WanderingWinder withdraws.
WanderingWinder withdraws.
I'm glad this damn thing is over, at least.
It was basically the point counter debate all over again. There were reasonable, but very strong views on both sides, and we couldn't come to a compromise that made everyone happy within the time constraints. We really don't want to rehash this over and over. We regret that WW resigned. He is a great Dominion player and a great participant in this community.But it was to be played over the internet right?
I mean, I can understand people generally not caring or wanting it in regular 2p games, but for the finals, man, you kind of have to do this. :-\
WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?
Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.
WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?
I'm also confused. I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen. The tournament rules state this:QuoteGames must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.
I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter. Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?
Consider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points. Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.
WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?
I'm also confused. I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen. The tournament rules state this:QuoteGames must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.
I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter. Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?
Let me see if I can summarize the issue of the point counter in a neutral manner. (Disclaimer: I use the point counter extension.)
Isotropic's built-in point counter gives you just the minimum information a point counter can give you: the points each player had at the beginning of the current turn. The point counter extension existed first and gives you more information: the current points of each player, along with the current deck contents of each player. The tracking of deck contents is a side effect of tracking points, since you need that information to calculate the value of fairgrounds, silk road, etc.
The point counter extension makes point information available in two ways. One is that it can be seen at any time, by either player, by typing "!status" into the chat box. The other is that the current points information is shown next to the chat box, for the player running the extension.
The point counter extension makes deck content information available in two ways, also. Similar to points information, it can be seen by typing "!details" into the chat box. A few months ago, that was the only way to see it. Somewhat more recently, I believe on April 1st with the release of version 5.1 of the extension (https://github.com/drheld/isotropic_dominion_extension/commit/6e44f612f81a976bded7a8f2dd316c6a4e1d1502), the deck contents information started to display next to the supply. While I can't speak for other users of the extension, I didn't pay much attention to the deck content information until this UI change. However, all the information provided by the UI change was previously available by typing "!details".
Since there's no visible change to people who don't use the extension, initially only users of the extension were aware of the UI change. I believe that changed with this post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54523#msg54523) in the Isotropic Discussion forum, so that's why it's becoming a hot topic now.
Opinions on the point counter extension are mixed. As theory summarized (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54789#msg54789):QuoteConsider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points. Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.
Actually going over the pro and con arguments is a different discussion, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suspect the issue here was that the tournament rules did not address the point counter extension, just the official isotropic point counter.
WW gave up a 1-in-4 chance of an expenses-paid trip to the US finals over the point counter? Wha?
I'm also confused. I have zero desire to argue about what should / shouldn't happen, but I am very curious to know what did happen. The tournament rules state this:QuoteGames must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise.
I'm not seeing what's unclear about this as it relates to the point counter. Was somebody trying to use an extension point counter that created a problem?
Let me see if I can summarize the issue of the point counter in a neutral manner. (Disclaimer: I use the point counter extension.)
Isotropic's built-in point counter gives you just the minimum information a point counter can give you: the points each player had at the beginning of the current turn. The point counter extension existed first and gives you more information: the current points of each player, along with the current deck contents of each player. The tracking of deck contents is a side effect of tracking points, since you need that information to calculate the value of fairgrounds, silk road, etc.
The point counter extension makes point information available in two ways. One is that it can be seen at any time, by either player, by typing "!status" into the chat box. The other is that the current points information is shown next to the chat box, for the player running the extension.
The point counter extension makes deck content information available in two ways, also. Similar to points information, it can be seen by typing "!details" into the chat box. A few months ago, that was the only way to see it. Somewhat more recently, I believe on April 1st with the release of version 5.1 of the extension (https://github.com/drheld/isotropic_dominion_extension/commit/6e44f612f81a976bded7a8f2dd316c6a4e1d1502), the deck contents information started to display next to the supply. While I can't speak for other users of the extension, I didn't pay much attention to the deck content information until this UI change. However, all the information provided by the UI change was previously available by typing "!details".
Since there's no visible change to people who don't use the extension, initially only users of the extension were aware of the UI change. I believe that changed with this post (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54523#msg54523) in the Isotropic Discussion forum, so that's why it's becoming a hot topic now.
Opinions on the point counter extension are mixed. As theory summarized (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54789#msg54789):QuoteConsider yourself on notice that the unofficial "point counter extension" can count much more than points. Some think this is cheating, some think this is unethical, some think this is both, some think this is neither.
Actually going over the pro and con arguments is a different discussion, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suspect the issue here was that the tournament rules did not address the point counter extension, just the official isotropic point counter.
I didn't realize this at all. In other words, every person with the "Auto Count" thing next to their name has this ability?
I didn't realize this at all. In other words, every person with the "Auto Count" thing next to their name has this ability?
The Auto Count thing means they have it set so that it cannot be disabled.
edit: well i'm not sure actually, it seems the Auto Count message is required if you've disabled disabling, but I don't know if Auto Count always means that has occurred.
(screenshot)
I mean, that's everything except showing your hand and the contents of your discard pile to your opponent! And I'm sure the same addon could probably do the latter to within a certain amount of error.
Kirian: There are a number of misunderstandings in your post. First and foremost, the isotropic combo box labeled "Point counter" does not in any way affect your opponent's use of drheld's extension. It refers only to the built in point counter. There is nothing isotropic can do to prevent you from using client-side card tracking tools.This is wrong. When the point counter extension is enabled, it forces the official point counter to be on. If your auto-match settings forbid a point counter, you won't be auto-matched with anybody using the point counter extension.
Secondly, the information is NOT available to only one player. The extension (in addition to being freely available to everyone) also includes a chat-box interface that the opponent can use. You can type "!details" in the chat box and receive a full listing of your and your opponent's cards.This is correct. The only difference between the player running the extension and the player who isn't is how the information is displayed. "!details" gives you all the information available to either player (and actually more than is displayed next to the supply cards, because of Black Market, Tournament, etc.).
Kirian: There are a number of misunderstandings in your post. First and foremost, the isotropic combo box labeled "Point counter" does not in any way affect your opponent's use of drheld's extension. It refers only to the built in point counter. There is nothing isotropic can do to prevent you from using client-side card tracking tools.This is wrong. When the point counter extension is enabled, it forces the official point counter to be on. If your auto-match settings forbid a point counter, you won't be auto-matched with anybody using the point counter extension.
(In principle, anyone could modify the extension to be completely invisible to the opponent. There's no reason to believe that anyone does this.)
(and not wasting their time writing it down by hand or memorizing it).A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.
Secondly, the information is NOT available to only one player. The extension (in addition to being freely available to everyone) also includes a chat-box interface that the opponent can use. You can type "!details" in the chat box and receive a full listing of your and your opponent's cards.
Lastly, I strongly encourage you to think of the point tracker not as a devious attempt to gain an advantage, but as an enabling tool for a legitimate, optional Dominion variant in which more information is public.
A little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.
This addon will be barred from future IsoDom tournaments, should they happen.
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.This is cuckoo.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
Sorry, this wasn't directed at you specifically, but was just intended to ward off the debates over what's-cheating-what's-not that always seem to crop up in these threads. That debate tends to lead to threads getting locked.Quote from: blueblimpA little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.
..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to read this as fairly pointless antagonism.
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.I disagree with this line of reasoning. If a tournament forbids the point counter extension, then honest players won't use it. Cheaters can always find some other way to cheat apart from using an illicit extension. (Get my better-ranked friend to play my games for me? Why not!)
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted.
You can do whatever you want in tournaments you run, but I beg you to consider the following line of argument:
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
"if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X"
Seriously, that's easily five levels' worth of playing ability in a nice, succinct format, available only to one player.
If the addon can be trivially modified to be invisible--even without any evidence that it has been done--then I openly call for swift condemnation of the addon by the community, abjure those who use it, and ask dougz and the FunSockets team to do everything in their power to make such addons unusable.
I... wow, just wow, man. Really? You're going with "if X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" as an argument? Really?
I think Personman's argument is probably exaggerated, but reasonable. Still, I believe people here are nice enough, and the games are friendly enough, so this argument is not relevant.
However, one thing I always have a hard time understanding is why some people prefer not to have point counters even in a pure online setting. I guess I just don't understand what part of memory game is fun, especially comparing to other aspects of Dominion.
This is cuckoo.
I do not see myself being willing to try to talk sense into you. You could try David desJardins on BGG, I have seen him shoot down this brand of nonsense.
However, one thing I always have a hard time understanding is why some people prefer not to have point counters even in a pure online setting. I guess I just don't understand what part of memory game is fun, especially comparing to other aspects of Dominion.One reason could be that having a memory game forces you to choose what to spend your memory on. You can't remember full deck contents, so you need to identify key splits and counts and remember only those. That's definitely a skill.
All I want are the following few things:
1. For my position to be respected, as I respect those who prefer memory-intensive Dominion.
2. To educate those who have misconceptions about why people like me enjoy extension-Dominion.
3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.
I wish everyone didn't have to get so mad...
Quote3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.
And I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.
With all due respect, I was not asking you to talk sense into me.And I didn't ask you to ask me! I get to reply to posts, I am registered in the forums and everything.
I worry that I am slipping into a persecution complex here, but I am really reading this as "HEY EVERYONE I MADE THIS GAME SO MY OPINION IS THE BEST, THIS OTHER GUY IS CRAZY AND WRONG LOL". I want to believe that you are above that, so I hope you can explain to me what I was meant to take away from your post, other than being made the target of a witchhunt by the most high-profile member of the community. I really am not attempting to force my opinions on anyone else. All I want are the following few things:If people think I am just posting to throw my weight around, that's just them being who they are; it's not going to convince me not to post in forums to save them from feeling oppressed. Man I would link you to some BGN article comments where this lunatic tried to argue that game designers should be separated from reality so that no-one would be affected by anything they might say about their games (man maybe you could look it up on the wayback machine). Anyway whatever, you reading it that way just backs up my read on you, which I'll get to in a minute.
1. For my position to be respected, as I respect those who prefer memory-intensive Dominion.But these have nothing to do with your post, which was about using awful reasoning to justify whatever you were going to believe anyway. It had zilch to do with "I like using a point-counter, is that so wrong." Liking point-counters is fine.
2. To educate those who have misconceptions about why people like me enjoy extension-Dominion.
3. To find and/or help create like minded players, via my forum posts and commentary videos, so that I have a larger pool of like-minded players to compete with.
Why must you maliciously wish me to be unable to find opponents I will enjoy playing against? Live and let live...
Oh, and re your earlier contention that the extension provides 5 free isotropic levels: I challenge you to two sets of ten dominion games, one in which neither of us uses the counter, and one in which only you do. Dominion is variant enough that I don't want to make a claim about the actual difference in games won, but I believe strongly that after playing those games you will revise your estimate to perhaps 1/10 of a level, if that. I don't play with it because it's an advantage, I play with it because it's more fun.
Though, I disagree with Persoman's line of logic about it turning us into cheaters if we outlaw it
I guess I only wish that so long as you make it clear to those opponents that you are no longer playing Dominion.
That would require me to install that script on my machine. Not going to happen.
More than anything else, I, a long-time non-add-on player, do not want others to view add-on users as cheaters. This seems wrong.
I am not asking you to argue with me, and I do not think that it is my responsibility to post elsewhere in order to "save you time".It is not your responsibility. It is my advice that you do it though, if you really want to know how nonsensical that post was. Of course people in general do not wish to know such things. There are all sorts of advantages to believing false things. And who knows, maybe people wouldn't spend time on you at BGG, or maybe someone will here.
It does seem like the least Kirian could do is install the addon and see for himself what type of advantage it provides before labeling 20% of the community cheaters with such strong language.
And to agree with what blueblimp just said, its baffling to see such surprised indignation at the use of the addon-on, considering that if you play a lot, you see the link to the add-on spammed in your chat window several times a day. The reaction we're seeing suggests that all this cheating was going on behind everyone's back, when in fact we link the add-on at the start of every match and its only a 1-click install.
== v5.0 ==The github commit for v5.0 (https://github.com/drheld/isotropic_dominion_extension/commit/72a47d23716b153a58a287cf469d3576821b74b1) was on Feb 16th, 2012, so that's a while ago now.
- Added UI for displaying all cards owned by all players.
- Several bug fixes.
See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
Not if he's not stopping you from grabbing pen and paper or stopping your from programming an off-line counter on your computer as I have done in the past.See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Not if he's not stopping you from grabbing pen and paper or stopping your from programming an off-line counter on your computer as I have done in the past.See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
I agree with this, but it's hard to argue that people are cheating when they use the add-on. Is anyone really using the add-on maliciously? I was in your same boat, Robz888, until just a week or two ago. It doesn't make that big of a difference, let me tell you. It is helpful, undeniably so, but nothing like some are making it out to be.
See, I just didn't know that your opponent could know deck details without hitting !status. That's the big reason to me why it's such a huge revelation and deception. Because, I don't keep track of that stuff very well (I'm no mental math guy), and the !status directions are sort of hard to read. So I always assumed that we both just didn't know deck details for sure if no one had done !status.This is quite interesting. My guess is that you will find point counter users usually track those relatively well even without point counter (in a 2p game anyway) whereas it is people who have more problem tracking those themselves are complaining.
Seeing those numbers next to the piles of who bought what is absolutely infuriating.
Both players need the numbers next to the supply piles for the game to be fair. The info needs to presented to the 2 people in the same fashion, or else it's simply not a fair game. If you get to keep track of the score on pen and paper, and I have to chisel the score into a stone tablet, you have an advantage, don't you?
For your example of whether .99999 equals 1, you can have a 2-3 line proof for it. Whether people take it is another issue, but you can have it written there, instead of saying "I don't want to waste my time here because while my argument is simple and clear you won't accept it."When you give them your short proof, they say, but xyz. Now if you are silent they say, oh I'm right? If instead you say, "no that's nonsense" they say "oh explain it." Again, hundreds of pages, no lie, and I know this wasn't unique to those forums, there are other forums that have had the endless argument about that very thing, point nine repeating decimal, this thing that requires only a tiny proof.
A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3258.msg59162#msg59162), I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.
How would those who are against the add-on feel if there was no UI, and that those who enabled the add-on would have to type !status or !details just like the non-users? All players have to deal with the clogged messages that display the information and no single opponent has access to the information 100% of the time if the add-on functioned this way.
I figure some would still be against this, but I doubt this would be granting any competitive advantage at all. This is the next logical step.
A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3258.msg59162#msg59162), I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!Motion seconded as I have said before.
Oddly enough, the Ascension iPad app tracks deck contents but not points. Go figure.A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3258.msg59162#msg59162), I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.
A really excellent resolution to the interface-based fairness concern would be for isotropic to offer this feature natively. As isotropic is no longer under active development given its impending replacement with the FunSockets client, this is unlikely. And as I said in the other thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=3258.msg59162#msg59162), I'm quite willing to put my money where my mouth is with respect to FunSockets implementing this!If enough people wanted a point-counter in FunSockets then it would be a possibility, unless Jay hated the idea, which I think he might, I'm not sure though. It is a kind of thing he hates. No argument about "but people will write their own" would change that, for sure. If he didn't hate it then it wouldn't be a high-priority feature but could happen. I don't imagine it would ever go to the extreme of tracking deck contents.
But if I continue your reasoning, chwhite, you could play in a tournament and say in the chat box: "Guys, I'm not using the point counter (disabling it), but I'm writing everything down, is that ok?" They can't stop you from doing this even if they don't want you to.
(Edit: In reply to chwhite.) I agree for tournaments, but for everyday play I'd prefer that the other player just decline the auto-match. That's why it's in the status.
2.) Tolerate card counters, with the restriction to disable it by any opponent at any time. That's what I'm proposing.
2.) Tolerate card counters, with the restriction to disable it by any opponent at any time. That's what I'm proposing.
I could deal with this if the code weren't transparent. It's not a perfect solution, but it would be fair. However, as has been noted, anyone with enough knowledge about programming can change the code; this creates an untenable situation in which you can't guarantee someone is using it and you can't disable it--or even see it!
