Print

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

[Qvist]

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]

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.

[Qvist]

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]

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.

[greatexpectations]

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.

[Ozle]

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...

[Qvist]

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]

Turambar,

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

[() | (_) ^/]

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.

[dondon151]

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?

[Fabian]

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.

[Turambar]

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.

[DStu]

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.

[greatexpectations]

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

[theory]

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.

[greatexpectations]

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:

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.

[Turambar]

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.

[DStu]

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.

[Turambar]

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?

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

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

[theory]

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.

[jonts26]

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.

[jonts26]

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.

[Turambar]

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?

[theory]

Locking this thread.