)).

(If drawing lots turns out to be too much work, a rule saying to log off before the first game would already be much better than nothing, of course - I guess it would need a strong will to cheat to circumvent that by just changing lobbies.)
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2012, 10:16:24 am »
+3

Use of unofficial point counters, notepads, etc. is not prohibited.
This is very clear to me.

It means chrome point counter is allowed but not required.

I agree the turn order rule has room for improvement.
If you really want to stop cheating I think the best way would be as follows:
Admin randomises start player when they do the pairings.

Play in the tournament lobby and alternate start player each game regardless of the result. (removing the loser starts next game rule). I think this is essentially the same expect if you have draws. And if you do have a drawn game it will now mean you both got to go first 4 times each. I think under the old rules with a drawn game a 5 / 3 split was possible. (results for P1 of: WLDWLWLW then they get to start games 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 ).

This seems slightly fairer in a few edge cases but might not be worth the extra effort.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 11:09:08 am by Rabid »
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2012, 11:01:58 am »
0

Use of unofficial point counters, notepads, etc. is not prohibited.
This is very clear to me.

It means chrome point counter is allowed but not required.

The question is if it is allowed when the opponent objects to its use.
You seem to imply "yes" and I also think that is a likely interpretation of numeral 6 of the rules.

However, one could argue that it means that the extension is not prohibitied when both players agree, but in the case where they are unable to reach an agreement, the "official point counter" is used - which might be meant in contrast to "point counter extension".

While I am obviously perfectly happy with your interpretation, I'd like a less ambiguous wording with no grounds for any doubt.
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2012, 11:05:47 am »
0

Admin randomises start player when they do the pairings.

Play in the tournament lobby and alternate start player each game regardless of the result. (removing the loser starts next game rule). I think this is essentially the same expect if you have draws. And if you do have a drawn game it will now mean you both got to go first 4 times each. I think under the old rules with a drawn game a 5 / 3 split was possible. (results for P1 of: WLDWLWLW then they get to start games 1, 3, 4, 6, 8).

I think this would be a very nice solution (adding removing the loser starts next game rule to the previous proposal)! :D
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2012, 11:30:05 am »
+2

We discussed loser first vs alternating first player and decided to just keep the loser first method. I had thought that maybe loser first would work to slightly undo first player advantage for the series, but I did the math and found that in the absence of draws there is no difference between the two systems, other than loser first encourages slightly longer series, which may work to benefit the higher skilled player.

I suppose you could make the argument that the potential to draw changes things a bit. You can give second player an advantage in the next game if he happens to work out a draw, but it seems rare enough that it won't matter really.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2012, 11:51:40 am »
0

The rule on point counters seems quite clear to me, as Rabid says: you can use it. Maybe it would be clearer to say they are allowed. But it's the same thing. I applaud this decision.
The only thing I would do there is to say that a PCE should have the ability for the opponent to access the same information, i.e. the !details option which is available on every one I've seen. I don't think this is really an issue though.

The alternating vs loser first - of course it doesn't make a difference on the overall number for the series in any way *unless* the series ends before the whole length is up, in which case loser first puts the winner at a disadvantage - but they won anyway, so.... no big deal. Of course the other way it makes a difference is that some sets have more 1st seat advantage, but as you can't predict this (except for the final - whoever is doing the final may want to think about this), there's no real reason to do it one way or the other.

Draws are the interesting bit. How do we want to handle who goes first after a draw?

shraeye

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
  • Shuffle iT Username: shraeye
  • More Graph Theory please
  • Respect: +299
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2012, 01:09:46 pm »
0

Draws are the interesting bit. How do we want to handle who goes first after a draw?
You could use Iso ranking; lower seed goes first.  To make sure this happens, the two players can play a fake first game, where the lower ranked person resigns, setting them up to be the starting player in the first actual game.

Just my thought.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2012, 01:11:26 pm »
0

OK, so we want to get everything settled by tonight for the tourney.

Point Counters and PCE: You are free to use them unless both players agree to not use them. If you use a PCE, it must be one of the scripts which makes all information public (eg Dr. Helds PCE).

We are keeping with loser first turn order. I suppose that Draws have some minimal effect on the series, but for simplicity sake, allow Iso to handle who goes first after a draw. I believe it uses the same turn order for the next game, but correct me if I'm wrong.