I just want to make sure I have this correct... The screenshot with the card counting did not need anything like !status to start it up correct? Also it would continue to count it without anything like !status? I ask because I have NEVER seen that before which makes me a little skeptical that this information is available to everyone (or I am missing the boat or something). (Attached is the screenshot)The Auto Count thing means they have it set so that it cannot be disabled.
edit: well i'm not sure actually, it seems the Auto Count message is required if you've disabled disabling, but I don't know if Auto Count always means that has occurred.
There are three options:The only thing that you can't do is turn off disabling and not show the status message.
- Shows status message and can be disabled. (Edit: thought this was the default, but it's not.)
- Shows status message and can't be disabled.
- Doesn't show status message and can be disabled. (The default.)
I've attached a screenshot to show what the point counter looks like when you use it (with the other player's name hidden). Next to the cards in the supply, you can see how many each player has. The chat box is what it looks like after typing "!details", which both players can see. You can see current points and deck sizes next to the chat input box (which is the same info you get by typing "!status").
One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets. Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.
I'm just going to say one thing on this matter, then shut up.
I personally have no issue with the point counter. I know that it gives a (very) slight advantage to the player who uses it, but it doesn't bother me. I play against people who use it all the time, no big deal. If I meet you on Iso, I'm not going to ask you to disable anything, or avoid you, because you use the point counter.
HOWEVER.
There is no defense, I repeat no defense, for not having the courtesy to disable it if asked, since after all a) everybody knows it's controversial, and b) it is confirmed by the DXV himself as a variant rather than accepted within the official rules. And it should go without saying that this is especially true in a tournament setting: there is no question in my mind that refusing to disable the point counter in a tournament game is not just incredibly rude, but is, yes, cheating.
I'm just going to say one thing on this matter, then shut up.
I personally have no issue with the point counter. I know that it gives a (very) slight advantage to the player who uses it, but it doesn't bother me. I play against people who use it all the time, no big deal. If I meet you on Iso, I'm not going to ask you to disable anything, or avoid you, because you use the point counter.
HOWEVER.
There is no defense, I repeat no defense, for not having the courtesy to disable it if asked, since after all a) everybody knows it's controversial, and b) it is confirmed by the DXV himself as a variant rather than accepted within the official rules. And it should go without saying that this is especially true in a tournament setting: there is no question in my mind that refusing to disable the point counter in a tournament game is not just incredibly rude, but is, yes, cheating.
All of my feeling summed up about this silly argument. Thanks ch.
One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets. Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.
I continue to be amazed at how not understood this is.Maybe that's because at least I don't really know what's going on, except point counter discussions...
Interesting. So now I'm curious -- Did anyone actually use the unofficial point counter during the tournament games (quals/semis)?
If I had seen a player using it (and knew about the one-sided change in display), I would have stopped playing right there and requested a restart without it since it seems to violate the tournament rule "Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise." On three of the four tournament days I actually did request restarts when people started games without the official point counter, the wrong seating order, or different starting hands (each time we just restarted with the correct parameters and same kingdom). If people did use the unofficial counter, I am surprised no one was challenged on it before the finals. Although I do see that since the unofficial point counter isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules (like veto mode is) that MAYBE a player can argue that it's not against the rules; however, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "ex ante identical games for everyone" that the rules were trying to achieve.
Also, shouldn't the tournament admin have final say over how the rules are implemented and their interpretation?
11:10 alarmtopia: ★ Cards counted by Dominion Point Counter ★
11:10 alarmtopia: http://goo.gl/iDihS (screenshot: http://goo.gl/G9BTQ)
11:10 alarmtopia: Type !status to see the current score.
11:10 alarmtopia: Type !details to see deck details for each player.
Interesting. So now I'm curious -- Did anyone actually use the unofficial point counter during the tournament games (quals/semis)?
If I had seen a player using it (and knew about the one-sided change in display), I would have stopped playing right there and requested a restart without it since it seems to violate the tournament rule "Games must be played with randomly selected cards, no veto mode, identical starting hands, and with the official point counter enabled unless all players agree otherwise." On three of the four tournament days I actually did request restarts when people started games without the official point counter, the wrong seating order, or different starting hands (each time we just restarted with the correct parameters and same kingdom). If people did use the unofficial counter, I am surprised no one was challenged on it before the finals. Although I do see that since the unofficial point counter isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules (like veto mode is) that MAYBE a player can argue that it's not against the rules; however, it certainly seems to violate the spirit of "ex ante identical games for everyone" that the rules were trying to achieve.
Also, shouldn't the tournament admin have final say over how the rules are implemented and their interpretation?
I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).
I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.
After seeing how upset WW got in an earlier thread about the unofficial point counter, I turned off the extension for our semifinal game. Timchen was also using it but WW disabled it for every game and no one got upset.
I think the only reason people do get upset is if someone is not allowing it to be disabled, which is bullshit. It really is an advantage, and helps me keep track of a lot of things and analyze certain things during the game instead of after it. I'll agree that it's a huge advantage to the player using it, and I think it is totally unfair in a tournament format, and if you play for isotropic rank it's also unfair.
But anyway, if you play without allowing it to be disabled, that'd kind of dirty, and shouldn't be allowed. And for tournament play, IMO, it should never be allowed. I'm just shocked that anyone would be upset if another player was going to disable it. WW did say there was more to why he withdrew, but that alone would be a good reason to withdraw, for me. Everyone should be allowed the same information, in an equally readable format. I honestly hadn't thought about it much before this, but that clearly seems to be the right thing to do, and I'm sure it will be done in future tournaments (if they're even held on isotropic).
One of the reasons I have tried to avoid having us all get into this ugly debate is that I think it may be mooted by FunSockets. Drheld is a great guy but maybe even for him the task of OCR'ing all the images moving around is a little much.
I still haven't really found the relevant code in the Funsockets client, but without knowing the exact working of the code, I guess to write the addon you should observe the communication with the server, or at least the functions that communicate with the server, or the functions that display the relevant events on the client. Change these functions to also do the counting for you, and you are done. It's significantly harder than for iso, but significantly easier than OCR.
I'm still quite sure that we won't have such a thing for Funsockets if there was some kind of point counter in the official version, but without it someone will probably do...
Or they do (or have done) some encryption/obfuscation of these functions...
Powerman you are just so horribly wrong. From your point even using the official point counter is cheating. In the strict sense you are saying even playing dominion itself online is cheating. Who knows, maybe without shuffling with your own hands make you have more leisure thinking about other things and give an advantage to you.
But that is not at all the point. What is cheating just depends on the rules. And the rules can change once everyone in the game agrees. So the point is to respect others. And to discuss and find the solution that everyone can accept.
The worst thing one can do is just to outright call the other group of people cheater. What benefit is there?
People are throwing the word "cheat" around a lot. This implies there is some sort of deception going on. I was not aware of what the point counter actually did, but this was not the fault of the people using it. I could have looked it up on my own, the link is right there, so I wouldn't call them "cheaters". They're not trying to cheat anyone. They're just using a tool that is not expressly prohibited by any rules. Now if you ask them to turn it off and they don't, that's a different story. I still don't think it's "cheating" (unless they say it's disabled when it's not), it's just discourteous.
I can see why people use this for casual play. I myself use the official point counter because it allows me to pay less attention during the game, not so that I can devote my brain resources to playing better, but so that I can devote them to doing something else at the same time. In a serious 2-player tournament setting I don't see it really making much of a difference, because you're paying full attention anyway. But as the number of players increases, I can see people having a serious issue with it. Keeping track of stuff in 4 decks is hard. People who are skilled at it want to have that advantage, and people who are not don't want to be disadvantaged. Personally, I don't care, but this kind of thing has to be decided before the start of a tournament (before people even enter) and not on the day of the finals.
Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.
Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.
Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat)
No words about violating the rules at all.
People are throwing the word "cheat" around a lot. This implies there is some sort of deception going on. I was not aware of what the point counter actually did, but this was not the fault of the people using it. I could have looked it up on my own, the link is right there, so I wouldn't call them "cheaters". They're not trying to cheat anyone. They're just using a tool that is not expressly prohibited by any rules. Now if you ask them to turn it off and they don't, that's a different story. I still don't think it's "cheating" (unless they say it's disabled when it's not), it's just discourteous.
I can see why people use this for casual play. I myself use the official point counter because it allows me to pay less attention during the game, not so that I can devote my brain resources to playing better, but so that I can devote them to doing something else at the same time. In a serious 2-player tournament setting I don't see it really making much of a difference, because you're paying full attention anyway. But as the number of players increases, I can see people having a serious issue with it. Keeping track of stuff in 4 decks is hard. People who are skilled at it want to have that advantage, and people who are not don't want to be disadvantaged. Personally, I don't care, but this kind of thing has to be decided before the start of a tournament (before people even enter) and not on the day of the finals.
Good post, except I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement. Shouldn't people who are "skilled" have an advantage over people who aren't "skilled"? Isn't that why we hold tournaments (to find out who is most "skilled"?)
Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.
Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat)
No words about violating the rules at all.
Definitions cannot be 'wrong'. They might be not commonly used. The meaning which words have is down to how they are used, and how they are understood, no matter what any given dictionary says. Regardless of how people commonly view things, this is how I use the word, what I have always understood the word to mean in the context of a game, and people should be advised. The important thing with language is that people understand each other, and this is why I posted my clarification.Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.
Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat)
No words about violating the rules at all.
Ok, my bad. I guess cheating is not that a strong word after all.Re: the word "cheat". I use this word to mean "violate the rules of the game". This may or may not be deceptive, may or may not be intentional. Please read any posts wherein I make use of this word, and its derivatives (i.e. cheating, cheater, cheated), with this definition in mind. Thank you.
Then the way you are using is wrong. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat)
No words about violating the rules at all.
There are lots of dictionaries though:
Verb
cheat (third-person singular simple present cheats, present participle cheating, simple past and past participle cheated)
(intransitive) To violate rules in order to gain advantage from a situation.
My brother flunked biology because he cheated on his mid-term.
Timchen keeps stealing posts right out of my fingers.This is a conventional definition. It is certainly not one I made up. I have never known 'cheat' to mean anything else, besides in the phrase 'cheat on your (person you have a romantic relationship with'.
Here's a tip if you want your meaning to be clear: don't make up your own definitions, use conventional ones. Do you expect every person to have read that one post where you cleared up what "cheating" means to you?
Timchen keeps stealing posts right out of my fingers.This is a conventional definition. It is certainly not one I made up. I have never known 'cheat' to mean anything else, besides in the phrase 'cheat on your (person you have a romantic relationship with'.
Here's a tip if you want your meaning to be clear: don't make up your own definitions, use conventional ones. Do you expect every person to have read that one post where you cleared up what "cheating" means to you?
That there is a dictionary containing this definition as well, is, I think, pretty clear evidence that it's not something I just made up.
The point is that this thread has devolved into bitching about the definition of the word cheating. Please stop it. I don't usually advocate locking threads, but this has become senseless bickering about the semantics of others' posts. I don't think this thread is going anywhere useful.
I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.
I've seen so many games fail this way....This is where people have their blinders on. They only remember "Hey, i like to play this game offline, let's do the same thing, but on the internet" and don't think "Hey, this game is good offline, maybe it could be great online".
I do think it's kind of poor sportsmanship to have the PCE without the option of disabling it. Especially if you play without the built in point tracker.
In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmmDRW6ypgiJdENzQUNUR25YcGhYWVRYZDJRb0ZEQnc), so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.
The thought of playing a 35 minute game because the people involved are updating their spreadsheets constantly makes me want to quit Dominion outright, ugh. Then again I'm easily annoyed when a Dominion game isn't played at a reasonable speed regardless so I dunno.
Wow. Personman, I would say this is a bit excessive.
I am pretty sure you will not be allowed to do so, suppose you have won and went to the nationals. Sure I understand once online there are no ways for the tournament director to forbid you from doing so... but why? Can people not just agree on not using the point counter and rely on their own heads?
Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.
In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmmDRW6ypgiJdENzQUNUR25YcGhYWVRYZDJRb0ZEQnc), so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.
I'm still waiting for anyone who shares Donald's and Kirian's objections to my earlier logic to present them in not-insulting terms. Until then, I don't have a lot more to say on the topic in general, as I think we've all repeated ourselves enough by now.I don't know why you think someone will explain how you are justifying immorality without insulting you. Do they start off with a speech about how morals are arbitrary?
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.I know, right?
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.For example, it's advantageous for your wife to cheat on you. Maybe she'll get pregnant and increase the fitness of her offspring. That's no sleight against your genes; genetic diversity is one to one with genetic fitness. It is for sure better to cheat on you.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).Similarly your wife can trivially cheat on you without you catching on. You can try to argue against this, but man, you are at the office all day, and it's a long commute, and she's always out buying groceries or getting her hair done or something.
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.Even if she isn't cheating, the fact that she easily could breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".For all she knows, you're probably cheating on her, with some floozy at work. Why not also cheat on you?
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid blah blah blah, your wife should be free to have sex with whoever. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who prefer monogamy, but it is an inescapable fact of modern life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior. And we wouldn't want that! Then people would do unethical things!
Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few."This is why we can't have nice things."
Then I guess he'll have to DQ the actual winner, jtl005, who is on record as having used it during the game.Not his call! It won't be according to Jay anyway, not ever.
To be clear, I explained in great detail exactly what I would do before the tournament started, and it was approved as non-DQable by the organizer.
In this case I made the spreadsheet publicly available (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmmDRW6ypgiJdENzQUNUR25YcGhYWVRYZDJRb0ZEQnc), so that I think it can only be argued that I was playing at a disadvantage. My opponents (or at least jtl005) were certainly using it during the games, as you can see in the video by the labeled selection boxes of other users showing up in the spreadsheet, and jtl005 asking me where the sheet for game 2 was in chat.Show this to Jay at the tournament and I think there's a decent chance he will DQ you. Also, my estimate of the chance of a
future online qualifier happening is zero.
I have nothing against people with open marriages or people who like point counters. Your argument is crazy nonsense though, and it turns out humanity is better than that.
I think that's actually a pretty unfortunately inaccurate account of what happened, and I'm now kind of thinking that the email thread should be published despite your objections...
Here is my version of a similar rundown:
1. WW raises the issue that Pman wants to use an undisableable card counter
2. Theory "asks" that I not use it.
3. After some discussion, Theory clarifies that it is explicitly legal, but that he will be "disappointed" if I use it.
4. WanderingWinder threatens me with a lawsuit, calls me a huge variety of names, and then withdraws.
5. I really should have let things rest here, but instead I try to continue the discussion, since I think that soft pressure of the kind that Theory was applying is a really awful thing to bring to a competitive environment.
6. Theory and I have a really nice private chat in which we come to understand that (I think) he understands my logic perfectly, but wishes that everyone could make concessions to the desires of the group and play with each other harmoniously. This is a noble and understandable desire, but I am too concerned with the ease with which my opponents can cheat to take this path.
7. Half an hour before the game is scheduled to start, rrenaud suggests the "no point counter, slow play is punishable" ruling, and Theory adopts it. I protest that I will do an exactly equivalent thing (use the spreadsheet) with no chance of it causing me to slow play, and that thus this ruling is silly. Nevertheless, it us upheld and I abide by it.
Quote from: blueblimpA little note here: from what I remember, the Donald X. ruling is that if one player is taking notes on paper, that is a variant. To play a variant legitimately, both players need to agree.
..and all players are given ample opportunity to opt out of games with the extension variant, as you yourself have just noted. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's hard not to read this as fairly pointless antagonism.Quote from: KirianThis addon will be barred from future IsoDom tournaments, should they happen.
You can do whatever you want in tournaments you run, but I beg you to consider the following line of argument:
1. Everyone likes to be able to trust each other and treat each other without suspicion.
2. People like to win.
3. People sometimes succumb to the temptation to secure advantages via illegitimate means, especially if they are 100% certain that they cannot be caught.
4. The point counter can be trivially modified to be undetectable. As blueblimp points out, at present there is no reason to believe anyone has done so (but neither is there particular reason to believe that they haven't).
5. Even if no one is actually cheating, the existence of an easy and undetectable way to cheat breeds suspicion and resentment.
6. It also provides an incentive for otherwise honest players to begin cheating - "My opponent is probably using an undetectable point counter, I guess I will too".
