Print

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

[Taco Lobster]

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.

So, you don't take extra effort to rearrange cards before shuffling [through the act of playing them]?  You just flop down an action here, a treasure there, a victory point in the middle?  And, again, if a scoop would result in me getting a benefit under the ordered deck = cheating theorum, do I have an obligation to muck that up? 

The scoop is just as non-random as sorting the discard, it's just a different type of non-random.

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.

An opponent of mine will never be aware of me intentionally putting my extra witch at one side of my hand.  In regards to the action chain, I would be surprised if anyone objected to my pile riffle shuffle, but it's so obvious that I'm not fixing the deck when I do that, I could not care less.

[WanderingWinder]

Again, I'm not trying to debate legality here. The legal distinctions are irrelevant in the discussion I'm trying to have. You guys have a blast on that. I'm arguing what should or should not be done.

[Taco Lobster]

Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.

On what basis is it not okay?  If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares?  Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else?  As above, if I play Mine correctly while believing I'm cheating, is that not okay?  On what basis? 

Edit: Setting aside the extreme situation in which the person looks like they are cheating/slows down the game. 

[ftl]

So, you don't take extra effort to rearrange cards before shuffling?

No, of course not. I take extra efforts to rearrange cards while playing them - but not after I'm done playing but before shuffling.

You just flop down an action here, a treasure there, a victory point in the middle? 

No, I put them down in whatever order facilitates *playing* them and keeping track of what's going on during my turn.

And, again, if a scoop would result in me getting a benefit under the ordered deck = cheating theorum, do I have an obligation to muck that up? 

No, you do not, at least not before you shuffle. You muck that up when shuffling, because that's the point of the shuffling process, that's what shuffling does.

On what basis is it not okay?  If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares?  Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else? 

It's a superstition which in the best case, has zero effect; and in the worst case, has a negative affect. It's a superstition which MIGHT harm the game, in the case of bad shuffling. Why would you defend it? There's never any way in which it improves the game, and a potential way in which it might harm the game, and a likely case is no effect at all. What possible reason is there to keep doing it?

Possible positive effects, i.e. reasons to do it: zero.
Possible negative effects, i.e. reasons to discourage it: Potential for deck stacking if the shuffle is bad, potential for slowing down the game, potential for looking like you're stacking the deck even if you're not. None of those are guaranteed, but they're all possible.

That seems like it's clearly in favor of the "Don't do it" side.
 

[jotheonah]

Again, I'm not trying to debate legality here. The legal distinctions are irrelevant in the discussion I'm trying to have. You guys have a blast on that. I'm arguing what should or should not be done.

Arguing absolute morality in the context of a game is always a little weird though. There was a similar discussion going on in the Diplomacy board about whether the context of playing a game of Diplomacy made the requisite acts of backstabbing morally ok. My take was that in a game, rules sort of stand in for morality. Playing attack cards hurts and annoys the other person. In an absolute moral context you might consider that a bad. But in a game context, it's permissible and strategically advantageous and that's what's relevant. So, in a game context, does it make sense to talk about the morality of deck-stacking? Or does it only make sense to talk about the legality of it in the context of the rules?

I would say that there's a third option, which is evaluating whether the action is in the spirit if the game's rules, regardless of if it's directly addressed. A sort of appeal to game-contextualized morality.

[WanderingWinder]

Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.

On what basis is it not okay?  If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares?  Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else?  As above, if I play Mine correctly while believing I'm cheating, is that not okay?  On what basis? 

Edit: Setting aside the extreme situation in which the person looks like they are cheating/slows down the game. 

To clarify my position and hopefully ease a lot of the tension here, from a legal/rules perspective I agree that it's more or less okay. In the more egregious situations, as in where you have actual manipulation of the shuffles going on, you've got an issue, (though, hey, it's a game here, even outright cheating isn't so bad), but for the most part, it's not a big deal, there's nothing to do about it really. As in the mine case - there isn't anything to do there. The point isn't that we need to punish the guy, it's that he shouldn't be trying to cheat.