As for who goes first overall, I would love to just be able to trust people to log out/in so it is completely random. I am willing to randomly generate first player advantage though if people feel it is necessary. What if, if either player wants me to pre-randomize first player for the series, I will do so. Otherwise trust each other to log out/in?
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2012, 01:14:20 pm »
0

Draws are the interesting bit. How do we want to handle who goes first after a draw?
You could use Iso ranking; lower seed goes first.  To make sure this happens, the two players can play a fake first game, where the lower ranked person resigns, setting them up to be the starting player in the first actual game.

Just my thought.

By lower seed do you mean the better or worse player? Either way, I don't know if it's really fair to give either player an extra advantage.
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2012, 01:39:02 pm »
0

Point Counters and PCE: You are free to use them unless both players agree to not use them. If you use a PCE, it must be one of the scripts which makes all information public (eg Dr. Helds PCE).

Great, thanks for clarifying! :D

As for who goes first overall, I would love to just be able to trust people to log out/in so it is completely random. I am willing to randomly generate first player advantage though if people feel it is necessary. What if, if either player wants me to pre-randomize first player for the series, I will do so. Otherwise trust each other to log out/in?

Great if you are willing to do that! In that case, please do it for my games.
While I would think that the number of people who would cheat deliberately for first player advantage is really small, I think there is a much higher number of people who don't know that they are supposed to log out before the first game. Therefore I would have to discuss it with every opponent first which I imagine to be quite annoying. Especially considering that I am not even sure what exactly constitues a log out for the player order routine. What if you close the Iso browser window but have another window of the same browser open? What if you close all browser windows but don't automatically delete your cookies on closing them? Unless we know that for sure, there is extra plenty of room for getting it wrong without any intent of cheating.
I any case, I would feel better if the organizers randomly detect first player for my (first) games and we set that up on Iso. As long as someone can tell me how that is done in the Tournament lobby... ;) I couldn't find anything on my own or in the Iso FAQ.

By the way, thanks a lot for organizing this tournament, guys! :D
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 03:09:10 pm by Varsinor »
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2012, 01:47:51 pm »
+1

Tournament lobby.
Propose game as normal.
Yes I want to play.
Select player order.

You can test using 2 browsers and guest accounts.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2012, 03:02:50 pm by Rabid »
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2012, 02:57:51 pm »
+1

Bah. I hate the PCE and would much rather prefer it be banned if one player in a match requests so.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2012, 03:06:08 pm »
+2

Bah. I hate the PCE and would much rather prefer it be banned if one player in a match requests so.

And I'd love for people to trust each other to play fair. We can't always get what we want.
Logged

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2012, 03:06:42 pm »
0

Same here, but I guess if that's how it's going to be that's how it's going to be.  I have been trying to practice with the PCE but it still feels like a completely different game.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2012, 03:11:40 pm »
0

I don't really see how it's a whole different game. It takes a lot less memory to be as good. In my opinion, playing without it adds another variable for skill difference, but in the end, at "higher levels" you should be able to track your deck either way.
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: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2012, 03:12:40 pm »
0

If we face each other jsh357, I will gladly take you on in an epic series with no PCE.  ;)
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"?

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2012, 03:17:13 pm »
0

OK, GE and I talked it over and we've decided we're just going to do the first player randomization for every game.

We will indicate (either on the general spreasheet or on the bracket somewhere) who goes first in each match. Likely I will create a random number 1-256 for each participant and in any given match, lower number goes first in the first game. These will be used throughout the tournament.

I'll include these instructions again when we announce brackets. You will have to play your first game in the tournament lobby, selecting who goes first. Then, both players can either manually set up each game, or head over to the Secret Chamber lobby where loser goes first will be preserved.

If there are any objections to this, speak now because this will go official in a few hours when everything is finalized.
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2012, 03:19:15 pm »
+5

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
Logged

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2577
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4340
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2012, 03:19:54 pm »
0

I don't really see how it's a whole different game. It takes a lot less memory to be as good. In my opinion, playing without it adds another variable for skill difference, but in the end, at "higher levels" you should be able to track your deck either way.