7. The only resolution to problems of unenforceability is to legalize the unenforceable action.
8. Therefore, to maintain the trusting nature of the community, and to avoid providing unfair advantages to those willing to cheat in undetectable ways, the extension should always be legal in competitive play. This is an unfortunate conclusion for those who have a strong preference for Dominion play without the extension, but I believe it is nevertheless an inescapable fact of online life. The alternative is to incentivize and reward unethical behavior.
long rebuttal
I think you asked for someone to dispute this? (if you were referring to some other post, my bad!) First off, what you say in 4 basically is "Cheaters will cheat". I assume you are American (as this was US only) and from my understanding of RL events (I know this is the internet) is RL cheating (AKA breaking the rules or laws) while not always caught, is never permissible because it is done. Let's look at speeding. Who amongst us has not at some point gone over the speed limit? I'm tempted to say no one, but we'll just say for ease that only 90% of people have gone over the speed limit. Now, does this mean we abandon our speed limits because they are often ignored, and rarely caught? No, obviously not. There are police that watch roads and catch some people who speed, we'll say 10% (not that high, but w/e). So 90% of the 90% (or 81%) of our population speeds (breaking the rules) and gets away with this. But this doesn't mean we need to abolish speed limits. Not a perfect example, I know. But oh well.
This argument about bringing the qualifiers in line as much as possible with what will happen at Nationals keeps coming up over and over, and it continues to baffle me. Online Dominion is nothing like paper Dominion for so many other reasons - the psychology of being face to face, the presence of the log, the chance to misclick, no requirement to shuffle, the official point counter - that bringing up one additional difference and trying to make a principled stand on those grounds just baffles me.
A better example could be athletes taking drugs
We know some athletes take drugs, we cant stop that. Every now and then one gets caught, but in all liklihood a load more are taking some and not getting caught.
Therefore should we allow drug taking so that everyone is on a level playing field?
Whoa whoa whoa.
I never, ever approved the point counter or labeled it "explicitly legal". I don't care about all your other statements, I haven't gone back and analyzed the dozens of emails exchanged, but I absolutely, most certainly, would never say anything of the sort.
What I did say (initially) is that if you use it, I couldn't DQ you. This is because I felt constrained by the fact that the tournament rules were silent on the subject. Had I the foresight to anticipate this issue, I would have simply banned it, no questions asked.
Whoa whoa whoa.
I never, ever approved the point counter or labeled it "explicitly legal". I don't care about all your other statements, I haven't gone back and analyzed the dozens of emails exchanged, but I absolutely, most certainly, would never say anything of the sort.
What I did say (initially) is that if you use it, I couldn't DQ you. This is because I felt constrained by the fact that the tournament rules were silent on the subject. Had I the foresight to anticipate this issue, I would have simply banned it, no questions asked.
I don't know the difference between a tournament organizer telling me I won't be DQ'd and an action being explicitly legal. In my mind you've just directly contradicted yourself.
Athletes: This won't win me any sympathy points, I'm sure, but I think professional physical sports are pretty stupid. I mean, they are fun and great and people should play them, but when millions of dollars (not to mention, often, the lives of fans) are at stake, it just gets absurd. And then there's all the impossible murkiness around prostheses and other body mods - if a fake leg can help me run better, but it's illegal to have the operation voluntarily, should I try to get run over by a car? It's just a mess, and I really don't care what sports regulatory bodies end up doing. I would be fine with them legalizing steroids.
In tournaments as in life, not everything is black and white. I believe theory is saying that he did not consider the point counter "explicitly legal" but his hands were tied and he had to allow it because neither was it explicitly illegal. "I can't stop you from doing this thing" is a far cry from "go forth with my blessing."
As far as I'm concerned, it should be as close to IRL dominion as possible.
Say what? What does this have to do with the comparison between competitive sports and competitive gaming? I think it's a pretty good analogy.
Ok, but blessing or no, if something isn't illegal, and it is advantageous, I don't think it can be immoral to do it.
That may sound insane, but here's why it's not: I think that competitive events should have explicit, enforced sportsmanship guidelines. These can never be precise, but they don't need to be. As soon as there is the potential to be DQ'd for slow play, trash talk, or other unsportsmanlike conduct, it stops being advantageous. The Magic: The Gathering Infraction Procedure Guide (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide_PDF3.pdf) handles this extremely well.
Emphasis mine. And that's the issue. Hate to be all sappy, but the whole point of sportsmanship is to strive for fairness and good will outside of what the rules explicitly allow.
Quote from: Donald Xlong rebuttalI don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.
Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?
If WW objected and theory frowned upon it, why not just play the game "blind"? If you win despite your uncertainty that your competition is cutting corners, it's that much more of an accomplishment.
Personman, if you had a way to say order your deck in anyway you wanted, and no one would find out about it, would you do it?
If only I had this ability, and I knew that, absolutely not.
If everyone did, yes! And I've often thought that that would be a really interesting Dominion variant, though it would be slow, and a lot of people wouldn't like to play it.
I must admit that after all these posts, I'm still surprised by people calling using the extension cheating.
Do they not understand the meaning of cheating? The people who are using the PCE aren't ordering their deck in the manner it pleases them. They're not suddenly grabbing Moats in hand whenever an opponent plays an attack card. They're not breaking the rules by sending fake messages to the server. All they do is use the information that everyone has.
Card counting is not cheating, it's not against the rules to count. It is frowned upon though and it will get you thrown off private property. Online you can count cards all you want, but apparently it's less useful as they use decks with a gazillion cards? I'm not sure though as I haven't played online Blackjack. The thing is that online Blackjack is different from real life Blackjack. You can't shuffle a gazillion cards in real life.
The same is true for Dominion.
All of the arguments of the PCE haters don't hold if they don't accept it's a different game, or at least a variant.
But the haters already seem to have lost the possibility to think rationally. Heck, people who advocated the use of the PCE on the forums were actually subject to bans for future tournaments, even if they would agree not to use it!
Great post, WW. I agree with 100% of it, though of course my beliefs about the answers to some of the questions you raise are different.Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not. Of course it's against tournament rules. cf. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546 . As well as the tournament rules stating that games are to be played with official point counter. Which in and of itself makes the tournament be played as a variant, true, but one we agreed to by signing up. But there is no provision in the rules ALLOWING you to do this, and therefore, as a game-related activity, it is forbidden, in precisely the same way I can't do a billion other things which are obviously illegal and can't all be individually proscribed.
The part I'm having the hardest time with is why you think it is me and not you who was attempting to change the rules. Many, many earlier tournament matches had been played with the extension in use, and there had been 0 complaints! Suddenly outlawing it in the finals seems like a drastic and inappropriate change.
Personman, you actually did a pretty crappy job of keeping track of who had what. I watched the videos. I could point out all the little mistakes, but I don't really have the time. I generally do better than you did, and have never played with such a memory aid. Regardless, don't act like it's not an advance, even over just taking notes, which is itself also against the rules of dominion qua dominion.
Man, it is not my fault if your earlier opponents did not complain about it. How am I supposed to complain about it, when I don't even know you're doing it, and why should I complain about it if your opponents agree? And how am I to know whether they agree or not.
There are other reasons why not to have online tournaments. Case in point: it's incredibly difficult to enforce the rules.Also, my estimate of the chance of a future online qualifier happening is zero.
Let's not punish the many for the sins of a few.
tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).Quote from: Donald Xlong rebuttal
Thank you! It is very helpful to know what you are talking about. I'm glad you decided that it was worth your time. Also it was funny!
First, my not-serious response: I'm totally poly, so whatever, man! (I actually am, but this obviously does not invalidate your argument).
My actual response is that games are different from life. In life, I agree wholeheartedly that we must trust each other, and that is, in the end, usually more rewarding to be worthy of trust than to betray it. There are exceptions; as you've said, it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything. But on the whole I think we're on the same page here.
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet. There's a reason that my side won this debate in the Poker community but hasn't done so so convincingly here: it's bigger, and there's more at stake. Under those conditions, the system will converge towards the strictly, logically fair alternative much more quickly, and analogies to real-life morals and community values stop holding water. (Of course, there are other, insoluble fairness issues in online poker, like collusion. But since people really like playing online poker, they kinda just have to ignore them.)
I don't think we need to have a 100-page discussion about this. I respect the desire to have an online community in which rules are not made on the presumption of dishonesty. It's a nice dream, and maybe I am too cynical in thinking that we cannot achieve it here (though see my earlier point re trolls on isotropic). I personally prefer it when rules ARE made on that assumption, because then I don't have to be afraid that I am being a chump by not taking advantage of my trivial ability to cheat, and can instead rest assured that my actions are legal and that everyone else is doing it too. But it's okay for us to have this difference of opinion, and there is room for both kinds of people to play and enjoy this wonderful game that you have made for us.
As theory put it very well at some point during the email discussion, the primary take away from the whole thing is that rules need to be hammered out a bit better ahead of time.
Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.
tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.
I was very precise in where I used which.tl;dr morals don't matter and screw trust when it comes to games? I couldn't disagree more on both counts. Especially the first count. Which I think you're misreading Donald? (I read that as him being sarcastic).
Remind me to never have anyone of you over to my house, or preferably within a large radius of me, who thinks morality doesn't matter.
Ethics is everything, man. Ethics asks the question, "What should I do?". And if you reject that, you fall entirely into chaos.
While I'm pretty much completely in agreement with you on this particular brouhaha, I'd definitely prefer if we kept this discussion focused on ethics rather than morality. (I'd be quite happy to have a discussion about the relationship and difference between ethics and morality, actually, but it's probably too much of a tangent for this thread.)
Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.
I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."
I was very precise in where I used which.Fork request!
No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
I was very precise in where I used which.
Edit: but I agree with your main point. It is pretty pointless to speculate whether or not a person has morals, if you are not that person. But I do think that, ethically, one ought to espouse morality.
No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.
My presumption is not based on that premise, but your statement "there's no real moral consistency to anything."
Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.
Aha. That explains things somewhat. The distinction as I've always understood it:
Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Your definition of ethics inherently rejects the possibility of an objective ethical code, a rejection which I reject.Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.
Aha. That explains things somewhat. The distinction as I've always understood it:
Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
Edit: I should say, the definition that you give here, rather than 'your definition'.
I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).Unenforceable rules are dumb. It's a truth I hold to be self-evident. It creates an environment where those who violate the rules have an advantage over those who don't, and punishes good ethics.
I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.
Distinction as I have studied it: A moral man does what he thinks is right. An ethical man knows what is in fact right.
Aha. That explains things somewhat. The distinction as I've always understood it:
Morality is ultimately a function of the individual, ethics is a function of the community/society.
But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.
So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics
I'll admit, I used it my first day of qualifying (the one I lost).Unenforceable rules are dumb. It's a truth I hold to be self-evident. It creates an environment where those who violate the rules have an advantage over those who don't, and punishes good ethics.
I do allow users to disable it, however, and the second day of qualifying (where I did qualify for semis) I had it disabled.
I use paper and pencil when I play dominion games online. That subverts the rules of dominion, I'm pretty sure, haven't read base rules in a while. But to me it's like an ethical tautology that I should not be expected to obey a rule with a 0% rate of enforcement. If the rate of enforcement is lower than it needs to be to discourage the behavior I do split the difference and act honestly out of integrity. But when the enforcement capability is totally and fully zero, I see no point in abiding. To me it would be like entering a tournament to see who could bully a kid most cruelly. Because one of the metrics of the competition is, "who will act the least ethically and score 40% more wishing well draws that way?".
This doesn't directly relate to the point tracker because it is a pain to make it invisible (to my knowledge), so there's enforceability. Just 2 centsing around
But the words are used interchangeably at every level of discourse, and the distinction seems kind of vacuous.
I wouldn't go quite that far. It's nearly always a "code of ethics" (in school, professions, etc.) rather than a "code of morality", and there's a very good reason for that. The distinction is important here, where hopefully we can and must agree on what the ethical thing to do is, despite having moral codes that may conflict with each other, or come from different sources.So, there is sort of a subjective:objective thing in morals:ethics
Yes.
@Gigaknight: so is your point that if you entered this tournament, you won't play with an opponent with PCE enabled, but is willing to play with a player who writes everything down on a paper?
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
It makes both of your points. To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.
Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
You could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
It makes both of your points. To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.
Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
Both of the other players also wanted it off, but made clear that they didn't care enough to actually take some action.But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
It makes both of your points. To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.
Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
If no-one else objects - then it isn't compromising - you're all on equal footing and everyone is in agreement. Unless there's a piece to this story that one of the other players also wanted it off?
Sure, though I've already explained a number of times. Because this is an event that means something, people need here, more than any other time, to behave fairly by following the rules.QuoteYou could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.
I always calculate odds about draws, even when playing without notes in real life. I don't see why a serious player wouldn't.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
I don't, yet, no. Please explain how?
But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
It makes both of your points. To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.
Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
QuoteYou could go farther and show the cards remaining in your deck as well as the percentage chance of drawing each type of card (since that's completely open to you) but hardly anyone is going to try to keep track of that themselves during the game.
I always calculate odds about draws, even when playing without notes in real life. I don't see why a serious player wouldn't.
First of all, theory spent a long time trying not to rule. He asked that it not be used on a number of occasions. At some point, he granted that it was illegal. He also, until within half an hour of the actual final happening, made clear that there would be no DQing for using it.But this would require me to compromise my ethics. Ethics>some money and cash prize. Which is largely why I withdrew.Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.You do realize that this makes my point exactly?
It makes both of your points. To be a polite player, he should have disabled it, you could have enabled it and been on equal footing.
Now why can't you all be like me and let people have an extra contraband veto when you accidentally clicked on trusty steed?
So I'm not exactly well-versed in the minutia of philosophy. But, if theory said it was allowed, why wouldn't you use it? I'm not understanding how your personal ethics would be violated by using a tool allowed by the organizer.
If he didn't say it was allowed, he should have warned Personman not to use it and DQ'd him if he said he was going to break the rules. I already said that's what I would do, but I'm not seeing another course of action theory could have taken that's internally consistent. Perhaps somebody can explain one to me?
The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable. WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.I find it unreasonable that you think it unreasonable to hold ethical principles over some kind of desire to win. I see very little reason for me to have competed, and very significant reasons not to.
The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable. WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.
Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.
How about this? We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY. WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward. Problem solved.
So... today I played a game with Masquerade, Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.
With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?
My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver. I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.
My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game. My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.
When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?
When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
@frisk: dunno. But do u not have to worry more about your imminent lynch in MIV?Largely what I'm doing here. Withdraw and complain. He doesn't have the authority to do that.
@WW: Just a hypothetical question: what would you do if theory ruled that the unofficial point counter is allowed?
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
I like Ambassador-Silver here, actually. Unless there were cheaper cantrips that you're not mentioning, in which case amb-amb.
This is a game where Bishop's free trashing looks incredibly dangerous, so no Bishop until late if at all. As for why not Masq, well whenever there are villages and draw out I have to think that gearing up to hand over two curses a turn is going to probably win in the long run.
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Masq just gives so much more flexibility. If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1. If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy. But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine. My 2 cents.
Masq, masq, and masq again on day's ending with a "Y". AT least those are my factors ;)
This is usually my approach as well - but using almost any measurement (CR win rates etc.) ambassador is absolutely the stronger card of the two - even if I perceive Masq to win the head to head machup.
Is that because ignoring Ambassador when engines are possible is just damn near impossible?
Masq just gives so much more flexibility. If you go Amb. you are committing to your strategy turn 1. If you go Masq. and say get a lucky 6 on turn 3, you can change to more of a BM-Masq strategy. But if you hit 5-5, you can easily go for the Engine. My 2 cents.
I think on this board you need to go engine whether the draws are friendly or not. I can see the case for opening Masq on the grounds that you really do want that early Bazaar, but Masq-BM has no shot against a player who can ramp up to passing out multiple Curses a turn, then transitioning to grabbing lots of points by Bishopping Peddlers to catch up no matter the Province deficit.
With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?
My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba -
The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable. WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.
Personman should have disabled the f'ing tracker.
How about this? We stop posting in this thread - and from now on only talk about legitimate dominion STRATEGY. WW has decided to stop playing with us - and i'm not going to play with Personman or respond to any of his posts going forward. Problem solved.
So... today I played a game with Masquerade, Ambassador, Bishop, Council Room, Peddler and Bazaar.