[Taco Lobster]

:shrug:  As mentioned, I don't see anyway to not do it.  Even if I scoop, I know the general layout of the cards as I do so.  In the early game, I know the order of my hand when I discard.  No opponent has ever noticed it, no one is ever harmed by it, and it provides me with the same warm fuzzies as blowing on dice.

Edit: And, as mentioned, my intent is not to cheat.  Or, if you prefer, I don't see this as cheating, and if I did, I wouldn't do it.  There aren't any rules about discarding order, all discarding is non-random to a certain extent, and, other than the extreme examples of slowing down the game or looking like you're cheating, it doesn't cause any harm to any player or the game state.  Plus, one of the great virtues of Dominion is the symmetry - I also don't care if my opponent does it.  To the extent discard-ordering has an effect, it is an effect that all are free to experience.

[WanderingWinder]

Again, I'm not trying to debate legality here. The legal distinctions are irrelevant in the discussion I'm trying to have. You guys have a blast on that. I'm arguing what should or should not be done.

Arguing absolute morality in the context of a game is always a little weird though. There was a similar discussion going on in the Diplomacy board about whether the context of playing a game of Diplomacy made the requisite acts of backstabbing morally ok. My take was that in a game, rules sort of stand in for morality. Playing attack cards hurts and annoys the other person. In an absolute moral context you might consider that a bad. But in a game context, it's permissible and strategically advantageous and that's what's relevant. So, in a game context, does it make sense to talk about the morality of deck-stacking? Or does it only make sense to talk about the legality of it in the context of the rules?

I would say that there's a third option, which is evaluating whether the action is in the spirit if the game's rules, regardless of if it's directly addressed. A sort of appeal to game-contextualized morality.

Absolute morality knows that you're playing a game. Obviously, that's relevant. And the rules and spirit of the game are extremely relevant. I agree.

[WanderingWinder]

:shrug:  As mentioned, I don't see anyway to not do it.  Even if I scoop, I know the general layout of the cards as I do so.  In the early game, I know the order of my hand when I discard.  No opponent has ever noticed it, no one is ever harmed by it, and it provides me with the same warm fuzzies as blowing on dice.

My point is that you shouldn't manipulate the order for purpose of gaining an advantage. Being aware is something you probably can't avoid. That's fine. Just shuffle really well, and you shouldn't have any issues. And it's not like I'd have someone else try to do something to you for it. At most, they insist on shuffling your deck. Which seems reasonable in a tournament setting. Otherwise, I really don't see people actually having an issue.

[Ozle]

Out of curiosity, is shuffle manipulation a skill that easily learned and deployed?  It seems like the problem of adequate shuffling is more pronounced in a game such as Magic, which has actual dollars at stake in the highest level tournaments, and, though there are rules governing the shuffle, I'm not aware of any rule about the original order of your deck prior to shuffling.  I believe there are rules against pile shuffling and/or a rule requiring 3-5 riffle shuffles instead.

Yes, Shuffle manipulation is rediculously easy.

I could teach you to put any card you like on top of your deck within 15 minutes practice (and a decent set of cards)


Also, this discussion hasnt changed this I left it this morning, time to call it a day surely?

[eHalcyon]

Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.

On what basis is it not okay?  If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares?  Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else?  As above, if I play Mine correctly while believing I'm cheating, is that not okay?  On what basis? 

Edit: Setting aside the extreme situation in which the person looks like they are cheating/slows down the game.

I suppose you didn't actually look at the link, even though you said you were trying to introduce those ideas earlier?

According to the law, factual impossibility is still wrong.  To quote from the site:

Factual Impossibility: Factual impossibility has not to my knowledge ever been recognized as a defense to an attempt charge by any American court. The common law did not consider factual impossibility as a defense to attempt. Thus, one would be liable for attempted theft when, with intent to steal another's wallet, he places his hand in the other's pocket only to find it empty. The MPC does not recognize factual impossibility as a defense to attempt, nor does Texas.

