Print

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

[WanderingWinder]

I think it is more elegant to have a system that solves the incentive problem.  The burden is on me for randomizing your deck, so now I can't complain that you are doing whatever possibly shady things to gain an advantage.  If you got an advantage because I didn't randomize your deck well enough, the problem is on me.

And I don't have a problem with that approach, but it just seems like a lot of extra work for a problem that largely doesn't exist.  We've been discussing this very much in the abstract, but it's hard to think of what this looks like in the real world.  Even if I separate my two witches, shuffling can undo that.  If there's a fear of inadequate shuffling, allowing my opponent to shuffle solves the problem, as does requiring me to shuffle until my opponent is satisfied. 

And I fairly well agree with what you're saying here. If you have some kind of suspicions or problems, having people shuffle there opponent's decks seems like a simple, easy solution. And of course, you're usually playing with friends, so it's not an issue.

[theory]

The point is, seeing someone do repeated riffle shuffles is not necessarily a guarantee that they no longer know the deck's ordering.  Suppose that you open Warehouse/Tunnel.  You discard according to the rules: CCCEEW and CCCCET.  A perfect riffle shuffle will put the W next to the T; on subsequent turns, drop two cards from the bottom as you start the riffle shuffle.  Then cut it to the top.  Even if your opponent cuts the deck again, you've still substantially increased the chance of collision. 

This problem is much worse with something like a Mint/FG opening.  Keeping track of two cards in seven is not hard at all, and you can just keep shuffling until you identify that the two have lined up against each other.

In a tournament setting, there's no real answer to this problem except reorganizing each other's discards.  You need to hide both the initial deck state and the final deck state.

[Taco Lobster]

We're not talking about that. You are. Which is fine. But I wasn't, so we clearly aren't.

Uh, okay.  You were the one telling me the second post answered the question, but that's fine.

And man, if you don't find that attempting to murder someone isn't attempted murder just because you can't prove it, remind me not to live near you.
We're not talking enforcement here, we're talking about what's right and wrong. Just because you can't be punished for it doesn't mean you can morally do it.

I'm saying nothing whatsoever about proof.  Though, that being said, if you can prove that me plugging in my phone to charge it while hoping and intending that this results in the death of another human being, more power to you.  Proof implies that act A caused B, which, in this case, it did not and could not.  I've said nothing about murder not being murder because you can't prove it; I've said it's not murder if the action taken could not possibly result in the consequence desired, which is entirely different.

[eHalcyon]

I don't think that's how magicians work.  I saw a snippet of an interview from Teller the other day, of Penn and Teller (and I probably spelled his name wrong) discussing a classic card trick, and he noted that the deck itself is stacked and the cards that are revealed have been removed from the deck itself.

Honestly, it never occurred to me to keep one card at the bottom because (a) it would probably miss the next shuffle, but, more importantly, (b) that would be cheating.   

But again, this is what is described in the OP -- a player has two witches, placing one on the bottom of the discard pile and the other on the top.  If I had the intent, I could easily keep a card on the top and a card on the bottom through any number of riffle shuffles.  I am no magician, but it is almost trivial to manipulate that. For my last riffle shuffle, I could ensure that the one on the bottom ends up a few cards away from the bottom to ensure that it doesn't miss the next reshuffle.  Voila -- I thus ensure that my two terminals won't collide.

As far as magic tricks go, there are many different kinds and many different ways of doing them.  Depending on the trick, that may involve rigged decks and/or false shuffles.

Oh, and regarding that "loaded gun" analogy.  Yes, I'd feel uncomfortable if you were purposefully ordering your discards/pointing a loaded gun at me.  It would not make me feel better if you said you weren't trying to cheat/going to murder me.  And as you say, it would indeed be OK if your perfect shuffling erased any lingering order of the deck/removed the bullets from the gun.  But since you're the one doing the shuffling, it still remains suspicious.  You can say all you want that you've removed the bullets from your gun, but if you keep pointing it at me I'll still be suspicious.

I really enjoy how SERIOUS this analogy is.

[eHalcyon]

I'm saying nothing whatsoever about proof.  Though, that being said, if you can prove that me plugging in my phone to charge it while hoping and intending that this results in the death of another human being, more power to you.  Proof implies that act A caused B, which, in this case, it did not and could not.  I've said nothing about murder not being murder because you can't prove it; I've said it's not murder if the action taken could not possibly result in the consequence desired, which is entirely different.

I'd still say that the intent to murder someone is morally wrong, even if the way you try to go about it is absurd and unprosecutable.