With a 4/3 opening - how would you open?
My opponent - a high ranked player - opened bishop / amba - and I opened masq silver. I got the bazaar -> councilroom -> bishop -> buy province + peddler engine going faster.
My opponent commented - first one to 5 wins this game. My retort was that he opened a very slow hand - amba / bishop is very unlikely to hit 5 on t3/t4.
When both amba and masq are on the board - what factors cause you to choose one vs. the other?
The bottom line is that they are both being unreasonable. WanderingWinder most likely could have beaten personman with or without tracker, but chose to make a stink about it instead.I find it unreasonable that you think it unreasonable to hold ethical principles over some kind of desire to win. I see very little reason for me to have competed, and very significant reasons not to.
And in fact, I did not choose to make a stink here until a stink had already been raised.
In player 2 seat I ignore bishop (on the open) if my opponent opens for it. and open masq silver. If my opponent doesn't or if im player 1 I probably would go bishop silver my initial take on it anyways
That quote was me making fun of the idea that you wanted someone to explain how your argument was nonsense without insulting you. I thought the previous paragraph in my post made that clear, but what can you do, we have no facial expressions and so on to go by here. ;_;Wait, can you single out the quote of mine where you think I said "ethics don't matter"? That couldn't be further from my actual beliefs.
I am referring to "it's all just a bunch of atoms moving around, and there's no real moral consistency to anything."
That was a quote from Donald, which I see now is what you were reading as sarcastic. I don't think it was sarcastic at all, but we'll have to ask him. Or, well, that's not quite right. I think that both Donald and I are moral humans who happen to also believe that our morality is at heart arbitrary and self-chosen.
I don't want to open this can of worms too far, but it may be helpful to know that I am an atheist. I also believe strongly (as it seemed to me Donald was also saying) that atheism is consistent with morality, and that choosing to be moral is a good idea for atheists for a large number of reasons.
No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."
This is why you form an explicit agreement upon entry into the tournament / wedding / whatever. You codify what is and is not allowed. You make a binding contract of a social nature.I wouldn't put it like that. Non-religious marriage is game theoretically advantageous. And then the government may give you incentives there too, and religious marriages have their own incentives. The game theory value comes from the work required to get out of the contract making it less likely that the other player will defect, rather than specific things in the contract.
No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
Perhaps this is why Jay didn't want tournaments in the first place... (if I'm remembering right, at first Jay didn't want tournaments? I think I remember Donald saying something like that, but I am not sure?)It's not that Jay didn't want tournaments, just that he didn't see himself running them. Obv. other people would, there would be the WBC if nothing else, but he wouldn't be spending time on that. Thus, he didn't need tournament rules. This all came up back when because of the question of, should we provide a tiebreaker rule for tournaments.
No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."
When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.
If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.
Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?
Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
I'm finding this whole discussion way off balance. Dominion is a game. The taking part is more important than the winning. It's meant to be a fun experience with friendly people.
Fun and camaraderie are wonderful things, but in a tournament where the winner gets a trip to US Nationals in Chicago, fairness becomes a more important concern.
My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.
Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.
Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.Saying what you can't do does not need to be said (but can be said if it's a FAQ); see previous speeches, already linked to in this thread.
I think "games are different from life" is a very misleading way to look at it. Yes, in a game of Diplomacy, maybe you will backstab somebody who you would not backstab outside of a game. That's not relevant though. The issue of cheating is an issue of what people do in life. Choosing to take notes is not something you do inside the game.My actual response is that games are different from life.[....]
I just don't think the same ideals can apply to games with stakes played over the internet.
I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.
Still I believe that Personman could have simply turned off the PCE and used something else to postpone the debate till after the tournament was completed.
I agree with you, I think, in general, that many things do not need to be explicitly prohibited. The reason that I feel it is reasonable to assume that using the extension is legal is that, due to the unenforceability of a rule against it, any such rule has no place in a fair ruleset.You are making a poor assumption and justifying it poorly.
It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.As I and nopawnsintended pointed out earlier, the official rules cannot point out every possible thing in the universe that can be proscribed. The rules explicitly mention every possible option you could make using the standard Isotropic platform alone, and the spirit of the tournament games was, through the use of the standard Isotropic platform, to make the games ex ante identical and to find the best player to play an in person 4 player game. It's a very strange reading of the tournament rules to assume that using aids not part of the standard Isotropic platform is okay. In addition, theory should have ruled that not only is it a strange reading of the rules, it is incorrect. Regardless of how theory ruled, it's his tournament, and ultimately his decision on how the rules are applied.
Source: http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/06/22/dominionstrategy-qualifier-for-2012-us-national-championships/I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.
Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?
Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Now I'm one of the biggest advocates for the use of the PCE, but if I had received a request like that, I think I would just have agreed to disabling it and discussed afterwards. I mean, it is a tournament, so you kind of have to follow the rules set out by the refs, whatever they are, or leave the tournament. I would have used the original point counter, I mean that was allowed, right?In fact, I don't think I would hve believed this, after what happened. But I mean, saying the PCE offers little more than the OPC is a garbage argument. If it were true, then nobody would really care if it were disabled, right? Like, if you don't think it really matters, you will yield. Not to mention that based on repeated statements from the player in question (a la 'it lets me play the game in a way that would otherwise not be possible'), he at least thinks that it makes a big difference. And I agree - well, down to the relative term big. I mean, how big is 'big'?
So I'm on WW's side and respect his decision. You must follow your own beliefs and if you think playing the finals is wrong, then don't do it.
Still I think it's sad that a solution couldn't be found. The solution couldn't have satisified everybody, but the card counting aspect of the PCE offers little more than the original point counter anyway. And if Personman wanted to write everything down instead or use some offline software, we couldn't have stopped him anyway. But it would have been easy to give WW this Pyrrhic victory and let hem believe that no one was using extra software, while it would've been easy for the others to do so.
I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.
Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?
Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.The way to explain how "but wait there are just a bunch of atoms" isn't a useful way to look at it is "but that doesn't matter, value depends on perspective, from an absolute perspective there is no value, thus the absolute perspective is a poor one to take for considering value as it doesn't let you distinguish things, thus we take a different perspective, and then from that perspective things do have varying value, look at that."
When you want to know what theater is showing a movie, say, a good approach is not "there are just a bunch of atoms." A good approach is looking it up online or in a paper. Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
The Higgs Boson won't help you either, even if it has been 'discovered'.No, I really hope it won't. I felt it was necessary to refute WW's conclusion that because I believe the universe is just a big pile of atoms floating around, I must also not think ethics are important.Similarly those atoms are not too helpful when considering morals.
When atoms is not enough, do you think it's enough to look at the movement of the electrons, protons and neutrons, or should I go down to quarks to understand this?
I chose to instead stand up for what is right.Taking a stand is doing what WW did: if you believe the ruling is wrong, resign in protest. Playing anyway and weaseling around the ruling is not taking a stand.
Whether or not you like the rule or want to follow the rules is, in my view, utterly irrelevant. If you don't obey the rule, you're playing a different game. Period. If you play with the PCE, you're not playing Dominion. You're playing Dominion + PCE. I personally have no problem with a group of people playing Dominion + PCE but, in this case, the tournament is/was a Dominion + Point Tracker + Identical Starting Hands tournament. If you add PCE to that, you're playing a different game. I don't get how this can be any more clear.
I firmly disagree here - the absolute perspective is THE perspective to take when considering ethics, as from the absolute perspective, you get absolute values. (Ironically, some of these absolute values are negative).
I reject relativism.
I mean, whenever the players can't find some agreement, an official should step in and rule one way or the other.[...]To follow up on my earlier point, theory's approach of initially asking the players to work it out among themselves, rather than making a firm ruling at once, may appear a bit naive in retrospect, but it could be seen as merely a failure to make a radical shift from the prevailing Isotropic culture to a suddenly much more intensely competitive one.
A simple ruling could have made it clear for everybody and if WW still wanted to withdraw he could have waited. Theory could have easily said something like:[...]
What do I find unreasonable? People deciding to derail the conversation just because they're uncomfortable with it. Hell, I think theory shutting down my thread was unreasonable, for the same basic reason. But this thread is--I'm sorry--not about Masq vs. Ambassador vs. Bishop. This subforum isn't for strategy discussion, it is for tournament discussion, and discussion of the card counter is, well, quite important to that.
A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
Do you consider the extension to be a point counter? Or do you consider it to be a card counter?
A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
Do you consider the extension to be a point counter? Or do you consider it to be a card counter?
What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...
My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.
Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.
Oh I know we both know what it does. And I know what I call it. My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else. I am very curious.
Oh I know we both know what it does. And I know what I call it. My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else. I am very curious.
Ah. I do this frequently, as I have turned many people onto it. I usually call it "the extension" or "the isotropic extension" and then provide a detailed description of what it actually does.
A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
You could be very well on to something here. You may be the person to lead us to a revolutionary change in dominion!A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
Do you consider the extension to be a point counter? Or do you consider it to be a card counter?
What is this even...? We both know exactly what the extension does. I would advocate its use even if it calculated and displayed odds and strategy tips. In fact, maybe I should fork it and add those features...
My position about fun outside of a tournament setting is that the more of the grunt work is done for you by your tools, the more you can focus on the really deep decisions. All the haters sound to me like ancient farmers deriding and railing against the introduction of the plow, since you don't have that personal connection to each hole you dig or whatever. In my mind, the pursuit of fun, interesting game play should look like the pursuit of better and better tools to rid us of the mental gruntwork that isn't actually any fun.
Now, some people enjoy gardening by hand, and some people enjoy memorization in Dominion, and both of those things are totally fine and awesome things to enjoy. But home gardening should not be the end game for agriculture, and memorization should not be the end game for Dominion.
One more thing to note: a lot of people cling to the rules of games as printed, or as espoused by their designers. There is certainly value in standardization, but I think this is a bad philosophy for a community long-term. Almost every healthy gaming community I can think of either a) has an active official balance team (Magic: The Gathering, many competitive video games) or b) has community-proposed and now widely accepted rules changes, new formats, new tournament procedures, etc (Chess, Backgammon, and other classic board games all have these; Super Smash Bros. and competitive Pokemon are great example of community-set tournament guidelines; online poker communities that have had to legalize various external aids are probably the most direct analogy here). Games can and should evolve over time.
So your argument is that there should be no memorization or thought process in dominion beyond what cards should I go for in this kingdom? you probably shouldn't play chess, poker or magic competitively then.
Chess -- Requires memorization of some of the key moves an opponent might make to start an endgame on you, what you have done, what you could have done and what your opponent has done and could have done, and why they might have made that decision
Poker -- Better count cards in your head, online implementations sure don't and require you to act fast or be timed out, and a "card counter" extension for real life nope
Magic -- This is where my argument gets to be super valid, in both games you have a deck of cards, in both games you benefit from knowing what the odds you draw X are, but wait magic won't tell you whats left in your deck and it CERTAINLY won't tell you what's left in your opponents deck. Even in MTGO you have to do the work yourself, sure you could cheat but your on a timelimit there and you can only calculate the odds of you doing something is, not what the odds of you Thoughtscouring their Temporal Mastery is.
Lets say I was playing a fighting game like street fighter. I felt that doing combos was a silly gruntwork task. The skill involved didn't make the game all that fun. It is just way to intensive to learn how to do combos and put in all the time to remember what to do. What was more interesting was the metagame involved. So what I will do is install an auto-comboing machine so that all my combos will be hit precisely. I mean everyone else could do it as well.
That's how your argument as a whole sounds like overall. Something is boring to do in a game. So lets take that part of the game out of the game and replace it with a system that can do it for me, even though I could've done it myself if I put the time in. I mean if I could build it/use it, then anyone else could, so its not really cheating.
My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?
And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.
Okay I get it there is a BIG difference.So your argument is that there should be no memorization or thought process in dominion beyond what cards should I go for in this kingdom? you probably shouldn't play chess, poker or magic competitively then.
Chess -- Requires memorization of some of the key moves an opponent might make to start an endgame on you, what you have done, what you could have done and what your opponent has done and could have done, and why they might have made that decision
Poker -- Better count cards in your head, online implementations sure don't and require you to act fast or be timed out, and a "card counter" extension for real life nope
Magic -- This is where my argument gets to be super valid, in both games you have a deck of cards, in both games you benefit from knowing what the odds you draw X are, but wait magic won't tell you whats left in your deck and it CERTAINLY won't tell you what's left in your opponents deck. Even in MTGO you have to do the work yourself, sure you could cheat but your on a timelimit there and you can only calculate the odds of you doing something is, not what the odds of you Thoughtscouring their Temporal Mastery is.
Well, I do play Magic competitively. Oops!
I also play Dominion competitively, without an odds calculator. I just said I think the game would be better with one. I think Magic would be too! Right now not every game is perfect, and of course, since everyone's perfect looks different, the value of having many willing opponents is often a good reason to make concessions.Lets say I was playing a fighting game like street fighter. I felt that doing combos was a silly gruntwork task. The skill involved didn't make the game all that fun. It is just way to intensive to learn how to do combos and put in all the time to remember what to do. What was more interesting was the metagame involved. So what I will do is install an auto-comboing machine so that all my combos will be hit precisely. I mean everyone else could do it as well.
That's how your argument as a whole sounds like overall. Something is boring to do in a game. So lets take that part of the game out of the game and replace it with a system that can do it for me, even though I could've done it myself if I put the time in. I mean if I could build it/use it, then anyone else could, so its not really cheating.
God, that sounds great! I hate execution difficulty in fighting games, it is seriously the stupidest thing. Even better would be playing games (Smash is a decent one, though it has other issues) where execution difficulty isn't a design principle, but sure, I would love a SF tournament with combo macros enabled.
Clearly you shouldn't use one when your opponents can't. Surely I do not have to repeat for twelfth time the difference between that situation and the DominionStrategy finals.
I know you didn't ask my opinion, but the #1 thing I like about the PCE is the display of points and (to a lesser extent) deck size next to the chat box. (Together, IIRC, this gives you what you'd see with "!status".) Hooray for no info button lag and for current point counts (rather than beginning-of-turn points), and seeing deck size makes Amb tennis more interesting. This is why I originally installed the PCE, back before "!details" info was added to the supply area.Oh I know we both know what it does. And I know what I call it. My question is, if you had to give a very simple description to someone who didn't would you call it a "point counter" or would you call it something else. I am very curious.
Ah. I do this frequently, as I have turned many people onto it. I usually call it "the extension" or "the isotropic extension" and then provide a detailed description of what it actually does.
So I ask you "What is that that you are using? It looks cool!" And you'd respond "I'm using the extension." "Ooh, the extension. What does it do?" Basically what I'm trying to figure out, is at the very bottom of the issue, what do you consider its so to say "primary" or "fundamental" purpose to be?
My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?
Its part of the human condition to watch train wrecks unfortunately, I believe Obi posted the MJ popcorn meme earlier in the thread :P.
That said you could set this board to ignored if you dont participate in IsoDom?
My opinions of people--who shall remained unnamed--continue to sink lower and lower until the only opinion left is one of disgust. I need to stop reading this thread. But I keep coming back. Is there anyway to stop my addiction of viewing train wrecks?
Its part of the human condition to watch train wrecks unfortunately, I believe Obi posted the MJ popcorn meme earlier in the thread :P.
That said you could set this board to ignored if you dont participate in IsoDom?
Thanks for the idea. I am this close to doing it! But what would I watch with this tub of popcorn?
Thanks for the idea. I am this close to doing it! But what would I watch with this tub of popcorn?
I wish people would stop accusing me of violating the rules. I didn't, I wouldn't have under any circumstances, and I never will in the future.
Can someon plz post a link to the tournament rules? Are they the "DominionStrategy Championship Rules"?
Because if they are, using the unofficial point counter is clearly cheating (or violating the rules or whatever) as stated in the rules:If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter.
No, they aren't - those were for the tournament last winter. They were worded similarly though, and I don't think using the extension was illegal in that one either. It's pretty hard for me to see from your rules quote how using it is "clearly cheating". Those words (and the similar ones used for the rules this time) prescribe some things that should be true about games; they don't say anything about what shouldn't be true.