Hey, it's just my opinion, man.  I'm not trying to instigate another discussion as it's already been had and we didn't get anything good out of it besides Donald X's mafia post.  To me, the element of uncertainty makes a huge difference.  It doesn't actually matter for most games, but it's huge with, say, alternate VP sets.  Regardless, if those are the rules of the tournament those are the rules no matter how I or anyone else feels about it.  You basically have to use the PCE or be at a disadvantage.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +643
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2012, 03:23:40 pm »
0

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.

Do you need to re randomise each round?
I'm not sure, it feels wrong not to, but this could be a statistics thing that feels unfair but isn't?
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2012, 03:23:58 pm »
+1

Bah. I hate the PCE and would much rather prefer it be banned if one player in a match requests so.

sure, but as we have said we can't enforce anything. ideally, the approach to this situation would be similar to what you see from other competitions with strong DIY or community based roots: the 'Spirit of the Game' approach to ultimate and the 'fair play' concept in soccer both come to mind.

the spirit of the game wiki discussion summarizes it succinctly:
"Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of the bond of mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play."
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2012, 03:25:34 pm »
0

I didn't really want to spark a discussion, just get my opinion said. And I don't agree that you have to use it or be at a disadvantage. You have to know how to use it or be at a possible disadvantage. I won't install it for this tournament. But I'm pretty sure I will type !details at least once a turn in the games where my opponent wants to play with it on.
Logged

Lekkit

  • 2011 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1253
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lekkit
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2012, 03:28:21 pm »
0

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.

Do you need to re randomise each round?
I'm not sure, it feels wrong not to, but this could be a statistics thing that feels unfair but isn't?

I'm not super into statistics, but I think it would be something like randomising starting hands for each player at the start of the tournament and then always use those hands. Someone will get a 5/2 and keep it thoughout the entire tournament. I think it would be really unfair. Win the lottery once, always win the lottery.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2012, 03:37:11 pm »
0

I didn't really want to spark a discussion, just get my opinion said.

hey discussion is fine. we just want to keep things friendly and civil. as the mods for this, we get stuck in a rough spot. id assume this is why theory wanted assistance for this tournament, as he was likely frustrated by the drama surrounding the last tournament he organized.

we will do all we can to try to minimize luck and keep things fair, but unfortunately there is a mix of human element in all this too. reducing potential luck factors can mean little when the tournament is almost entirely anonymous. at some point we have to do what we feel is best and then just leave it at that.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2012, 03:38:28 pm »
+2

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.

Do you need to re randomise each round?
I'm not sure, it feels wrong not to, but this could be a statistics thing that feels unfair but isn't?
I'm not super into statistics, but I think it would be something like randomising starting hands for each player at the start of the tournament and then always use those hands. Someone will get a 5/2 and keep it thoughout the entire tournament. I think it would be really unfair. Win the lottery once, always win the lottery.

Imagine for simplicity sake a tournament in which every player played 8 rounds. If we randomize each round, you have a 1 in 256 chance of going first all 8 times (2^8) or second all 8 times. With pre randomizing you have a 1 in 256 chance of getting the 1 seed. So the odds are the same. It's just we pushed them all up front in one case. The math gets trickier with elimination and the other seeding, but it should still work out, either way that your expected number of series where you go first overall is 50%. The only thing that changes is when you know how lucky you got.

Anyway I guess it doesnt matter. GE wants to just make this as simple as possible so I dont have to explain the math over and over. So we're going to just randomize each round since it is more intuitive and very little extra work.
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2012, 03:43:33 pm »
0

The expectation might be the same, but the variance certainly isn't. Definitely a new number each round please.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2012, 04:07:16 pm »
+2

The expectation might be the same, but the variance certainly isn't. Definitely a new number each round please.

Disclaimer: I'm not taking part in the tournament.

You can certainly construct it (quite easily) the way that it is equivalent (up to the fact that you know beforehand).  The way it was proposed it's probably not, as if you go first somehow depends on who's advancing.
But you could e.g. just do all the coin tosses beforehand, and than construct the bracket so that it is equivalent. 4 player example:
Take player A vs B and C vs D, and 3 cointosses.  First take the coin for the final, if winner of A vs. B goes first, set first bit of A's and B's number to 0, otherwise 1. C and D get the opposit.  Now take A and B, toss coin, if A goes first, second bit of A's number is 0, otherwise 1. B the opposite. C and D analogue.  Now if you just reveal the last remaining bit each round, from the perspective of the players it looks like you would toss the coin for each round.  But nevertheless you have done all coin tosses beforehand.


Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2012, 06:01:28 pm »
0

The expectation might be the same, but the variance certainly isn't. Definitely a new number each round please.

Not even the expectation value is the same if I am not mistaken. When the coin is tossed every time, your expectation value to go first is 1/(2^number of matches) or 1/256 for 8 matches.
Under the proposed system, this is guaranteed for one out of 256, the player with number 1. But the next, say, 9 players are also very likely to go first on every game because it is unlikely that they will face a player with a lower number directly.

With this system, you'll end up having plenty of people who have gone first on every match and plenty of people who have gone last and way too few people who have gone first every second match like they should have.

I don't really like this. I can also understand the organizers' desire to keep the amount of work low, of course! But in case it is not that much more work, I would really prefer tossing the coin for every match... 8)
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2012, 06:08:29 pm »
+2

The expectation might be the same, but the variance certainly isn't. Definitely a new number each round please.

Not even the expectation value is the same if I am not mistaken. When the coin is tossed every time, your expectation value to go first is 1/(2^number of matches) or 1/256 for 8 matches.
Under the proposed system, this is guaranteed for one out of 256, the player with number 1. But the next, say, 9 players are also very likely to go first on every game because it is unlikely that they will face a player with a lower number directly.

With this system, you'll end up having plenty of people who have gone first on every match and plenty of people who have gone last and way too few people who have gone first every second match like they should have.

I don't really like this. I can also understand the organizers' desire to keep the amount of work low, of course! But in case it is not that much more work, I would really prefer tossing the coin for every match... 8)

1. I've already stated that we are switching to a per round randomization.
2. What you are describing is not a change in the expectation, but a higher variance, as Fabian pointed out. Expectation is still 50% going first, but it's skewed so you get more extremes like going first/second a higher proportion of the time. But yes, this is reason enough to use the per round randomization.
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2012, 06:09:43 pm »
0

I'll include these instructions again when we announce brackets. You will have to play your first game in the tournament lobby, selecting who goes first. Then, both players can either manually set up each game, or head over to the Secret Chamber lobby where loser goes first will be preserved.

I am not quite sure if you mean that after the first game, players may rotate in being player 1 (independently of who won) or if after the first game, the looser always goes first which would seem to indicate that after draws, you can't play in the Tournament lobby but must change to the Secret Chamber.

I would prefer the former.
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2012, 06:15:27 pm »
0

1. I've already stated that we are switching to a per round randomization.

Ah, sorry, I missed that. Great!

2. What you are describing is not a change in the expectation, but a higher variance, as Fabian pointed out.

Indeed, absolutely! My mistake, I stand corrected! (I daresay that usually doesn't happen on statistics questions as simple as that, I'm kind of embarrased now... :-[) I actually kind of implied it myself in the last-but-one paragraph of my posting... I guess I wanted to fire off that posting too quickly! 8)
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2012, 06:17:37 pm »
0

I'll include these instructions again when we announce brackets. You will have to play your first game in the tournament lobby, selecting who goes first. Then, both players can either manually set up each game, or head over to the Secret Chamber lobby where loser goes first will be preserved.

I am not quite sure if you mean that after the first game, players may rotate in being player 1 (independently of who won) or if after the first game, the looser always goes first which would seem to indicate that after draws, you can't play in the Tournament lobby but must change to the Secret Chamber.

I would prefer the former.

We are playing by 'standard isotropic rules.' First player in the series is randomized, after which loser goes first. In the event of a draw, turn order is preserved from the previous game.

The easiest way to ensure this is just having two players play in the secret chamber lobby. But since I am randomizing the order for first turn overall, we need to set that manually, which must be done in the tourney lobby. After that, feel free to go back to the SC lobby to finish the series. If you want to stay int he tourney lobby, feel free, but you will have to manually set who goes first each game. Which is still loser first per the tournament rules.
Logged

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2982
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2012, 06:19:17 pm »
0

If the expectation value of games you go first in wouldnt be half the number of rounds, something would be kinda strange.
Logged

Varsinor

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 204
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2012, 07:09:33 pm »
0

We are playing by 'standard isotropic rules.' First player in the series is randomized, after which loser goes first. In the event of a draw, turn order is preserved from the previous game.