That said, your analogy does not fit the question at hand.  Charging your phone might not have any real way of causing someone to die, but ordering your discards definitely CAN have influence.  Shuffling more and shuffling better is a way to correct for that, but it doesn't remove the possibility of successful cheating if you have the intent.  This is why I prefer that spectacularly over-the-top loaded gun analogy -- it embodies the intent.

[Taco Lobster]

That said, your analogy does not fit the question at hand.  Charging your phone might not have any real way of causing someone to die, but ordering your discards definitely CAN have influence.  Shuffling more and shuffling better is a way to correct for that, but it doesn't remove the possibility of successful cheating if you have the intent.  This is why I prefer that spectacularly over-the-top loaded gun analogy -- it embodies the intent.

I don't know that it does embody the intent.  As I've expressed, I don't see what I'm doing (ordering my hand as a I discard) as cheating, and I don't see a rule that is being broken by the conduct.  I see my intent as similar to choosing the die that rolled a 20 last time and hoping it will roll a 20 again.  I don't slow down the game, I don't put my discard into a precise order, I just pay attention to the order of my terminals when I discard and I "randomize" my clumps when playing a deck built on action chains.  I shuffle to make sure I don't retain any information about the order of the cards, and I know that the chances of my ordering the cards is very unlikely to create a meaningful improvement in my deck. 

The above is much closer to the rube goldberg analogy.  I can't fully control the outcome, there are additional precautions that prevent me from exercising any real control over the outcome, and my intent is not to take an act that violates any rule of the game.  I don't want to cheat, I'm not trying to cheat, and what I'm doing doesn't have an effect on the game, so it's hard to even call it cheating.

Or, maybe I'm just not a good cheater, and the rule should be designed for those who are.  I could see that.

[ecq]

Oh, and regarding that "loaded gun" analogy.  Yes, I'd feel uncomfortable if you were purposefully ordering your discards/pointing a loaded gun at me.  It would not make me feel better if you said you weren't trying to cheat/going to murder me.  And as you say, it would indeed be OK if your perfect shuffling erased any lingering order of the deck/removed the bullets from the gun.  But since you're the one doing the shuffling, it still remains suspicious.  You can say all you want that you've removed the bullets from your gun, but if you keep pointing it at me I'll still be suspicious.

This thread is getting nowhere.  Can we re-purpose it into a discussion of gun safety?

Pro tip: don't point guns at people, loaded or not.

[WanderingWinder]

I'm saying nothing whatsoever about proof.  Though, that being said, if you can prove that me plugging in my phone to charge it while hoping and intending that this results in the death of another human being, more power to you.  Proof implies that act A caused B, which, in this case, it did not and could not.  I've said nothing about murder not being murder because you can't prove it; I've said it's not murder if the action taken could not possibly result in the consequence desired, which is entirely different.

But that's absurd. Your ignorance doesn't change anything about your intent. If I take a pistol, point it at you, and start pulling the trigger, it doesn't matter whether you've removed the bullets or not, I'm attempting to kill you either way. Even though without bullets, there's no way that's going to kill you. Again, it goes back to the original point - attempted murder is as bad as murder.

[Taco Lobster]

But that's absurd. Your ignorance doesn't change anything about your intent. If I take a pistol, point it at you, and start pulling the trigger, it doesn't matter whether you've removed the bullets or not, I'm attempting to kill you either way. Even though without bullets, there's no way that's going to kill you. Again, it goes back to the original point - attempted murder is as bad as murder.

What if I point a rubber chicken at you?  Is that still attempted murder?

Also, the law and most morality teachings disagree with you that an attempted murder is as bad as a murder.

[greatexpectations]

This thread is getting nowhere.  Can we re-purpose it into a discussion of gun safety?

sounds good to me.  why don't you provide us with a couple bullet points to get us started?

[Kirian]

"I wonder if he's stacking the deck."



"I assure you, the cards are sufficiently randomized."

(Name the episode for a cookie!)

--------

OK, that bit of silliness taken care of, I wanted to make two notes:

Pile shuffling does not randomize the cards.  It introduces exactly zero randomness, and maintains a significant amount of information even from round to round.  I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that for N cards piled into M piles, as long as N mod M = 0, there is some number X of pile shuffles for which the original arrangement of cards will be reproduced, with that X related somehow to N/M.  Similarly, perfect riffle shuffling introduces no randomness.  In both cases, the processes are reversible as well.  Claiming either of these is random is equivalent to claiming you're happy if your password is stored in a database as a Caesar cipher.

On the gun analogies:  Y'all realize there are charges other than murder and attempted murder, right?

If I point an unloaded gun at you and say I'm going to shoot and kill you, that's aggravated assault, and a cop is going to take me down even though my statement is impossible.
If I tell you loudly that I'm going to go home, get my gun, return and kill you, then a cop would be within his rights to detain me for assault even if I have no gun at home.  A similar threat to kill, despite a lack of actual means, constitutes assault.