Since this paragraph concerns all add-ons and constraints, it is clearly implied that if players do not agree, then only the things mentioned are allowed. Now for the National tournament the rules where much more sloppy, but still one should from the wording expect that this wouldn't be allowed in this tournament either.Players may, upon mutual consent, agree to play under any constraints they wish (e.g., with/without veto mode, sets limited to a particular expansion, with/without point counter). If the players are unable to reach an agreement, they shall play with randomly selected cards (excluding any fan-made cards), no veto mode, identical starting hands, and the official point counter. (Although we understand the objections to point counters, we have no choice but to permit their use because we simply cannot effectively enforce otherwise.)
The official rules?A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
It isn't mutually exclusive with the extension, sure. It also isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, which means the rules don't allow it. You can argue that the rules don't disallow it, but then there is a LOT that the rules don't explicitly disallow. Davio argues that "well, [certain examples] are obviously cheating" but now you're drawing a line arbitrarily. In the opinion of many here, using a CARD counter is obviously cheating, and that line is NOT arbitrary, as it is based on the rules of the official game.
Now if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.
And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Using the poker as an example that has been previously mentioned. BEFORE all the poker sites legalized the use of them online, if you used it to benefit your game, was it cheating then while the poker sites were... 'silent'.
Edit: On second thought, it sounds very similar to using steroids in baseball before they were properly banned. Cheating?
Quote from: TurambarNow if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
Quote from: TurambarNow if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
First of all, it is not impossible to enforce them. Second, they can absolutely be the rules for an online version of the game. There is no reason why they cannot. You might think it makes for a lousy online game, but they are not impossible to implement.The official rules?A few people have made this weird insinuation that the official point counter is somehow mutually exclusive with the extension. It isn't.
Other than, my response to every post since my last is "please reread the thread". Literally nothing new has been brought to the table.
It isn't mutually exclusive with the extension, sure. It also isn't explicitly allowed by the rules, which means the rules don't allow it. You can argue that the rules don't disallow it, but then there is a LOT that the rules don't explicitly disallow. Davio argues that "well, [certain examples] are obviously cheating" but now you're drawing a line arbitrarily. In the opinion of many here, using a CARD counter is obviously cheating, and that line is NOT arbitrary, as it is based on the rules of the official game.
You mean the ones that were created for offline real life Dominion and can, by nature of impossible enforcement and impossible life-to-web translations, only be a guideline for the online version?
Or the not-so-official tournament rules? Imho the tournament rules didn't cover what it needed to cover. You can go both ways with this. You can think: "Well, everything that's not in there is allowed." This leads to exaggerated examples, I agree. Or you could go with: "Ok, we can only do what is says here." But that leads to players using spreadsheets instead of the extension and doesn't really make the problem go away.No, going the second way, the rules are clear. It is unclear how they are intended to be enforced, but the rules are clear. The problem shifts from having total anarchy because there are no rules, to having problems of enforcing them.
It would have been funny if Personman had agreed not to use the PCE, this discussion would have never happened and they would have played the final with WW. Now what if Personman said afterwards: "Okay, I confess! I have used a spreadsheet!" Would this have been regarded as cheating? If you think so, good luck with enforcing that one. If not, go take a hypocrisy test, there is no difference from the spreadsheet and the PCE. The PCE makes it easier yes, but the end result is exactly the same.This would actually be quite easy to enforce, as he has confessed, in your scenario, to cheating. However, it is nevertheless cheating, even if he were to do this without confessing. That it is difficult to enforce is a separate problem.
Well, if the PCE ends up being banned from tournaments, I'm making an offline version that doesn't have the courtesy to tell the other players I'm using it and I will make it freely available to anyone, even the PCE haters, just to prove my point.Ok, so you think it is fine to cheat, so long as you can get away with it. Glad we're square on that.
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.Quote from: TurambarNow if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.
Of course, perhaps no one will believe me, because I have a reputation for standing up for the line of argument that people will cheat under those circumstances, so clearly I must be referring to myself, right? In fact, theory even said to me directly that he felt he could not trust me not to cheat if he ruled the counter illegal, which is sad for me on a personal level, but also the absolutely correct position for theory to take, and perfectly good grounds for him NOT to make spreadsheet use illegal. I only wish his distrust extended to everyone, rather than just me. It sucks to be thought of as a cheater just because you are aware of and concerned about the methods and motivations for cheating.
Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.
And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Anyway,, re-reading your posts, you are less agreeable than I had thought yesterday. So I'm going to lay out the argument, step by step, and you can tell me where you disagree with it, ok?
1. This was a tournament which qualified the winner for dominion nationals. (Ok, this isn't relevant, but I want to make sure you'll have something you absolutely can agree with).
2. The tournament was played on isotropic, on the internet.
3. There were rules to this tournament.
4. Special tournament rules were posted on the blog and in these forums.
5. Those rules include that the official point tracker was to be used, identical starting hands ensured.
6. Those rules do not state that the PCE can be used.
7. Those rules say that modifications to the rules may be made with the agreement of ALL participants.
8. We got into a situation where some kinds of negotiations were going on for the finals.
9. There were several parties privy to these negotiations, including you, me, theory, jtl005, and ednever.
10. After understanding what PCE did, both jtl005 and ednever stated preference that you do not use the PCE.
11. I made my claim very clear that I consider the PCE to be in violation of the rules.
12. theory asked you not to use the PCE.
13. theory later told you not to use the PCE - still before he outright 'banned' it.
14. Throughout this period, you made your intentions to use the PCE quite clear.
15. There is no codification of rules written up to supersede, on general grounds, the dominion rules, despite being specific rule adaptions for specific events.
16. Except insofar as expressly countermanded by specific tournament rules (including the mutual agreement clause), the rules of Dominion should remain in effect in this tournament, as there is no alternative objective baseline which is a rival to them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
17. The rules of dominion do not explicitly allow for external memory aids.
18. Actions pertinent to a game, which are not expressly allowed by the game's rules, are implicitly prohibited by the game's rules.
19. PCE is relevant to the game.
20. PCE was not explicitly allowed.
21. PCE is ergo implicitly prohibited.
22. Rules are rules, regardless of whether or not they can be enforced. They may be stupid rules, or bad rules, but they are rules.
23. You agreed to the rules when signing up for the tournament.
24. The cooperation of all other involved parties clause cannot be invoked here, as there was at least one other involved party, namely myself, which did not agree with PCE use.
25. People ought to do what they agree to do, where possible.
26. Integrity is more important than possessions.
27. Breaking one's agreements violates that person's integrity, without some kind of extenuating change of circumstance between the time of making the agreement and the time at which the agreed upon action is to be undertaken.
28. A rule which there are no consequences for violating is nevertheless a rule.
29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.
Well, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.
Could you reexplain the different methods people could be cheating again? From what I remember it was only PCE and pen/paper.Quote from: TurambarNow if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.
Of course, perhaps no one will believe me, because I have a reputation for standing up for the line of argument that people will cheat under those circumstances, so clearly I must be referring to myself, right? In fact, theory even said to me directly that he felt he could not trust me not to cheat if he ruled the counter illegal, which is sad for me on a personal level, but also the absolutely correct position for theory to take, and perfectly good grounds for him NOT to make spreadsheet use illegal. I only wish his distrust extended to everyone, rather than just me. It sucks to be thought of as a cheater just because you are aware of and concerned about the methods and motivations for cheating.
Or you could go with: "Ok, we can only do what is says here." But that leads to players using spreadsheets instead of the extension and doesn't really make the problem go away.
Quote from: TurambarNow if the extension should be allowed or not in tournaments is completely irrelevant to most of this discussion, the point is that the extension wasn't allowed, and you shouldn't have forced the issue. IMO theory should have refused you using spreadsheets or pen&paper as well. What would you have done then?Used them without telling him, obviously.
No, I actually wouldn't have. That would have been cheating, and I don't cheat. I would have been unhappy, since I would be playing a game whose rules put me at a disadvantage for not cheating in an undetectable way, and I would have complained loudly, but I wouldn't have broken the rules.
In summation, two words: Rationalization.
Damn, guess I need a word-counter extension.
Yay! Serious discussion! Thanks WW, this is the level of discourse I've wished we were having all along.Okay. Don't know how you really want to stand by this, guess I'll just let everyone else realize the flat absurdity that the POINT COUNTER extension is not covered in a rule about the POINT COUNTER.Legal is not the same thing as "I won't disqualify you for it". Come on now.And surely we don't have to repeat for the millionth time that while you have visions of how the game should be played, you can't implement them willy-nilly; you have to follows the rules of the competition you enter.
And I unquestionably did. I was 100% transparent about my actions, and the tournament organizer approved them as legal (or, in his words, non-DQ-worthy).
Anyway,, re-reading your posts, you are less agreeable than I had thought yesterday. So I'm going to lay out the argument, step by step, and you can tell me where you disagree with it, ok?
1. This was a tournament which qualified the winner for dominion nationals. (Ok, this isn't relevant, but I want to make sure you'll have something you absolutely can agree with).
2. The tournament was played on isotropic, on the internet.
3. There were rules to this tournament.
4. Special tournament rules were posted on the blog and in these forums.
5. Those rules include that the official point tracker was to be used, identical starting hands ensured.
6. Those rules do not state that the PCE can be used.
I'm with you this far.Quote7. Those rules say that modifications to the rules may be made with the agreement of ALL participants.
This is where you first lose me. The rules give defaults for a few variables in the case of disagreement on those variables. Those variables do not include the extension.
I actually am coming from the first one on the second one. I don't hold this middle ground. theory was holding that the thing was illegal (he would have done better to state it more bluntly), but that he would not disqualify you for it. Illegal with no consequences is, once again, not the same thing as legal.Quote8. We got into a situation where some kinds of negotiations were going on for the finals.
9. There were several parties privy to these negotiations, including you, me, theory, jtl005, and ednever.
10. After understanding what PCE did, both jtl005 and ednever stated preference that you do not use the PCE.
11. I made my claim very clear that I consider the PCE to be in violation of the rules.
12. theory asked you not to use the PCE.
I agree with all these.Quote13. theory later told you not to use the PCE - still before he outright 'banned' it.
14. Throughout this period, you made your intentions to use the PCE quite clear.
These feel pretty wrong. The first one has some basis in fact, but the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension" (or very similar) because he went on to say "..but I won't DQ you for it", which, as I have said about fifty times, constitutes explicit legalization of the point counter. Theory and you both wish to maintain that there is some middle ground between "legal" and "illegal" (like "legal but I asked you not to") but that is so ridiculous.
The second one is also totally wrong. I never said that I would use it if it were ruled illegal, and it was, and I didn't. So I don't even know where you are coming from with that one.
Okay, so we should magically obey rules that don't exist? Tell me how that one works? Because if that's the case, I win the game by claiming it - you can't show me where in the rules it says I can't do that, because the rules don't exist.Quote15. There is no codification of rules written up to supersede, on general grounds, the dominion rules, despite being specific rule adaptions for specific events.
Sure, I guess.Quote16. Except insofar as expressly countermanded by specific tournament rules (including the mutual agreement clause), the rules of Dominion should remain in effect in this tournament, as there is no alternative objective baseline which is a rival to them AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I disagree. The rules of online Dominion (which don't exist) should remain in effect, since that's what we were playing. It really bears little relation to paper Dominion, as I've been over in several other posts. Since those rules don't exist, we can only go by common sense and precedent. Precedent WITHIN THIS VERY TOURNAMENT was clear that the extension was legal, and that coincided with my common sense (that unenforceable rules shouldn't exist).
The first four words of page 2 of the dominion rulebook make it clear that thinking is allowed. I agree that there is some need for common sense, but clearly the sense that being able to take notes is allowed is not something which is not common, and certainly not self-evident.Quote17. The rules of dominion do not explicitly allow for external memory aids.
True.Quote18. Actions pertinent to a game, which are not expressly allowed by the game's rules, are implicitly prohibited by the game's rules.
False! Nowhere does Dominion expressly allow you to try to sit there and remember what you bought last turn. Do you think that is implicitly prohibited too? Cheater! Surely you must agree that rules are never complete specifications one way or the other, and we must always fall back on common sense and social norms to determine the acceptableness of various actions.
I weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.Quote19. PCE is relevant to the game.
20. PCE was not explicitly allowed.
21. PCE is ergo implicitly prohibited.
See above.Quote22. Rules are rules, regardless of whether or not they can be enforced. They may be stupid rules, or bad rules, but they are rules.
23. You agreed to the rules when signing up for the tournament.
24. The cooperation of all other involved parties clause cannot be invoked here, as there was at least one other involved party, namely myself, which did not agree with PCE use.
25. People ought to do what they agree to do, where possible.
These are fine.Quote26. Integrity is more important than possessions.
Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.Quote27. Breaking one's agreements violates that person's integrity, without some kind of extenuating change of circumstance between the time of making the agreement and the time at which the agreed upon action is to be undertaken.
28. A rule which there are no consequences for violating is nevertheless a rule.
Yep.Quote29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
What? No, not even a little bit.
Clearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.Quote30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.
Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
Quote from: Other WW postWell, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.
Please point to quotes from the conversation you posted where you think I declared my intention to cheat or exhibited duplicity. I soundly deny that I have done either.
Okay. Don't know how you really want to stand by this, guess I'll just let everyone else realize the flat absurdity that the POINT COUNTER extension is not covered in a rule about the POINT COUNTER.
I actually am coming from the first one on the second one. I don't hold this middle ground. theory was holding that the thing was illegal (he would have done better to state it more bluntly), but that he would not disqualify you for it. Illegal with no consequences is, once again, not the same thing as legal.
Okay, so we should magically obey rules that don't exist? Tell me how that one works? Because if that's the case, I win the game by claiming it - you can't show me where in the rules it says I can't do that, because the rules don't exist.
Furthermore, precedent in NO WAY showed that it was legal. Furthermore, here's a great example of duplicity. You have already admitted that you do believe that, at least for some things, unenforceable rules SHOULD exist. But going back to the precedent thing, that you did it before and no one complained is in no way a precedent that you're good to go. That is ridiculous.
The first four words of page 2 of the dominion rulebook make it clear that thinking is allowed. I agree that there is some need for common sense, but clearly the sense that being able to take notes is allowed is not something which is not common, and certainly not self-evident.
QuoteI weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.Quote26. Integrity is more important than possessions.
Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.[/quote]Quote29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
What? No, not even a little bit.
QuoteClearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.Quote30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.
Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
QuoteQuote from: Other WW postWell, I think it is likely the case that he doesn't trust you because you had stated your intentions to cheat quite clearly at that point. Perhaps you wouldn't have actually followed through on them, but you stated your intentions to do so. Furthermore, you have been extremely duplicitous at several steps along the way.
Please point to quotes from the conversation you posted where you think I declared my intention to cheat or exhibited duplicity. I soundly deny that I have done either.
Will do... in another post.
Okay, here we go.
"I don't see why we should change the rules at one player's request (and to his advantage - WanderingWinder is on record as saying that he is against the point counter largely because he enjoys and is very good at memorization)."
"Given that some of my opponents might want to win, I should assume that they will do so, and thus I should too if I don't want to be at a disadvantage, and to prevent all of that nonsense it should just be legal."
Furthermore, the other people make it clear that it is there request as well that you don't use it, and implicitly that by their interpretation, it's against the rules. So is one person's request, to their advantage, reason to change the rules, or not? You argue both sides.
There's this gem from very early on: "I can't really believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion." Who is the one blowing it out of proportion, now, man?
"Given his definitions in a private correspondence, he is now accusing the tournament organizer of announcing his intention to cheat. I feel that this is a pretty clear objective indicator that it is his definitions that need adjustment, rather than mine."
theory later makes it clear that he considers PCE cheating, and you don't change definitions. So is this a clear objective indicator or not?
Finally, there's the innumerable places where you're all over the place on whether or not the thing gives you an advantage. It gives an advantage, it gives no advantage, it gives a small advantage, it doesn't really matter. And you keep arguing all over. So I am consistent here, I think it's a significant advantage, and if you didn't think it was, by your arguments, you should have no problem disabling it.
This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?