Are you sure these are the isotropic rules regarding draws? Has Dougz posted that somewhere?

His two postings here (*click*) sound like in case of another 2-player game after a draw, the starting player is randomized and not determinded according to the previous game.
Both players fall into the same class of players after the draw. I would guess the class is "winners", because Isotropic (and the original rules) say both players win on a draw. But even if it counts as a "conventional draw" and therefore as the class "non-winners", both players are still in the same class.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2012, 07:26:51 pm »
0

We are playing by 'standard isotropic rules.' First player in the series is randomized, after which loser goes first. In the event of a draw, turn order is preserved from the previous game.

Are you sure these are the isotropic rules regarding draws? Has Dougz posted that somewhere?

His two postings here (*click*) sound like in case of another 2-player game after a draw, the starting player is randomized and not determinded according to the previous game.
Both players fall into the same class of players after the draw. I would guess the class is "winners", because Isotropic (and the original rules) say both players win on a draw. But even if it counts as a "conventional draw" and therefore as the class "non-winners", both players are still in the same class.

OK, I'm not positive what the iso rule is. If anyone knows speak up. REGARDLESS, we are using the iso implementation, which is either order is preserved or order is randomized. Either way, it should have minimal impact on results.

And to pre-empt you, after a draw you have to go to the secret chamber lobby.
Logged

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2012, 07:49:53 pm »
+1

I don't actually care about this issue at all, but just so everyone knows, I tested it and in case of a tie the person to start the next game is determined randomly.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2012, 07:59:37 pm »
0

1. Point counters are permitted.  If you don't want to play with them you can ask your opponent not to use them and it is up to them whether to listen to you.

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2012, 10:54:03 pm »
+1

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
For any way that first players are chosen and for any tournament results, it's always true that there is some player that starts first in every series he/she plays. :) Try it out.

(Proof idea: Suppose each player started second in some series. Then every player who lost in the first round must have started second, since otherwise they would have started first in their only series. So, every player who won in the first round must have started first. Similar reasoning works for the second round and so on, but then the tournament winner could never have started second.)
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2012, 10:57:22 pm »
+1

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
For any way that first players are chosen and for any tournament results, it's always true that there is some player that starts first in every series he/she plays. :) Try it out.

(Proof idea: Suppose each player started second in some series. Then every player who lost in the first round must have started second, since otherwise they would have started first in their only series. So, every player who won in the first round must have started first. Similar reasoning works for the second round and so on, but then the tournament winner could never have started second.)

False.

Consider the case where in the first round, every player who started first lost.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2012, 10:57:55 pm »
+1

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
For any way that first players are chosen and for any tournament results, it's always true that there is some player that starts first in every series he/she plays. :) Try it out.

(Proof idea: Suppose each player started second in some series. Then every player who lost in the first round must have started second, since otherwise they would have started first in their only series. So, every player who won in the first round must have started first. Similar reasoning works for the second round and so on, but then the tournament winner could never have started second.)

False.

Consider the case where in the first round, every player who started first lost.
If you start first in the first round and lose, then you started first in every series you played.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2012, 11:00:13 pm »
0

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
For any way that first players are chosen and for any tournament results, it's always true that there is some player that starts first in every series he/she plays. :) Try it out.

(Proof idea: Suppose each player started second in some series. Then every player who lost in the first round must have started second, since otherwise they would have started first in their only series. So, every player who won in the first round must have started first. Similar reasoning works for the second round and so on, but then the tournament winner could never have started second.)

False.

Consider the case where in the first round, every player who started first lost.
If you start first in the first round and lose, then you started first in every series you played.

Oh, now I see what you're saying. Ok. Sure. But that doesn't invalidate anything else said.
Logged

blueblimp

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2849
  • Respect: +1559
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #47 on: December 02, 2012, 11:08:41 pm »
+1

Please, do not use the same number thoughout the tournament. That would mean that someone with a really low number would ALWAYS go first. It should be random every match.
For any way that first players are chosen and for any tournament results, it's always true that there is some player that starts first in every series he/she plays. :) Try it out.

(Proof idea: Suppose each player started second in some series. Then every player who lost in the first round must have started second, since otherwise they would have started first in their only series. So, every player who won in the first round must have started first. Similar reasoning works for the second round and so on, but then the tournament winner could never have started second.)