Attempting to influence the order of cards beyond what's explicitly allowed by the rules is cheating, whether successful or not.  Moving the cards around due to "superstitions" is stalling at best (assuming you shuffle as thoroughly as a computer) and cheating at worst.  Just... you know... don't do it.  Is it that hard?

[RisingJaguar]

This thread is getting nowhere.  Can we re-purpose it into a discussion of gun safety?

sounds good to me.  why don't you provide us with a couple bullet points to get us started?

1. When it comes to gun safety, always pull the trigger on a vest.

[Taco Lobster]

(Name the episode for a cookie!)

I know of the episode, but not the name.  It's the one where they keep crashing into Fraiser's ship.

Attempting to influence the order of cards beyond what's explicitly allowed by the rules is cheating, whether successful or not.

So now cheating isn't breaking the rules, it's following the rules with the intent to cheat? 

 

Moving the cards around due to "superstitions" is stalling at best (assuming you shuffle as thoroughly as a computer) and cheating at worst.  Just... you know... don't do it.  Is it that hard?

Yes!  It is that hard!  When I discard my cards, I notice the order they are in.  I can either (a) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe harms me (clumps) or (b) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe will harm me less.  And, on top of all of that, nothing I'm doing actually breaks any rule or results in an advantage because I shuffle.

[WanderingWinder]

"I wonder if he's stacking the deck."



"I assure you, the cards are sufficiently randomized."

(Name the episode for a cookie!)

3.



I hope you got that.
Your line is from my favourite episode, cause and effect.

[WanderingWinder]

But that's absurd. Your ignorance doesn't change anything about your intent. If I take a pistol, point it at you, and start pulling the trigger, it doesn't matter whether you've removed the bullets or not, I'm attempting to kill you either way. Even though without bullets, there's no way that's going to kill you. Again, it goes back to the original point - attempted murder is as bad as murder.

What if I point a rubber chicken at you?  Is that still attempted murder?

Also, the law and most morality teachings disagree with you that an attempted murder is as bad as a murder.

Yes of course, it's still attempted murder, so long as you're attempting to murder me. I don't understand why that's hard to understand. I mean, it's hard for me to believe your intelligence is lacking enough to think that you can kill me with a rubber chicken, but hey, it's possible I guess.

In any case, attempted murder is as bad as murder. There are all kinds of reasons it isn't treated so legally. Ethically, hey, there are lots of ethical systems that promote stuff like genocide. Doesn't make them right or relevant.

[jotheonah]

I wouldn't mind seeing Data & Co. take a night off of poker and play some Dominion.

[Taco Lobster]

Yes of course, it's still attempted murder, so long as you're attempting to murder me. I don't understand why that's hard to understand. I mean, it's hard for me to believe your intelligence is lacking enough to think that you can kill me with a rubber chicken, but hey, it's possible I guess.

And I can't believe you think threatening to shoot someone with a rubber chicken could ever constitute attempted murder, no matter how much the person believes it does.  Oddly enough, nearly every legal scholar ever agrees with my view. 

In any case, attempted murder is as bad as murder. There are all kinds of reasons it isn't treated so legally. Ethically, hey, there are lots of ethical systems that promote stuff like genocide. Doesn't make them right or relevant.

What's your point?  Are we moving the argument to whether or not you have knowledge of the one true and right ethical system?  There are also ethical arguments for why attempted murder isn't as bad as murder.  Sadly, I don't inhabit a world where all motives are known and understood, all actions easily fall into white and black categories, and morality is as simple as good and bad.  But, that debate has even less to do with gun control, it's apparent that you're not well versed in the fundamentals of such a debate, and I'm tired of even bothering to try.

[Kirian]

3.

I hope you got that.
Your line is from my favourite episode, cause and effect.

Excellent! Have a cookie:


MC1
GUID=db872f7288faca03e7682f9d&HASH=872f&LV=200711&V=3
google.com/
1024
80563392034
328230
194634104
2989397634
*
A
I&I=AxUFAAAAAAB2BWvX3rekGVgdIQ!!&CS=101a]@0

[WanderingWinder]

Yes of course, it's still attempted murder, so long as you're attempting to murder me. I don't understand why that's hard to understand. I mean, it's hard for me to believe your intelligence is lacking enough to think that you can kill me with a rubber chicken, but hey, it's possible I guess.

And I can't believe you think threatening to shoot someone with a rubber chicken could ever constitute attempted murder, no matter how much the person believes it does.  Oddly enough, nearly every legal scholar ever agrees with my view. 