1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
We've already been over how it is reasonable from both of our perspectives to have seen precedent as on our side, and I wish you would admit. I saw other players use it without complaint, I used it without complaint, and I am not alone in believing that its use was legal and precedented. Your position on this is also understandable, given your differing starting assumptions and your differing experience during the tournament. Can we please agree that neither of us is being "ridiculous" on this bit?You are misrepresenting my position here. I don't believe either of us could have seen precedents on our side, as there were no precedents. There were in fact no rulings, it hadn't been brought up as a question. So no no, you clearly don't understand the meaning of precedent here, as I am using it.
I agree that it's tragic and difficult that the rules for the game we were playing aren't written down anywhere. Theory did his best to give us a tournament on short notice, and there were holes. Oh well. We have to do our best.But there are rules. You just choose to ignore them because you don't like them. They CAN apply, you just don't think they should, or don't want them to, or something.
On the contrary, it is common in communities other than yours. People have such a hard time realizing that the internet is putting them in touch with people who come from very different places. In the competitive Magic community, for instance, it is taken for granted at this point that these kinds of in-game notes are perfectly permissible, and used by most players in most tournaments.Yeah, but the point is that makes it uncommon. It's not universally held. Allowing one to think is more or less universally held. Allowing someone to take notes is not. So I don't buy the common sense argument here, or that they are analogous. I think you can see the difference between the two. If you can't, there's not much point in arguing with you.
Not at all on the religious front. My atheist friends agree with this statement as well. Of course, they view that it is possible to live in a state which is worse than nothingness, as you suggest, which I disagree with, but religion is not necessary to hold integrity above survival. Atheists have sacrificed their lives for others, as you say. And I am saying that the guilt that ought to be associated with loss of integrity outweighs necessity of survival, infinitely. Your argument is also largely dependent on accepting consequentialism, which I reject as a system of practical ethics, as it requires you to calculate the consequences of the action in question until the end of time (or in your case, the end of your lifetime, if you are certain that nothing after the end of your life will affect you within your life; of course, you would also have to know when your life will end), which is something you cannot do.QuoteQuoteI weep for humanity that it includes so many people who believe this.Quote26. Integrity is more important than possessions.
Seems like a non-sequitur, but I do disagree rather strongly. Having enough possessions to keep you alive is a lot more important than having integrity. Well, actually, I kind of don't like the notion of ownership at all. But having access to enough objects to keep you alive is more important than having integrity.
This is at heart a religious argument, and I think we should stay away. From my perspective, if you are dead, nothing can possibly matter to you, so it is incoherent to suggest that something could matter more than survival.
There is one complication to this, which is that there are states of life that seem to be clearly worse than not existing. In those cases (such as when facing extreme torture, or when facing the guilt of not having sacrificed yourself to save 50 orphans) self-sacrifice can be reasonable.
Sure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.[/quote]Quote29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
What? No, not even a little bit.
Not at all. There are other ways in which things affect your self-interest other than what you have posted here. You have some self-interest in believing you are being reasonable, some self-interest in believing you are acting ethically, some self-interest in APPEARING to be all of these things, etc. etc. Self-interest has a much greater scope than what you are saying.QuoteQuoteClearly not slanderous. Less clear that it's not false, but here we go then. You claim to be doing this because it allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't. You claim unenforceable rules shouldn't exist, because if you were to follow them, it would put you at a disadvantage. You claim that you having something to gain is a significant difference from other things. I mean, you tell me why you are doing all this, if not from your self-interest. The entire ethical system you espouse smacks incredibly of ethical egoism.Quote30. The root of your arguments, ethically, lies in your own, personal, relatively short-term self-interest, as you see it.
Totally unrelated to all preceding points, even if I agreed with them, and also slanderous and false. I really wish you hadn't included this one. It makes me kind of angry.
I do it because it is what I believe strongly is fair and right. It's less about my own interest (you can easily see this from the fact that I volunteered to share my spreadsheet publicly with the other contestants) and more about the principle of the thing.
If I were self-interested, I would have dropped all discussion as soon as theory said he wouldn't DQ me for the point counter, I would have used it, and that would have been that. Instead, I pushed for a more rigorously fair ruleset, and as a result I got one that was much less to my liking and much less to my advantage.
If I were self-interested, I would not have started posting videos of my thought process right before the finals. If I were self-interested, I would not have mentioned publicly that I intended to use the extension. Your reading of the facts here is obnoxiously selective.
No, I am remembering that. See, that has nothing to do with your duplicity here. What you are saying in the first case, is that one player's request is insignificant, whereas later, when it is your own request, it is significant. Further, you can look at THIS as duplicitous, because you yourself made that original statement clearly knowing that I thought that this was NOT a change in the rules - in that instance, it is you who clearly were not talking into account my belief that asking for the prohibition was not a change in the rules.Okay, here we go.
"I don't see why we should change the rules at one player's request (and to his advantage - WanderingWinder is on record as saying that he is against the point counter largely because he enjoys and is very good at memorization)."
"Given that some of my opponents might want to win, I should assume that they will do so, and thus I should too if I don't want to be at a disadvantage, and to prevent all of that nonsense it should just be legal."
Furthermore, the other people make it clear that it is there request as well that you don't use it, and implicitly that by their interpretation, it's against the rules. So is one person's request, to their advantage, reason to change the rules, or not? You argue both sides.
The issue here is that I didn't (and don't) believe I was advocating for a change in the rules. I was advocating against making the extension illegal when it had been legal all along. I know you disagree, but please remember my base assumptions before you accuse me of hypocrisy.
Not more so than this is taken out of context. I never threatened legal action. I said that suing was an option open to me, which is clearly true, but at the same time, I clearly stated my lack of desire to actually do it.QuoteThere's this gem from very early on: "I can't really believe that this has been blown so far out of proportion." Who is the one blowing it out of proportion, now, man?
Uh... you? You've left out the context of that quote, which if anyone cares to actually click on your link, they will see is a direct response to your spurious threat of legal action, which remains the high water mark of insanity in all this.
Guess I'll give you this one, I'm sorry. Definitely seen a bunch of people saying this, but after carefully checking, I can't find a case where you did. I apologize.Quote"Given his definitions in a private correspondence, he is now accusing the tournament organizer of announcing his intention to cheat. I feel that this is a pretty clear objective indicator that it is his definitions that need adjustment, rather than mine."You don't respond to this one, so I'm guessing you see this as really duplicitous. Glad you can see one of them, anyway.
theory later makes it clear that he considers PCE cheating, and you don't change definitions. So is this a clear objective indicator or not?QuoteFinally, there's the innumerable places where you're all over the place on whether or not the thing gives you an advantage. It gives an advantage, it gives no advantage, it gives a small advantage, it doesn't really matter. And you keep arguing all over. So I am consistent here, I think it's a significant advantage, and if you didn't think it was, by your arguments, you should have no problem disabling it.
What? It's definitely an advantage. I don't think I've said anything else. I certainly don't think it gives five isotropic levels worth of advantage, and the anecdotal evidence seems to support me strongly.
EDIT: Doing something else for 30-60 minutes, I'll be back.
I disagree. The rules of online Dominion (which don't exist) should remain in effect, since that's what we were playing. It really bears little relation to paper Dominion, as I've been over in several other posts. Since those rules don't exist…
This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?
1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
QuoteWe've already been over how it is reasonable from both of our perspectives to have seen precedent as on our side, and I wish you would admit. I saw other players use it without complaint, I used it without complaint, and I am not alone in believing that its use was legal and precedented. Your position on this is also understandable, given your differing starting assumptions and your differing experience during the tournament. Can we please agree that neither of us is being "ridiculous" on this bit?You are misrepresenting my position here. I don't believe either of us could have seen precedents on our side, as there were no precedents. There were in fact no rulings, it hadn't been brought up as a question. So no no, you clearly don't understand the meaning of precedent here, as I am using it.
QuoteI agree that it's tragic and difficult that the rules for the game we were playing aren't written down anywhere. Theory did his best to give us a tournament on short notice, and there were holes. Oh well. We have to do our best.But there are rules. You just choose to ignore them because you don't like them. They CAN apply, you just don't think they should, or don't want them to, or something.
QuoteOn the contrary, it is common in communities other than yours. People have such a hard time realizing that the internet is putting them in touch with people who come from very different places. In the competitive Magic community, for instance, it is taken for granted at this point that these kinds of in-game notes are perfectly permissible, and used by most players in most tournaments.Yeah, but the point is that makes it uncommon. It's not universally held. Allowing one to think is more or less universally held. Allowing someone to take notes is not. So I don't buy the common sense argument here, or that they are analogous. I think you can see the difference between the two. If you can't, there's not much point in arguing with you.
QuoteQuoteQuoteSure is. Someone comes to wherever it is you are playing and watches you. This has been done for chess tournaments.Quote29. The no memory aids rule is theoretically enforceable.
What? No, not even a little bit.
Even given the resources to do that, no. What if I devise a system for encoding notes to myself in what look like friendly chat message to the other players? What if fiddling with the pencils on my desk is a code? No observer will ever be able to distinguish memory-aid from not-memory-aid.
If you want to go to extremes, nothing is enforceable. Great, we should have no laws!
the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"
the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"
This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.
The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?
Consider the following scenario:
There is a monopoly tournament. A participant asks the organizer "can I steal money from the bank assuming that don't get caught"
The organizer says "you may not do so, but if you do so I will not disqualify you" (he won't, of course, since he wouldn't have caught him.)
I think in this case I think everyone will agree that stealing is still against the rules. Since it's very hard to imagine that the organizer can change the facts by saying a virtual tautology ('I will not disqualify those whom I don't catch').
Now what I don't understand is why is this case any different from the one we are discussing?
the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"
This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.
The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?
Here's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals). But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.
Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it
Because a CHAT box, was intended to be used for CHATTING. Anything else should be considered at the very least as devious.Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it
To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.
>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.
Done. End of topic. The tournament organizer said don't use it. The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.
Because a CHAT box, was intended to be used for CHATTING. Anything else should be considered at the very least as devious.Also, a rules question: often when playing on iso i count points or cards not on paper but verbally. Is this allowed? It is not explicitly permitted and is more than just using your mind. Though if this is illegal than ww has cheated since in all his videos he is talking about the game which I assume will sometimes help him remember stuff. Also this means that you rarely have a game of rl dominion without cheating since people are constantly talking about the game while playing it
To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?
I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.
Personman, it's pretty clear to me that you are in the wrong.
>>On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Dominion Strategy
>>dominionstrategy wrote:
>>I would ask that you don't play with it.
Done. End of topic. The tournament organizer said don't use it. The rest is your mental gymnastics to try to rationalize why you want to use the PCE despite being told not to.
QFT
For the life of me, I can't figure out how Personman got past #2 in the timeline, both in the version posted by him and by theory.
the utterance of theory's you are referring to was actually much closer to telling me to use it, despite including the phrase "don't use the extension"
This is possibly the most hilarious thing to be said in this thread. It's like... politician-like in its levels of deceit.
The tournament organizer said "Don't do it". How can a ruling possibly be any clearer than that?
God this is frustrating. I understand the bind theory was in, but I do think he really messed up when he said that. Here's the whole quote (now that it's public, I hope theory forgives me for quoting him...):QuoteHere's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals). But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.
This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it. Yes, it is great fodder for making fun of me, since it contains a phrase but means its opposite. Other people might have different priorities, and might have decided to shut up and "be nice" to theory and trust their opponents. And quite honestly, I do think I trust the guys my opponents turned out to be. But I'll never know for sure. They will always just be guys on the other side of the internet. And since they too know that there will be no penalty for using the extension, I'm sure as hell going to use it too.
Again, I feel for him, but I think what theory did here was really wrong. It made politeness and certain kinds of morals into selected-against qualities, and that's not good for a community ever. It made me play, and WW quit. WW says he would have quit anyway if theory's ruling had been unambiguously in favor of the extension, but that's his own problem. Competitions should NEVER EVER have soft pressure like this. It can only make nice people less likely to win.
I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.
If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.
I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.
If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
Yes, there is. The sane way to read it is "don't use the point counter." What part about don't use the point counter don't you understand?QuoteHere's the ruling: don't use the point counter, because it screws up
the intended purpose (identify who is best equipped to compete at
nationals). But if you do use it, there will be no penalty, because
your opponents could have likely been taking notes the whole time
anyway.
This is explicit permission to use the extension. There's no other sane way to read it.
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.
I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.
If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
So he looks better than WW since WW put emails in a quicktopic and linked there.
I wish I could post the conversation between theory and myself that WW does not have access to, but I will continue to respect theory's wishes on the matter.
If you wouldn't respect his wishes in the tournament - why would you respect them here?
I asked permission to post the thread before WW mentioned a desire to do so, and I still wish it had been granted. I understand WW's position that all communications to him can be fairly made public by him, but I also understand theory's position that what was said in private has a reasonable expectation of remaining private. If this were some sort of government conspiracy, I might act differently, and play the whistleblower, but since it was a request from someone I like and respect, I made the simple human decision to honor it. WW has chosen differently, and, well, I can't stop him, and I find some parts of what he has done useful. It's not a black and white issue, and I'm not posturing.
repeating your opinion with exaggerated claims of its obviousness is not very productive.
since it was a request from someone I like and respect, I made the simple human decision to honor it.But it was too much to honor theory's explicit "don't use the point counter"? I haz a confused. Just seems like at that point the sportsmanlike thing to do there would have been to drop the issue and not play with the point counter, rather than take advantage of theory's admittance that there was not realistically much that could be done to enforce it.
Again, I feel for him, but I think what theory did here was really wrong. It made politeness and certain kinds of morals into selected-against qualities, and that's not good for a community ever. ... Competitions should NEVER EVER have soft pressure like this. It can only make nice people less likely to win.
Personman, you are getting crazy.
Originally I was (sort of) on your side. I do like games with PCE better, and I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.
If theory had not told you explicitly that he would not like you to use the PCE, I would say you are okay. Rules can have different interpretations. Enable the official one but not the unofficial one does make things muddy.
But here you are just twisting his logic. His logic is pretty clear to me. He said:
0. I would not like you to use the PCE.
1. this is qualification for the nationals.
2. In the nationals you cannot use any point counter.
3. For the purpose of the tournament (that is to find the best player) it is thus best not to use a point counter.
And you simply ignores this. You only read this part:
4. I won't disqualify you if you are using PCE, just as I cannot disqualify someone using pen and paper.
This part is he sympathizing you. If you are really not self-interested (I mean not necessarily only interested in winning the tournament, but also maybe winning the argument with WW) and have a common interest with the rest of us trying to find the best player for the nationals, the only reasonable thing I can see is to not use PCE (and maybe suggest to turn off the official one as well.) It seems to me keeping things fair has become your dominant interest (which is coming from the fact that your original justifying reason for using the point counter is to keep things fair). But if you are that interested in fairness to the extent that you don't care about what this tournament is about and what the tournament director says, you may as well just play paper, scissors, stone.
This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.
This is apparently hard for everyone (I really don't know why) but for me THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR SAYING HE WON'T DQ YOU IS THE SAME AS IT BEING LEGAL.
To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?And hey, what about writing notes on your belly in your own blood at a tournament in real life? It's your blood.
I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.
To take this a little further: what if I keep notes on what cards people have bought/how many points they have by entering them in the chat box? Does it matter whether I hit send or not? The chat box is as much a part of isotropic dominion as the card icons are, so why shouldn't I be allowed to use it?And hey, what about writing notes on your belly in your own blood at a tournament in real life? It's your blood.
People are great believers in false things; interested parties can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases. Part of believing a false thing is thinking it's not false! So it's no surprise that this is going nowhere.
It's nice that Personman is so good-natured as he pats himself on the back for promoting cheating as a way to defend justice. I am ruder about these things, I don't know what to tell you. To me the important things are 1) to have it always be clear to casual readers that some people do not believe a word of Personman's nonsense, wow harsh, and 2) that people using the online program have a way to block people. And then, guys, you can just block Personman and never play him. That might keep you out of large tournaments, but well there are probably more Personmen in them anyway.
I honestly cannot think of any real world reason why someone would generally prefer otherwise, except that he is really good at memorizing stuff and can get some real advantage from that department.
BTW, I can answer this one; I enjoy playing without any counters. It's just one more skill to add on. I definitely worked on learning to remember what's left; it's a pretty nice feeling to be able to end the game by three-piling with a tied score and winning on turns, and knowing that that's a skill that I learned and acquired, a win possibility that I caught but my opponent didn't. It certainly wouldn't be as exciting to do that if I could just look at the point counter and see the score and be like "okay, well, I guess I end the game with a win now."