In the context of Dominion, this is parallel to reordering your discard to try to give yourself an advantage.  In the end, shuffling means that you really don't get an advantage, but your attempt at getting an edge is still wrong.

Your example about trying to cheat with Mine but ending up playing it correctly is an example of True Legal Impossibility, which is distinct from Factual Impossibility scenarios.  Again, from the linked site:

True Legal Impossibility: The common law, the Model Penal Code and Texas, indeed every jurisdiction, will certainly recognize so-called true legal impossibility (Dressler calls it "pure") in attempt cases when it is simply not a crime to do what the defendant intended to do. In other words, an intent to commit an act which is not characterized as a crime by the laws of the subject jurisdiction can not be the basis of a criminal charge and conviction even though the actor believes or misapprehends the intended act to be criminalized by the penal laws. For example, if a fisherman believes he is committing an offense by possessing over five perch when in fact there is no limit on the number of perch one may catch, it is legally impossible to convict the fisherman of possessing more than five perch. The fisherman's conduct would be perfectly legal despite the fact that he believes and intends to possess more perch that he is entitled to possess. Since the conduct would be perfectly legal, the fisherman could not be held accountable for attempting to violate a law that did not exist. Again, I believe Professor Dressler in his UCL book calls this "pure legal impossibility."

So even though you play Mine with the intent to cheat, your play is still perfectly legal and is fine (despite being, perhaps, morally questionable).

Now in the context of your particular discard habits, you say you have no intent to cheat, so you are also in the clear.  The only question then is, why care about your discard order at all?  As others have stated numerous times, at best it has no effect and at worst it is stalling, or cheating, or appearing to cheat.

[Taco Lobster]

For whatever it's worth, the Magic rules track what I've been saying all along (that the way to deal with the problem is offer the opponent and opportunity to shuffle, require additional shuffling, and/or cut).  That said, it does indicate that the appearance of non-randomization is cause to call a judge, which is consistent with what others have said.

"Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than the opponent; this request will be honored only at a judge’s discretion."

Edit:  Here's some additional language from the guidebook for issuing infractions in Magic.

"A player should shuffle his or her deck using multiple methods. Patterned pile-shuffling alone is not sufficient. Any manipulation, weaving, or stacking prior to randomization is acceptable, as long as the deck is thoroughly shuffled afterwards."

[WanderingWinder]

Seems totally reasonable. I don't actually think there's a major disagreement over the preferred behaviour at the game table here. But I am the kind of person who, without anything more pressing, will gladly argue semantics all day long.

[Taco Lobster]

Seems totally reasonable. I don't actually think there's a major disagreement over the preferred behaviour at the game table here. But I am the kind of person who, without anything more pressing, will gladly argue semantics all day long.

Yeah, and I'd like to think that a large part of the debate is the difference between "I meant to cheat and tried ordering my deck to do it" and "I'm superstitious about my terminals colliding and so I discard them as far apart as possible." 

[theory]

[Deleted two unhelpful posts.]

The reason I brought up factual v legal impossibility -- though I can't for the life of me see why it's relevant here -- is because the line between factual and legal impossibility is a very thin one indeed, and one that is often meaningless in the very instances we need to apply it. 

[Donald X.]

[Deleted two unhelpful posts.]

[left awful thread open]

[Taco Lobster]

[Deleted two unhelpful posts.]

Thank you.  I wasn't sure on the moderation policy, and will simply flag and move on in the future.

The reason I brought up factual v legal impossibility -- though I can't for the life of me see why it's relevant here -- is because the line between factual and legal impossibility is a very thin one indeed, and one that is often meaningless in the very instances we need to apply it.

It came up in the context of whether taking an action with the intent to cheat (discarding cards in a certain order) is cheating if it's impossible for that action to break the rules of the game (because no such rules exist and/or the shuffle undoes the act).

[WanderingWinder]

[Deleted two unhelpful posts.]

Thank you.  I wasn't sure on the moderation policy, and will simply flag and move on in the future.