I don't get what doesn't make sense about 'attempting to murder someone is committing attempted murder'. It's almost tautologically simple. Of course, legally you have other issues involved. I don't really care about that, that's not the discussion I'm having. I'm much more concerned with what people should do than what we should force people to do/not do.

In any case, attempted murder is as bad as murder. There are all kinds of reasons it isn't treated so legally. Ethically, hey, there are lots of ethical systems that promote stuff like genocide. Doesn't make them right or relevant.

What's your point?  Are we moving the argument to whether or not you have knowledge of the one true and right ethical system?  There are also ethical arguments for why attempted murder isn't as bad as murder.  Sadly, I don't inhabit a world where all motives are known and understood, all actions easily fall into white and black categories, and morality is as simple as good and bad.  But, that debate has even less to do with gun control, it's apparent that you're not well versed in the fundamentals of such a debate, and I'm tired of even bothering to try.

Who's arguing gun control? Who's arguing legality? I certainly am not. I'm not trying to argue that I know all of morality.  I'm sorry if you can't see that there is a single correct ethical system, even if that system is unknown.
I'm just saying that I'm right here. If I try to do action X, the morality of my actions is what it is regardless of how successful I am. And you're not even giving any reasons for your side.

[theory]

It's really funny how closely this mirrors the jurisprudential debate over factual impossibility v legal impossibility.

[Kirian]

Attempting to influence the order of cards beyond what's explicitly allowed by the rules is cheating, whether successful or not.

So now cheating isn't breaking the rules, it's following the rules with the intent to cheat?

No... doing something outside the rules is cheating.  Re-read what I said.

Moving the cards around due to "superstitions" is stalling at best (assuming you shuffle as thoroughly as a computer) and cheating at worst.  Just... you know... don't do it.  Is it that hard?

Yes!  It is that hard!  When I discard my cards, I notice the order they are in.  I can either (a) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe harms me (clumps) or (b) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe will harm me less.  And, on top of all of that, nothing I'm doing actually breaks any rule or results in an advantage because I shuffle.

Then do what Robz suggests above, and what I do:  scoop up the cards in play without respect for order or table position, dump on top of discard pile.  That's as random as physics allows in that situation.

[Taco Lobster]

It's really funny how closely this mirrors the jurisprudential debate over factual impossibility v legal impossibility.

Yes, I've been intentionally introducing that into the debate once people began to assert that the intent to cheat was cheating per se.

[ftl]

So now cheating isn't breaking the rules, it's following the rules with the intent to cheat? 

Well, yeah... if you intend to cheat, I wouldn't want to play with you even if you're bad at it, and I'd ask you to stop doing it, even if you're bad at it and don't succeed.

Especially since, without knowing what your fingers are doing when you shuffle, I have no way of knowing whether you actually succeed or not. Maybe your shuffling isn't as good as you think it is, you're just misguided in thinking so because you aid your shuffles with rearrangement.

Yes!  It is that hard!  When I discard my cards, I notice the order they are in.  I can either (a) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe harms me (clumps) or (b) discard them in a way that I (incorrectly and superstitiously) believe will harm me less.

Do it in the way that does not take extra finger movement or card rearrangement. If it's physically easier to scoop them up in a pile, scoop them up in a pile; if it's physically easier to keep them clumped, then keep them clumped.

After all, you yourself are saying it SHOULDN'T matter for the result.

If you take extra effort to rearrange cards before shuffling, that implies that you think it DOES matter, and therefore that your shuffle isn't good.

And, on top of all of that, nothing I'm doing actually breaks any rule or results in an advantage because I shuffle.

An opponent of yours has no real way of knowing whether you shuffle well enough so that clumping/not clumping does not matter. Therefore, if you rearrange your discard in a way that looks like you're deliberately messing with the randomness, that looks EXACTLY the same as trying to cheat by a combination of discard manipulation and bad shuffling. Just don't do it.

[theory]

Then do what Robz suggests above, and what I do:  scoop up the cards in play without respect for order or table position, dump on top of discard pile.  That's as random as physics allows in that situation.

If you're aware of the order of your hand, then certainly in the early game this doesn't really help matters any.  If you reshuffle your hand to put your money separate from your Estates (as I'm sure everyone does) then are you then subtly contributing to a non-random distribution?

[ftl]

It's really funny how closely this mirrors the jurisprudential debate over factual impossibility v legal impossibility.

Yes, I've been intentionally introducing that into the debate once people began to assert that the intent to cheat was cheating per se.

I like the link. It fits quite perfectly. Thank you for introducing it.

Rearranging the cards and then shuffling well seems to me like the 'factual impossibility' option there. You're attempting to manipulate the shuffle by rearranging things, but as it turns out, it's possible that you don't actually end up affecting anything if you shuffle well afterwards. Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.