It's like playing with a simulator. If I can run a some sims at the beginning of the game and check the speed of a few available strategies, that takes some of the fun and skill out of picking a strategy. I mean, you can argue that that still leaves the skill remaining in, say, duchy-dancing, or in executing the strategy precisely - and it does, a simulator available wouldn't help that much. And of course there's lots and lots of boards where a sim doesn't help at all. But there's some boards where it does, and there's no sense of accomplishment in that, so might as well keep that out, especially since it's not available in IRL dominion games.
So I prefer the rules as they are, with no point counters. It's not a big hurdle to jump through, it's not like it's locking people out of playing this game until they learn lots of memorization techniques, it's one more thing that you can learn to do to give you a slight advantage and feel good about when you get it to work.
Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
Personman, it's you who is ignoring me first. But ok, forget what theory had said, let me just be plain and ask a few question here:
(1) do you agree or not that since this tournament is qualification for the nationals where point counters are clearly not allowed, it is better to play with point counter disabled? (please for now suppose players won't cheat)
If you don't agree, I don't think there can be any more beneficial discussion. Suppose you agree:
(2) Now as you said there can be incentive for one player to cheat. But how does it help by using the PCE yourself?
I dunno your answer, but all I can see is that at most it can help you compete with cheaters. But that does not help the overall situation, as we dunno whether you are better at this memory department as well.
In short: I can understand and agree why you think the point counter should be allowed, but I have no way justifying your insistence on using it once your opponent disagrees and the tournament director directly tells you not to do so.
Personman, it's you who is ignoring me first. But ok, forget what theory had said, let me just be plain and ask a few question here:
(1) do you agree or not that since this tournament is qualification for the nationals where point counters are clearly not allowed, it is better to play with point counter disabled? (please for now suppose players won't cheat)
If you don't agree, I don't think there can be any more beneficial discussion. Suppose you agree:
(2) Now as you said there can be incentive for one player to cheat. But how does it help by using the PCE yourself?
I dunno your answer, but all I can see is that at most it can help you compete with cheaters. But that does not help the overall situation, as we dunno whether you are better at this memory department as well.
In short: I can understand and agree why you think the point counter should be allowed, but I have no way justifying your insistence on using it once your opponent disagrees and the tournament director directly tells you not to do so.
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
I can't wait to see what Donald says, but here are my thoughts:
On isotropic, yes, you are allowed to talk to yourself. I was talking about the game (and sometimes the score) into my microphone the whole time, and I had announced my intention to do commentary on the games as they happened before, and no one took any issue.
In an in-person tournament, I think most people would interpret talking about the score as helping your opponents, and thus would not say anything. However, there is potential for abuse via lying about the score out loud. In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play). Dominion could come up with similar rules, or it could just allow talking and lying in general. Trying to enforce silence seems like a pretty bad idea, since decisions need to be made for cards, and point totals could be indicated with hand gestures, etc. You could try to have a judge determine whether any player was doing something suspiciously like trying to communicate point totals, but that outlaws what I think is a pretty common thing: on the last turn, when you don't mind giving away information anymore, talking through your memory of the game to try to reconstruct who bought what and make sure you are safe to end it. I've done that in an actual paper Dominion tournament before (a private one) and everyone thought it was normal.
Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
Please read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
In Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).
QuoteIn Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).
Sort of off-topic now, but this bit interested me--what is there that you can lie about that doesn't have to do with the game state that can actually get you an advantage? I'm curious about this.
(FWIW I've played Magic IRL like twice, and a bit on the digital version on PSN; so there's plenty I don't know about it)
QuotePlease read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
Also, Donald, as long as your posting here, I was actually asking a serious rules question before which has so far not been answered. Are you allowed to verbally count points while playing?
I am fine with saying the score out loud or using Ars Memorativa or what have you. When you write on yourself, you're using yourself as a notebook; it's a weird thing that only comes up to try to get around the rules. If you say the score out loud to help you remember, that's normal.source (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13692#msg13692)
I am cool with people playing Dominion by whatever variants they want, provided that all players have agreed to them, including using an automatic score tracker.source (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546)
Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. You can't do things that rules don't let you, inside the game. Outside the game, whatever. If a rulebook mentions that you can't do something, that's just to answer common questions from foolish people; if you aren't told you can, you can't, that is what it means to be rules.source (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546)
It should be clear that rules work this way, because games are just utterly messed up otherwise. People can produce ridiculous questions all day. Can you put a card from your hand on your deck for next turn whenever you want? Hey maybe the rulebook covers that, I am not checking. It for sure does not answer every ridiculous question of this nature because there is no end to them.
If you accept that rules say what you can do, rather than what you can't - and why would you, this is the internet - then the question becomes, is taking notes like eating or is it actually relevant. And of course it's relevant. The game has a memory component, and of course there are games that are nothing but memory, to make it clear that memory can be an element of a game.
Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.
QuotePlease read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing? The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)
QuotePlease read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing? The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)
Woah, I agree!
can you stop the round and round arguments now and debate this, because it has just Rock(-paper-scissors)'ed my world!
Could be worse, it could be Rock Paper Scissors Laser Spock!
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.
QuotePlease read the thread. Please. I've been over this so very many times. It's in the email thread that WW posted; it's in this thread more than once. No, I do not think that an online qualifier should strive for similarity to nationals in any way shape or form, and I think it's totally ridiculous to think otherwise. I am far too tired of this to type out why for the fourth or fifth time.
I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
(Aside: whoa, I've always called it Rock-Paper-Scissors... is this a regional dialect thing? The wiki article has both orderings... weird...)
Woah, I agree!
can you stop the round and round arguments now and debate this, because it has just Rock(-paper-scissors)'ed my world!
Could be worse, it could be Rock Paper Scissors Laser Spock!
Lizard* ;)
QuoteIn Magic, there are rules against knowingly misrepresenting the game state, but you can lie about anything else you want to get an advantage (and people do, and it's often considered an impressive play).
Sort of off-topic now, but this bit interested me--what is there that you can lie about that doesn't have to do with the game state that can actually get you an advantage? I'm curious about this.
(FWIW I've played Magic IRL like twice, and a bit on the digital version on PSN; so there's plenty I don't know about it)
Because he held that even after Theory's ruling the spreadsheet was illegal and so didn't want to play with it available since he didn't want to cheat himself (I think)
One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling.
Because he held that even after Theory's ruling the spreadsheet was illegal and so didn't want to play with it available since he didn't want to cheat himself (I think)
One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling.
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")
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's likeNo, it's more like this:
Me: I think X.
Someone: Why?
Me: Because Z.
Someone: But I think Z is wrong. So why do think X!?!?!?!?!?!?
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.
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.
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?
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?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.
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.QuoteI 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.
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gifIt'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'
REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.
REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.
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.
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gifIt'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'
The interesting things for me are 1) some people call them Cokes, wtf, and 2) St. Louis should be a state.
Everyone's seen this, right: http://columbianewsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/accent-map.gifIt'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'
The interesting things for me are 1) some people call them Cokes, wtf, and 2) St. Louis should be a state.
QuoteI'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?
QuoteI'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.
REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.
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.
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".
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).
REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.
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 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?
arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" ... [is] 100% invalidNice strawman. The argument is X is illegal in Isotropic dominion(National qualifiers variant), as stated by the tournament organizer. Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default. Claiming that you get to reinvent all sorts of rules because you're playing on a computer is silly.
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.
arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" ... [is] 100% invalidNice strawman. The argument is X is illegal in Isotropic dominion(National qualifiers variant), as stated by the tournament organizer. Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default. Claiming that you get to reinvent all sorts of rules because you're playing on a computer is silly.
Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
Okay. But your logic does not actually lead to the conclusion that such a regulation IS not a rule. It leads to the conclusion that it SHOULD NOT be a rule. Even if we are to accept it, which I don't. However, my larger point there was that it is not incoherent. And you know, I am not the only one who finds it coherent, so maybe you are incapable of understanding it (which would truly be sad, if true), but that doesn't make it incoherent. You're just going to have to trust us on this.This notion seems incoherent to me. I don't think an action (in a game) can be illegal without consequences. I'm not sure it can in real life, either, but I'm less sure of that, and I see the issues as separate. Again, this may be as far as we get on this, but I'll lay out my reasoning a bit further:I fail to see how it is incoherent to have a rule that there are no consequences for, other than moral consequences. Indeed, the rules against hacking the server, etc. you seem to agree to this point on. "We need to have trust" in society at large, no?
1. Competition should be fair.
2. If something is illegal without consequences, some people's morals will allow them to do that thing and others will not.
3. If the thing is advantageous, the people with the laxer morals will win more often.
4. That is unfair, and thus should not be a part of how competitions are run.
You haven't addressed my logic at all. Yes, of course we need some trust in society at large (or at least, everyone's lives are much better since we do). We nevertheless have penalties for breaking that trust, whether they be legal or social, and if there are no such penalties for a thing, I think that's usually the same as that thing being okay.
In a tournament environment, especially one against strangers over the internet, you have to assume that social consequences go out the window, since the prize is likely all that matters to an unknown participant. Therefore, we need tournament regulations. To actually be regulations, they need to have consequences, or else they fail to regulate anything.
I mean, beforehand, I agree, and I could well see how you might be like "I don't see why this is against the rules", if you hadn't taken the time to really study the matter. But when it is explained, you should be like "oh shoot, you're right." Because they're pretty straightforward. In any case, that you got away with it before is certainly no basis for it to actually be legal, only some slight basis for you to perhaps think that it is so.
You're right, I'm not using precedent to mean "previously handed-down judicial decisions". I'm using it to mean "previously community-accepted behavior". I'm sorry I misunderstood your position; I continue to maintain that given our respective preconditions, we both came to reasonable, contradictory conclusions on this front.
Stop repeating this without addressing my reasoning for why it is false. Online dominion is a very different beast from paper dominion, and has no particular reason to fall back on the rulebook AT ALL. If it did, the differences between isotropic and the real rules would result in people "cheating" all the time, e.g. by hiding the top card of their discard pile.Stop ignoring my point that the rulebook for offline dominion is perfectly able to be realized online, and that you in fact give no objective reason why it cannot be. I mean, you give some reasons why you think it SHOULD not be, I grant. But that does not mean that it CANNOT be. You keep asserting that they're different, but you have not actually established that.
Notes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Stop switching between in-game and legal perspectives. Laws that are difficult to enforce are often a good idea because a) when they CAN be enforced you don't want to let the culprit off the hook because there is no law on the books and b) their mere existence is a strong moral deterrent for some people, and we should do whatever we can to stop people from doing things that are ACTUALLY BAD for society.Again, we can have discussions like this on what the rules SHOULD be, but these reasons have no bearing on what the rules actually ARE.
In-game, only enforcing things when you happen to be able to is terrible and unfair, and using the extension does not cause any real harm to society, so there are no justifications for avoidable unenforceable rules.
There's a really important point here that I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by more people, so I'm being liberal with my use of bold. I freely admit that there are unavoidable unenforceable rules in online Dominion. The obvious example is collusion/collaboration. Two players in a multiplayer game could be sitting next to each other, or use any communication device, to conspire against another. One "player" could in fact be a whole room full of Dominion experts conferring about what to do. These are obviously against the rules, and obviously unenforceable. This is an unsolvable structural flaw with all online competition, and it is a compelling reason not to use online competition for things that REALLY matter. I accept that we have to trust people not to do these things, because there is simply no alternative except not holding online competitions. However, this is not a good reason to add additional, unnecessary unenforceable rules. I agree that the line is blurry, and I don't think anyone can draw it. My opinion about where the extension falls in relation to that line is inevitably colored by the fact that I think it makes it a better game, or at least those who do not accept my arguments will always see it as so colored. I think this is the strongest argument against my position, and I'm really surprised that it has only come up once, in passing, near the beginning of the thread.Because the whole thing is irrelevant. We are not discussing what the best game would be. If we were, I would be talking about re-wording throne room, buffing scout, doing all kinds of stuff. But no. We are talking about what the rules ARE. Whether they are enforceable or not does not change whether they are rules. Ontologically, they cannot be anything else. You can argue that they don't exist, but man, I can point to them. So I mean, that is not the argument. Furthermore, these rules CAN be enforced, it just has some level of tediousness to do so. But again, that's not relevant if everyone just lives up to the agreements they've made.
REAL LIFE IS DIFFERENT FROM GAMES.And for anyone looking up that post, there's one after it where I shoot that down.
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 it down better! And then there's a whole threadful of us and other people shooting each other down, up, and sideways.
Isn't it great?
...actually, I did look it up, and as far as I could tell you never addressed it... specifically, Donald X's post at #255.
I think "games are different from life" is a very misleading way to look at it. Yes, in a game of Diplomacy, maybe you will backstab somebody who you would not backstab outside of a game. That's not relevant though. The issue of cheating is an issue of what people do in life. Choosing to take notes is not something you do inside the game.
It is fair to say that you don't enjoy playing in online tournaments with significant prizes, because you expect to be up against cheaters. To me this just suggests that online tournaments should not have significant prizes, rather than somehow meaning that the game should be changed so that all is permissible. People will cheat online even with no prize, but I think there we just provide a way to block people, and don't rank games where the card mix was picked out, and then there's the issue of how you handle time-outs.
Now, you can reasonably posit bringing them in line where possible as a goal. That's fine. I probably even share that goal. However, I have a higher goal, and I think everyone else should share it (and I think they do, actually): fairness. We should not compromise the fairness of isotropic dominion in an attempt to make it more like offline dominion. Are you with me so far?
HERE is where I believe disagreement starts. I believe it is an objective fact that a rule against the extension is unfair.
Choosing to take notes once that has been ruled illegal is cheating. Choosing to take notes when it is legal is a valid use of your resources during gameplay.
Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.source (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=876.msg13546#msg13546)
My "opinion" that they are different games is well supported by fact. Many facts of life in Isotropic Dominion are cheating in offline dominion, and thus, as I said, an argument of the form "X is illegal in offline dominion so it is illegal in isotropic dominion" can be immediately rejected.
Now, you can reasonably posit bringing them in line where possible as a goal. That's fine. I probably even share that goal. However, I have a higher goal, and I think everyone else should share it (and I think they do, actually): fairness. We should not compromise the fairness of isotropic dominion in an attempt to make it more like offline dominion. Are you with me so far?
HERE is where I believe disagreement starts. I believe it is an objective fact that a rule against the extension is unfair. Other people disagree. I have tried to back this opinion up throughout the thread as thoroughly as possible; I do not believe I have been merely trumpeting its correctness from the rooftops. If you wish to bring a new objection to those arguments forward, please do. If you simply wish to ignore what I have actually done and tell me that I have done something else, this conversation is over.
Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.Sure, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy used to promote a position by constructing a false version of the opponents position and knocking it down. In this case, the opponent's position is "x was ruled illegal in this tournament, thus you should not do x in this tournament." The strawman constructed was "x is illegal in offline dominion, thus you should not do x in this tournament." I am not claiming that doing x in this tournament is wrong because you should not do X in offline dominion. I am claiming that you should not do X in this tournament because the tournament organizer said not to do it. Your argument is invalid because you are taking my position, and constructing a strawman. This is a logical fallacy.
QuoteNotes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Follow that?
Well, I too got nothing useful out of your post. Please try again, but with more logic & reasons, preferably relating to the logic and reasons I have put forth that you are claiming to refute.Sure, a strawman argument is a logical fallacy used to promote a position by constructing a false version of the opponents position and knocking it down. In this case, the opponent's position is "x was ruled illegal in this tournament, thus you should not do x in this tournament." The strawman constructed was "x is illegal in offline dominion, thus you should not do x in this tournament." I am not claiming that doing x in this tournament is wrong because you should not do X in offline dominion. I am claiming that you should not do X in this tournament because the tournament organizer said not to do it. Your argument is invalid because you are taking my position, and constructing a strawman. This is a logical fallacy.
Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.Ok, this is an interesting idea and is linked to Personman's argument. The argument goes like this. There are certain things you have to do in real life dominion that translate poorly to a computer version. One example is viewing the top card of the discard pile. In real life it's trivial to decide what you want on top of the discard pile. If you discard cards from your hand during cleanup phase, you can gain an advantage by choosing which cards to discard - ie, I drew both of my moats, played one, and my opponent has a witch, but doesn't want to play it if I have a moat in hand. I can discard my unplayed moat under an estate to hide that information from him. In the computer version, that implies you need to control the order of every discard. That would suck, so the solution is to not show the discard pile. This is a concession made to the online format, because in online, discarding in an arbitrary order is easy, discarding in a chosen order is annoying. In offline dominion, both are about equal.Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
Try asking someone to turn their discard pile faceup in isotropic dominion, see if they oblige because the offline rules obligate them to.Ok, this is an interesting idea and is linked to Personman's argument. The argument goes like this. There are certain things you have to do in real life dominion that translate poorly to a computer version. One example is viewing the top card of the discard pile. In real life it's trivial to decide what you want on top of the discard pile. If you discard cards from your hand during cleanup phase, you can gain an advantage by choosing which cards to discard - ie, I drew both of my moats, played one, and my opponent has a witch, but doesn't want to play it if I have a moat in hand. I can discard my unplayed moat under an estate to hide that information from him. In the computer version, that implies you need to control the order of every discard. That would suck, so the solution is to not show the discard pile. This is a concession made to the online format, because in online, discarding in an arbitrary order is easy, discarding in a chosen order is annoying. In offline dominion, both are about equal.Furthermore, Isotropic Dominion rules are the offline rules by default.
The part where this breaks down is to extend it to any arbitrary rule. Isotropic does include a point counter, but does not include a deck tracker. The Tournament rules explicitly discussed the point counter and did not mention the deck tracking extension(since it is not a part of isotropic). Claiming that the kinds of changes(such as above) authorize using any extension is dubious logic. In the first case, it is officially supported by the site. In the PCE case, it is not officially supported by the site, and the only mention was to the closest thing to it(the official point counter), in which it was explicitly mentioned that it(the PC) would be used. The obvious takeaway is that a point counter, deck tracker, etc cannot be used in a tournament setting unless explicitly allowed by the rules.
But that's not even what we're discussing. That line of argument is about whether point trackers and deck trackers should be used for online tournament play in general. In this specific case, the organizer explicitly said not to use it. The rules said not to use it. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other.For example, when offline Dominion got Hinterland's when-gain cards, Isotropic got a tower defense game.
This thread does have the potential to be insightful for anyone willing to read all the way through it. But yeah, now that I have, there are so many things to say...I understand the ruling theory came up with in the end. Personman has some pretty legit concerns about inequity. I of course strongly disagree with how he handled stuff pretty much every step of the way. I can point to several decisions I think he made which were wrong, mostly in not sticking to the original rules. And I don't believe he has the authority to change them afterwards, though I do think he has the authority to DQ someone for breaking them, which he said he 'couldn't' do at some point. But you know, I can sympathize with not wanting to. I wouldn't want to have to DQ anybody. Indeed, this is part of why I withdrew - seemed clear to me that neither Personman nor I was going to budge, so one almost has to go - and I'm pretty sure Personman cares about it more than I do, so I bowed out. So I think theory made a lot of wrong decisions, but you know, I wouldn't call that bashing him. I will freely admit to you that I can't count the number of wrong decisions I've made in the past week - there are too many. Anyway, so there's that.
I think I've had enough of the theory-bashing. Theory was under a lot of time pressure to get this tournament to happen, and also clearly hoped that the general friendly play of people on isotropic would prevail, rather than having to sit down and think through a foolproof ruleset. And as we're discovering, foolproof rulesets are hard to come up with. Enforceability is a big issue, but as Personman has discovered (re: collusion), it's rather tough to actually have in an online tournament. Still, theory tried to enforce it by encouraging people to record the finals and reserving the right to DQ afterwards from those videos. And so in the end, even if it was only half an hour before the finals, theory arrived at at least a pretty decent ruling.
One thing I'm still a little confused about is why WW decided to ultimately withdraw, after theory's final ruling. I can offer some possibilities:
1) He was unhappy that theory was changing the rules. First, it's at least a little ambiguous that spreadsheets are disallowed in the rules. If you have to dig up a post by Donald X on the forum to get the official ruling that's further than most players will go. It's certainly more ambiguous than "identical starting hands" for those who want to argue that theory arbitrarily ruling "okay, so in the finals you guys don't get identical starting hands" would be unfair. So a clarification was certainly in order. Second, the rules never said, "Any changes to the rules must be approved by all players"; that clause is pretty clear about only applying to use or not of the official point counter. But most importantly, we all know how little time theory had to plan this tournament out, and as such, should cut him some slack with clarifying or redefining rules.
2) He expected Personman to cheat and use the PCE anyways. I think this is very unfair to both what Personman's words explicitly said and to WW's own arguments themselves. Personman was not actually planning on cheating; he was just giving the usual unenforceability argument he's repeated several times in this thread. And what do you know, in the real match he didn't cheat at all. I don't see a reason to suspect he would have with WW playing.
3) He objected to playing a game with someone who used Personman's style of reasoning, whether you want to call it relativist, or consequentialist, or what have you. Well, all I can say is that that would be like not playing with atheists. It doesn't actually affect the game and seems a bit non-sequitur. He'd certainly have the right to do that, like anyone has the right to be racist in who they live near, but I'd at least be disappointed if that was his final reason.
4) He didn't think through everything as clearly as he can now (happens to all of us) and would have re-entered had he had more time to think it through.
5) He was away from the computer for the half hour between theory's ruling and the start of the match.
I don't really have evidence against 4 or 5, except for the lack of WW complaining about the timing or apologizing and saying he would have re-entered on second thought.
Of course, WW doesn't have to respond to this if he wants to keep his reasons private. But he's entered the conversation so far, so if he's willing, I'm curious what he has to say to this.
This issue is sort of tangential though. The entire point of separating life from games was to make a point about why a certain school of thought is appropriate when writing rulesets for tournaments that is blatantly not appropriate when evaluating real life situations. My argument was never "this is just a game, so I can cheat", which seems to be what Donald is refuting here.So when you say "real life is different from games" you mean "we should expect people to be cheaters if they can't be caught in games but not in real life?" I am not seeing so far how "real life is different from games" is trying to communicate a true thing in an understandable way.
1. Some communities (for instance A) think that the default state of things is that note taking in games is legal.No, by not explicitly making note-taking legal it makes note-taking illegal. All else is madness, and I have covered this at length elsewhere.
2. Some communities (for instance B) think the opposite.
3. Dominion, and in particular this tournament, does not specify.
Uh, no, he's right there. You make rules which define what IS allowable behaviour in the context of the game, because you can't possibly outlaw everything that needs to be illegal. It is not false, we did not cover it being false, and I most certainly did not agree to that.QuoteNotes being illegal is obviously not universally held either, as I've just demonstrated. So I don't really follow your logic here at all.This is my point precisely. It is not clear. In situations where it is in fact not clear, that's where you go to the rulebook. The rulebook does not say you can do it, so you can't do it. You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board.
Follow that?
I need to step away from this thread for the night; I intend to respond to your full post tomorrow. But I want to pick out this section because I think it's an amazingly clear example of you using strictly faulty logic.
1. Some communities (for instance A) think that the default state of things is that note taking in games is legal.
2. Some communities (for instance B) think the opposite.
3. Dominion, and in particular this tournament, does not specify.
4. People from A and people from B may have different starting beliefs about the rules of this tournament for this reason.
5. When this discrepancy is discovered, resorting to the rules does not satisfy: people from A will say "It's not mentioned here, so it goes to the default: notes are legal!" People from B will say the obvious similar thing.
You have said "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board." but this is nonsense; I can recast it from my perspective and has the same logical content, ie, none: "You don't have the right to assume that you CAN'T do it, because that is not something which you can just generally assume, because it's not uniform across the board."
You can quote me Donald's quote about things not permitted being illegal, but it's just totally false as we've already covered.
He himself has said you can say the score out loud as you play; that's not obvious to everyone and it's not in the rules. Nor are all manner of benign things like turning duration cards sideways to note that they are old, etc. etc. It's just that for some people from communities like B, note taking is "obviously" not in the same class as those things, so they find this argument silly. But for people like me, from a community like A, the reverse is just as true.The reason why the speaking is fine, is because there is no particular difference, gameplay-wise, between thinking it and saying it. And of course it is fine to think it. They don't need to have a rule saying you can think, because it is absolutely absurd - you can't force yourself to not think - and entirely self-defeating. Now you're going to tell me that the no point counter rule is just as absurd, but man, if you can't see the difference there... I'm sorry. There's no convincing you, so there's not much point. I can tell you you're wrong, but if you won't accept that p and not p computes to false, well, I can't PROVE that. You are right.
I'm not lying when I say it still fundamentally baffles me that people can't see why note taking (up to a time limit) is beneficial and not cheating in any relevant game.Every played memory? that is the whole point of the game. The point of the game is defeated if you can take notes. So the question is, is Dominion a game where having a good memory is relevant - obviously it is - and should we seek to keep that as part of the game or not? Well, I think yes, Donald thinks yes, you think no. Well, that's fine, we have different opinions. But the point is, the game Dominion, as constituted, keeps that.
...just like I grudgingly accept that some people legitimately believe in God, or the Republican Party's platformYeah, you're the one who is trying to not get into a kerfluffle here. Right.
Perhaps, instead of assuming duplicity on my part, you should try making a similar effort to believe that I actually sincerely hold the views that I have expressed in this thread, no matter how outlandish they initially seem.The claims of duplicity actually arise from me dong that, as much as possible, but not being able to fully, as what you are saying seems to contradict itself. Which is... the whole point of duplicity? I mean, I actually think you have tricked yourself into thinking you are being consistent. But it is evident to me, and to several others it seems, that you are not. And I know you're not going to see that. Don't know what else to tell you.
QuoteI've been trying as hard as I possibly can to engage fairly and usefully with the criticisms directed at me and my beliefs. If you could point out some places where you think I've failed at that, I would appreciate it.I would appreciate if you confirm the following:I did read, just not sure this is exactly what you meant. But it still sounds too crazy for me, so just let me reconfirm:
so you think it is actually better to play paper-scissors-stone to qualify for the nationals, because it is fairer?
No, of course it's not. I can't really believe I have to write this out, but people are on such different planes of understanding that I suppose I do. Isotropic Dominion and Offline Dominion are utterly different games, and their rules cannot and do not affect each other. They are undeniably similar, and our community concerns itself with both, so it was decided to allow a tournament of one to feed into a tournament of the other, even though (I thought) it was clear to absolutely everyone involved that they would be playing under different conditions, and believe that those conditions are different enough to classify it as a different game (though a reasonable one to mix into a Dominion tournament). We could use different language, like "different variant" or "different rules" or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a conceptual divide between them, and that arguments of the form "X is illegal in Offline Dominion so it is clearly illegal in Isotropic Dominion" and "X is not what Nationals will be testing for, so it's not what we should be testing for either" are 100% invalid, and myriad counterexamples abound that no one is complaining about.
I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.Well, I said "by default," as in, if the experience with that rule is significantly poorer(ie, the discard thing), then we should consider changing it, otherwise not. I'm not saying preserve all the offline rules. I'm saying do so if there is no good reason not to. The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.
Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right. If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there. If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating. If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating. Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.
The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample. Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".
The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.
I mean, seriously, if this is true, why does silver cost $3? Why are there 8 provinces for 2 -player? Why are there 12 provinces for 4-player? Why are any of the things the way they are? Of course, it's because the rules isotropic uses are by-and-large inherited from dominion. Yes, there are some small differences, like you can't see discards. But in general, all the rules are inherited, with only specific exceptions. The null assumption on any particular rule would be that it stands.QuoteI'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.
Isotropic Dominion is a Dominion variant. It's not exactly the same as Dominion as described in the rulebooks. (For example, can't see the top of discard.) Saying it's "not Dominion" is silly, but then again, I also think saying Isotropic+PCE is "not Dominion" is silly. I don't think it's consistent to say that Isotropic Dominion "is Dominion" but Isotropic+PCE "isn't Dominion". They are both variants.I'd agree with this, largely. If both players agree to one of them, it's fine - it's a dominion variant, which isn't straight dominion, but is under the umbrella.
Isotropic Dominion is a Dominion variant. It's not exactly the same as Dominion as described in the rulebooks. (For example, can't see the top of discard.) Saying it's "not Dominion" is silly, but then again, I also think saying Isotropic+PCE is "not Dominion" is silly. I don't think it's consistent to say that Isotropic Dominion "is Dominion" but Isotropic+PCE "isn't Dominion". They are both variants.
Now it's about your opinion on the change, not a rigid adherence to the default rules. And that's okay. As long as your argument isn't "I'm holding the base Dominion rulebook, I have the high ground Anakin". I was perceiving your argument as being that no reasoning at all could justify a change to online dominion that contradicts offline dominion.I am only defeating the particular argument I quoted, and am not trying to settle the whole thing with the discard comparison.Well, I said "by default," as in, if the experience with that rule is significantly poorer(ie, the discard thing), then we should consider changing it, otherwise not. I'm not saying preserve all the offline rules. I'm saying do so if there is no good reason not to. The idea that people can more easily cheat online does not strike me as a good reason to change the rules to allow the cheating.
Just that "Isotropic dominion uses the exact same rules as IRL dominion, and all players already know, at all times, to constantly preserve that" is not right. If I ask you what's on top of your discard pile, for us to replicate offline dominion you need to tell me at least one card that could be there. If you denied me access to that information IRL you would be cheating. If you deny me access to that information on isotropic, you are not cheating. Because it's a different variant of Dominion, one where you discard Trader and Watchtower to a Militia, and I still have no clue whether I should buy an IGG or not.
The argument, "theory forbid the use of the point tracker in this particular tournament" is not covered by my discard pile counterexample. Only the argument "All offline rules apply online, and thus players in the online tournament need to preserve all the offline rules".
You have done all of this enough that even those who once supported you have started to wonder what you're talking about, and reconsidered their own views.Fwiw, I still support his actions given the events as I currently understand them. You will not have one stark mad black sheep lunatic of the forum, you will have at least one other, and you shall call him pops.
Maybe I am just naive, but does anybody on the isotropics keep track of cards in other people's deck. I honestly would never have thought about doing that. If I want to keep track of cards, I just... focus.
Maybe I am just naive, but does anybody on the isotropics keep track of cards in other people's deck. I honestly would never have thought about doing that. If I want to keep track of cards, I just... focus.I don't think I'd keep track beyond a single number. So if isotropic's built-in point counter is off, I'd only be remembering points and not any particular card. If the counter is on, maybe the split on some key card.
Actually, I just realized someone else has been suspiciously quiet. UnvoteToo late, that was a lynch.
Vote: Robz
Personman (22) - michaeljb, ftl, sjelkjd, eHalcyon, czechvarmander, zxcvbn2, timchen, methods of rationality, Captain_Frisk, joel88s, philosophyguy, Turambar, RisingJaguar, Ozle, Polk5440, Kirian, GigaKnight, DG, chwhite, nopawnsintended, yuma, Powerman [no relation]
Wandering Winder (3) - Davio, popsofctown, Personman
Not voting - Wandering Winder, Robz888
Wow, and here I was thinking game designers were above trolling. Haha, that was pretty funny, though.Man, that's not trolling. Trolls write short posts that provoke long posts. I don't think anyone's trolling here. I guess you could count my tower defense line, but that was just a delightful moment of comic relief to help us get through these hard times.
On the other hand, it does appear overwhelmingly clear that (and here are some things we can vote on!)Saying that people are in favor of abiding by unenforceable rules is at best a misleading way to talk about what's been going down. The conversation topics have been more specific than that.
Proposition 1. This Dominion community, on the whole, approves of and plans to abide by unenforceable rules for online Dominion, even when there are actual prizes.
Proposition 2. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that note-taking (on a spreadsheet or on pen and paper) be disallowed in online tournament play. (Of course, this would need to actually be stated in the rules.)
Proposition 3. This Dominion community, on the whole, desires that official tournament play allow for the official point counter and disallow the unofficial point counter, possibly (in both cases) unless all players in that particular game agree otherwise.