False.

Consider the case where in the first round, every player who started first lost.
If you start first in the first round and lose, then you started first in every series you played.

Oh, now I see what you're saying. Ok. Sure. But that doesn't invalidate anything else said.
Sure, it's just interesting that it's true.
Logged

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2012, 04:38:43 am »
+1

Bah. I hate the PCE and would much rather prefer it be banned if one player in a match requests so.

sure, but as we have said we can't enforce anything. ideally, the approach to this situation would be similar to what you see from other competitions with strong DIY or community based roots: the '

Some of my irl friends are in the tournament, they are ranked between level10-30. I suppose there would be no problems with me helping them when playing against high-level opponents? I mean, since you can't enforce any ruling against it...
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2012, 04:43:14 am »
+3

Bah. I hate the PCE and would much rather prefer it be banned if one player in a match requests so.

sure, but as we have said we can't enforce anything. ideally, the approach to this situation would be similar to what you see from other competitions with strong DIY or community based roots: the '

Some of my irl friends are in the tournament, they are ranked between level10-30. I suppose there would be no problems with me helping them when playing against high-level opponents? I mean, since you can't enforce any ruling against it...

You are right that it can't be enforced, but ethically, it is cheating, imo.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2012, 04:45:19 am »
0

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2012, 06:54:31 am »
0

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

The Tournament lobby lets your choose who goes first.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2012, 07:22:52 am »
0

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

The Tournament lobby lets your choose who goes first.

So, you have to play in the tournament lobby and then play the following games in another lobby? I call this "suboptimal"...

Schneau

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1174
  • Shuffle iT Username: Schneau
  • Respect: +1461
    • View Profile
    • Rainwave
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2012, 07:58:27 am »
+2

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

The Tournament lobby lets your choose who goes first.

So, you have to play in the tournament lobby and then play the following games in another lobby? I call this "suboptimal"...

You could also just play all your games in the tournament lobby, choosing the loser of the previous game to go first.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #54 on: December 03, 2012, 08:11:01 am »
+1

So, you have to play in the tournament lobby and then play the following games in another lobby? I call this "suboptimal"...

you are correct, it is suboptimal. but this decision was a reaction to the apparent distrust regarding people logging on and off to ensure random starts.

what would be optimal would be not having to worry about potential cheating or gaming the system and having everyone agree to abide by the same rules of play. unfortunately, until a time arrives when this is possible we are forced to create a suboptimal response.
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: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #55 on: December 03, 2012, 08:17:12 am »
0

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

The Tournament lobby lets your choose who goes first.

So, you have to play in the tournament lobby and then play the following games in another lobby? I call this "suboptimal"...

I call this having a little whinge over such a minor point...

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

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #56 on: December 03, 2012, 08:26:14 am »
0

2. We'll edit the rules.  In the first game of the series, the person "on top" in the Challonge bracket is designated as going first.  Afterwards, loser goes first.  In event of a tie game, immediately replay, and use Isotropic rules where first player is randomly determined.

I don't like it, but if this is the new oficial ruling, I accept it.
But maybe I missed something: How can you determine who goes first in isotropic?

The Tournament lobby lets your choose who goes first.

So, you have to play in the tournament lobby and then play the following games in another lobby? I call this "suboptimal"...

I call this having a little whinge over such a minor point...

I apologize, if you got the impression of whinging. This was just feedback.
I'm just confused that the first player problem is such a big issue this year.
But fine, let's play all the matches in the Tournament Lobby. That's what it's for, right?

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #57 on: December 03, 2012, 09:04:53 am »
+4

Turambar,

Come on man, that's not cool. Why would you even bring that up?
Logged

() | (_) ^/

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 632
  • Shuffle iT Username: p4ddy0d00rs
  • Nemo dat quod non habet.
  • Respect: +526
    • View Profile
    • BGG profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2012, 09:36:39 am »
+1

Turambar,

Come on man, that's not cool. Why would you even bring that up?

From what I can tell, he's just trying to stress the weakness of the logic, not trying to be a jerk.

Just my $.02 though.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #59 on: December 03, 2012, 09:42:07 am »
0

Some of my irl friends are in the tournament, they are ranked between level10-30. I suppose there would be no problems with me helping them when playing against high-level opponents? I mean, since you can't enforce any ruling against it...