The reason I brought up factual v legal impossibility -- though I can't for the life of me see why it's relevant here -- is because the line between factual and legal impossibility is a very thin one indeed, and one that is often meaningless in the very instances we need to apply it.

It came up in the context of whether taking an action with the intent to cheat (discarding cards in a certain order) is cheating if it's impossible for that action to break the rules of the game (because no such rules exist and/or the shuffle undoes the act).

This goes to the heart of the issue - I never tried to argue this. I argued that you shouldn't do that action, not that it's cheating per se. Is it cheating? I don't really care all that much if we can all agree you shouldn't do it.

[Taco Lobster]

This goes to the heart of the issue - I never tried to argue this. I argued that you shouldn't do that action, not that it's cheating per se. Is it cheating? I don't really care all that much if we can all agree you shouldn't do it.

And my response is that I can't do "it" for certain definitions of it.  I am aware of the order and manner in which I discard.  I can't not be aware, or make myself forget.  But, on the bright side, my awareness is largely invisible to the other player, who is also free to act in the same irrational way.  This is the conflicting Witch scenario, albeit, within the context of the discarded hand and not the discard pile.

Now, if the "it" is sorting the discard pile prior to shuffling, I'm okay not doing that (and I don't do that, unless you count the next example).  This is the Witch scenario where the player moves one to the bottom of the discard pile or otherwise sorts the deck.  I agree that this is the most problematic from a "looks like cheating" perspective, and not something I really endorse (though, again, I still wouldn't define it as cheating in the context of the shuffle).

Finally, if the "it" is not riffle shuffling my treasures into my actions at the end of a City stack, I'd say that is in line with the spirit of the random discard (it's easier to track the Cities in a deck if I dump them in clump into the discard pile), and am unlikely to clean-up my action chains differently without a rule requiring me to do so.

[Octo]

Jeepers. This got blown all outta whack.

I've seen far too many people who don't do anything like this keep getting the same great cards in the same predictable order time after time to think maybe they should do this. They're not trying to cheat, they're just shit at shuffling. Shuffling takes time to do properly, and damages [my] cards more quickly. Dominion has a lot of shuffling. I frankly cannot be arsed to sit and watch people split it all into piles every time, riffle it 5 times (as I cringe while they almost fold the cards in half pre-riffle, then mash the cards together like apes) and then cut twice, but neither do I want to see them get the same 5/6 card chain over and over again either.

Sometimes stuff like this is just to speed things up, especially if a player does it indiscriminately (eg with non-clashing actions/VPs too).

Still, I suppose on reflection, anything other than a consistent approach applied every turn would be selective and thus cheating, but if performed indiscriminately and every turn it would likely be more time consuming than shuffling properly. Oh well. *shrugs*

[LastFootnote]

Jeepers. This got blown all outta whack.

I've seen far too many people who don't do anything like this keep getting the same great cards in the same predictable order time after time to think maybe they should do this. They're not trying to cheat, they're just shit at shuffling. Shuffling takes time to do properly, and damages [my] cards more quickly. Dominion has a lot of shuffling. I frankly cannot be arsed to sit and watch people split it all into piles every time, riffle it 5 times (as I cringe while they almost fold the cards in half pre-riffle, then mash the cards together like apes) and then cut twice, but neither do I want to see them get the same 5/6 card chain over and over again either.

In my experience, sleeves are really the answer here. You can't really riffle shuffle, but you get a similar effect by sliding the two halves of your deck together from the sides.

[yuma]

[Deleted two unhelpful posts.]

[left awful thread open]

As the creator of this thread and the unintended bickering I also vote to please close the thread.

[Forge!!!]

8 pages on a not particularly fascinating topic? Must be an argument.

[DStu]

Perhaps Donald should just add a shuffling machine to the Base set...?

[Piemaster]

Why on earth would you close this thread?  It's an important topic to discuss in the context of any game and putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" really loudly does not make the issue go away.  If you're not interested in the subject and/or don't play Dominion seriously enough to really care then feel free to not read the thread.