Turambar,

Come on man, that's not cool. Why would you even bring that up?

Team Norway vs. Team Sweden Dominion crew battle?
Logged

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2012, 10:31:57 am »
0

Some of my irl friends are in the tournament, they are ranked between level10-30. I suppose there would be no problems with me helping them when playing against high-level opponents? I mean, since you can't enforce any ruling against it...

Turambar,

Come on man, that's not cool. Why would you even bring that up?

Team Norway vs. Team Sweden Dominion crew battle?

Get over yourself. I like Turambar, he's a cool guy.
Logged

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2012, 10:51:04 am »
+2

Turambar,

Come on man, that's not cool. Why would you even bring that up?

Obviously I'm not going to do what I said.

My point is just that from the previous discussion it seems that more than 50% of forum users  consider unofficial point counter extension cheating, and the only real argument provided in favour is that you cannot enforce rulings against it.

Hence by the same logic I could help other players.

And what about simulators? Can I spend 2 min simulating the board before starting the game?

Again I'm not doing any of these, I'm just pointing out that the argument "you cannot enforce it" is a really bad argument. Ofc the people arranging the tournament can say "point counter allowed because we arbitrarily want it to be", but I have yet to see a good argument for why it should be.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2012, 11:05:49 am »
0

Again I'm not doing any of these, I'm just pointing out that the argument "you cannot enforce it" is a really bad argument. Ofc the people arranging the tournament can say "point counter allowed because we arbitrarily want it to be", but I have yet to see a good argument for why it should be.

Because last time we had not, and spend 2 month discussing afterwards. We don't want to discuss again, so we try the other way round.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 11:21:07 am by DStu »
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2012, 11:15:44 am »
0

And what about simulators? Can I spend 2 min simulating the board before starting the game?

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1174.0
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2012, 11:21:39 am »
0

I've learned that there will be people who complain no matter which side we take.  We've tried banning it, permitting it, and not saying anything on it, and apparently none of the three options are complaint-proof.

Look, no matter which side we come down on, you can say, "By that logic [some unreasonable thing] is OK!".  Go ahead and criticize all you want, but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere unless you can also come up with a ruleset immune to such criticism.

The way I see it, we have two options, both with serious flaws.  Unless you are suggesting a third option, or comparing the flaws between the options, pointing out that yes, flaws exist in the current option, is not particularly helpful.
Logged

greatexpectations

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
  • Respect: +1067
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2012, 11:29:03 am »
0

Look, no matter which side we come down on, you can say, "By that logic [some unreasonable thing] is OK!". 

that just reminds me of a donald x. quote:
Quote
In all games, within game contexts, you may only do things expressly allowed by the rules. This is what it means to have rules; it is the covenant you have agreed to by agreeing to play. You can play tic-tac-toe in a van while yodeling, but putting a Z in a box is out of the question. It is not up to any rulebook to say that you can't use a memory aid; rather it is up to the rulebook to specifically allow it, or else you can't use one. It doesn't matter how much the game for you is not about this memorization, how much the memory thing seems tangential to whatever fun the game provides; you do not get to use anything other than your brain to handle that memorization, unless of course you are explicitly playing a variant. You also do not get to - and this is important - scrawl notes to yourself on your belly using your own blood. Games between players are played between players, and "players" do not by default include notebooks or pencils, even makeshift ones that are constructed from the players. Expecting all rulebooks to repeat this is nonsense, and anyway would offend people who don't like to talk about blood.
Logged
momomoto: ...I looked at the tableau and went "Mountebank? That's for jerks."
rrenaud: Jerks win.

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2012, 11:33:15 am »
+2

I've learned that there will be people who complain no matter which side we take.  We've tried banning it, permitting it, and not saying anything on it, and apparently none of the three options are complaint-proof.

Look, no matter which side we come down on, you can say, "By that logic [some unreasonable thing] is OK!".  Go ahead and criticize all you want, but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere unless you can also come up with a ruleset immune to such criticism.

The way I see it, we have two options, both with serious flaws.  Unless you are suggesting a third option, or comparing the flaws between the options, pointing out that yes, flaws exist in the current option, is not particularly helpful.

I'm just pointing out that people are using faulty logic. The reason PCE is allowed is not (as many claim) that it cannot be enforced, but that the people deciding the rules (whoever they are) arbitrarily chose it to be so.

Now if I dislike it, I can choose to not participate. I only wanted to point out that (several) people are (repeatedly) using bad arguments.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 11:36:03 am by Turambar »
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2012, 11:42:26 am »
0

I'm just pointing out that people are using faulty logic. The reason PCE is allowed is not (as many claim) that it cannot be enforced, but that the people deciding the rules (whoever they are) arbitrarily chose it to be so.

Now if I dislike it, I can choose to not participate. I only wanted to point out that (several) people are (repeatedly) using bad arguments.

Of course it is the reason. Maybe it is not the only one, but would PCE be enforcable, we wouldn't have the discussion last time, and probably it would not be allowed this time.
Logged

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2012, 12:07:25 pm »
0

I'm just pointing out that people are using faulty logic. The reason PCE is allowed is not (as many claim) that it cannot be enforced, but that the people deciding the rules (whoever they are) arbitrarily chose it to be so.

Now if I dislike it, I can choose to not participate. I only wanted to point out that (several) people are (repeatedly) using bad arguments.

Of course it is the reason. Maybe it is not the only one, but would PCE be enforcable, we wouldn't have the discussion last time, and probably it would not be allowed this time.

1. Banning PCE is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban PCE

1. Banning simulators is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban simulators

At which point do you disagree?
Logged

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2012, 12:09:45 pm »
+2

Rules questions thread: incoming 20 pages about point counters, morality, and Hitler.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2012, 12:10:04 pm »
+1

Isn't this the point I tried to raise earlier?  You've got bad arguments on every side of this debate.  Arguments for permitting PCE are awful.  They seem to me to be a bit less awful than the arguments for banning PCE.

The decision has been made for this tournament, for good or worse.  Maybe if it turns out to be a huge disaster we'll reconsider for a subsequent tournament.  I doubt it will.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2012, 12:10:48 pm »
0

I'm just pointing out that people are using faulty logic. The reason PCE is allowed is not (as many claim) that it cannot be enforced, but that the people deciding the rules (whoever they are) arbitrarily chose it to be so.

Now if I dislike it, I can choose to not participate. I only wanted to point out that (several) people are (repeatedly) using bad arguments.

Of course it is the reason. Maybe it is not the only one, but would PCE be enforcable, we wouldn't have the discussion last time, and probably it would not be allowed this time.

1. Banning PCE is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban PCE

1. Banning simulators is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban simulators

At which point do you disagree?

2.

Basic logic works great when you only have one factor contributing to the conclusion. Real world tends to add a lot of confounding factors. It is not unreasonable for the unenforceable to be a part of the conclusion along with many many other things.
Logged

jonts26

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #72 on: December 03, 2012, 12:11:32 pm »
+2

Rules questions thread: incoming 20 pages about point counters, morality, and Hitler.

If anyone wants to keep talking about PCE, maybe you should go to the RSP subforum.
Logged

Turambar

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 53
  • Respect: +44
    • View Profile
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #73 on: December 03, 2012, 12:13:02 pm »
0

I'm just pointing out that people are using faulty logic. The reason PCE is allowed is not (as many claim) that it cannot be enforced, but that the people deciding the rules (whoever they are) arbitrarily chose it to be so.

Now if I dislike it, I can choose to not participate. I only wanted to point out that (several) people are (repeatedly) using bad arguments.

Of course it is the reason. Maybe it is not the only one, but would PCE be enforcable, we wouldn't have the discussion last time, and probably it would not be allowed this time.

1. Banning PCE is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban PCE

1. Banning simulators is not enforcable
2. We cannot ban things which are not enforcable
Hence:
3. We cannot ban simulators

At which point do you disagree?

2.

Basic logic works great when you only have one factor contributing to the conclusion. Real world tends to add a lot of confounding factors. It is not unreasonable for the unenforceable to be a part of the conclusion along with many many other things.

I agree. But in this thread I haven't seen any other arguments for allowing PCE other than "enforcement". Maybe they exist, who knows?
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Rule questions 2012
« Reply #74 on: December 03, 2012, 12:14:45 pm »
+3

Locking this thread.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.102 seconds with 20 queries.