Print

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

[Ozle]

The problem is that this is being discussed in the community at all and because Theory is such a nice guy. The hosts here should have just come up with thier own plan and stuck to it.

I personally don't like Personman and his position on things, but he was allowed to play in the finals, and has promised to not repeat that so nobody can really justify DQ'ing him.

Make a decision and stand by it Theory. Job done. You'll never please everybody, so don't even try. Or, ask Donald/Jay (if they were willing) to make a decision on how to do a decider and then stick by that.

[rrenaud]

One thing to consider is that 1 vs 3rd position in 3p is a bigger advantage than 1st vs 2nd in a 2p game.  If you assume the game is likely to end with a uniformly random player being last, in 3p, the 1st player has an expected 2/3 turn advantage, while it's only 1/2 in 2p.

[Thisisnotasmile]

Oh wow... I haven't read most of this thread but did just go over the last couple of pages because I noticed shit was going down. Here's my take on things:

Theory, as the tournament organiser, has the final say in decisions. He made a decision that Ednever had performed better and therefore should qualify. He should stick to his decision and not let people talk him out of it.

If he does let people talk him out of it and goes for a playoff, yes, it has to be 3p. If Theory ends up in the uncomfortable position of being forced to play kingmaker, then I strongly encourage him to kingmake in favour of his orginal decision, because that was his original decision.

Personman... I don't really understand why you've said you're going to play this game with no external aids and will post video to prove it. I don't want to cause a huge argument about it again but someone was forced (debatable but whatever that's not my point) to withdraw from this tournament due to your insistence to use external aids. There has been a ruling in favour of you using aids (as long as it doesn't slow down the game). After all of this you're going to turn around and say "well I'm not gonna do it anyway"? Really? I am fully against any kind of aided information tracking in Dominion, but at this point I will actually have a worse opinion of you if you finish the tournament unaided than if you finished it how you started.

And finally, and most strongly, I feel this tournament should be completely written off and nobody should qualify for nationals due to this, or any other, online tournaments. Donald himself has said there won't be any more. Let's make there not even be this one while we still have the chance.

[Young Nick]

Oh wow... I haven't read most of this thread but did just go over the last couple of pages because I noticed shit was going down. Here's my take on things:

Theory, as the tournament organiser, has the final say in decisions. He made a decision that Ednever had performed better and therefore should qualify. He should stick to his decision and not let people talk him out of it.

If he does let people talk him out of it and goes for a playoff, yes, it has to be 3p. If Theory ends up in the uncomfortable position of being forced to play kingmaker, then I strongly encourage him to kingmake in favour of his orginal decision, because that was his original decision.

Personman... I don't really understand why you've said you're going to play this game with no external aids and will post video to prove it. I don't want to cause a huge argument about it again but someone was forced (debatable but whatever that's not my point) to withdraw from this tournament due to your insistence to use external aids. There has been a ruling in favour of you using aids (as long as it doesn't slow down the game). After all of this you're going to turn around and say "well I'm not gonna do it anyway"? Really? I am fully against any kind of aided information tracking in Dominion, but at this point I will actually have a worse opinion of you if you finish the tournament unaided than if you finished it how you started.

And finally, and most strongly, I feel this tournament should be completely written off and nobody should qualify for nationals due to this, or any other, online tournaments. Donald himself has said there won't be any more. Let's make there not even be this one while we still have the chance.

Some of this doesn't make sense to me...

Why must it be three player?
Why must theory kingmake in favor of his original decision instead of saying before the game starts that he will play either for the win or for the points regardless of who is in the lead.
Why does he have to stick to his original decision if he feels that a later suggestion is superior?
Maybe Personman is trying to cut his losses at this point and regain respect from the community by going against what he feels is right and giving in to f.DS. How could you have a worse opinion of him from that?

And most importantly,
Why should the tournament be written off. Just because this one did not go perfectly does not mean it should be disregarded. I don't think that online qualifiers should be thrown out altogether, either, but even if I did, this does not compute with your earlier logic. If you say that theory, as the organizer, should stand by his decision, shouldn't Jay and/or DXV stand by his/their original decision to included the winner of the online qualifier?

[O]

Theory, as the tournament organiser, has the final say in decisions. He made a decision that Ednever had performed better and therefore should qualify. He should stick to his decision and not let people talk him out of it.

Yes, he has the final say. No, Theory should have every right to change his mind, even though you might have agreed with the first decision. Why should the tournament organizer be limited to his first decision after severa valid points questioning it is raised?

The "theory should play kingmaker in favor of Ednever because that was original decision" part is also possible the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen on this forums. You don't like Personman, I get that. I understand your reasons for it. But to throw the integrity of both the tournament and the community overall over your dislike for one person is childish and insane.

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that this is nothing against Ednever. He is one of my favorite opponents and I always try to propose a game with him when I see him online.

[Donald X.]

Some thoughts!

- Turn order is *not* a tiebreaker in Dominion; the tiebreaker is *number of turns*. Getting to the same score in fewer turns is an acceptable way to decide that someone played better, when we need such a thing. "Who went first" is just a coin flip. Someone had to go first, and it's unfair to penalize them for it. Some people feel otherwise, and there is probably a lengthy discussion of this on BGG someone can find if they need more. But that's my stance and the Dominion rules have a number of turns tiebreaker but not a turn order tiebreaker. So, I would not use turn order as a tiebreaker.

- Some games were played, they ranked the players. The fact that an additional game, if played, would have given the privilege of going first to a particular player, seems moot to me. We can't play that game now, we don't have that guy; what we have is data. If the data does not determine who came in 2nd then the way to break the tie is with normal games of Dominion, not with some freakish thing where a random 3rd person joins the party. It would be fairer to have the data from that last game that wasn't played; you don't and can't get it and so much for that.

- It's not essential to send someone to Chicago but fine if you want to. If you win a Magic PTQ and then the next day decide you aren't going, they don't send the 2nd-place guy. But I can see how you would want to send someone and don't mind if you do.

- Whatever theory does, I think he should minimize the number of times he bugs Jay about it. Figure something out and then stick to it.

Edit: Another acceptable tiebreaker (to me) is "opponent's match record," which Magic uses. This isn't in the rulebook but then we don't have tournament rules.

[Dsell]

An interesting, similar situation arose recently in the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials. Two athletes in the women's 100 meter final tied for third place to the thousandth of a second, the limit of the timing system. Ordinarily, the top 3 women would go to the Olympics. There was no procedure in place, but the organizers came to the decision that the athletes could decide whether to do a run-off or flip a coin for the spot. Obviously, dominion is very, very different from track, but there are some important similarities: the original race could not be repeated and neither could the conditions (i.e. 8 runners vying for a spot). A 2-runner race is very different from an 8-runner race just as 2-player dominion is different from 3-player. Also, semifinal and quarterfinal results could have been analyzed but that was decided against because of the differing conditions during the races.

They initially decided to do a run-off but eventually one of the athletes withdrew. You can read more about the tie and tiebreaking in a myriad of places, including here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/athletics/9369463/Olympic-trials-2012-Jeneba-Tarmoh-and-Allyson-Felix-set-for-run-off-after-100m-dead-heat.html.

I think either approach the Trials organizers decided on could work here because it's impossible to recreate the original conditions and there are no explicit rules dictating what to do in this situation. Ultimately I agree that theory should make a decision and others should accept it.

[Young Nick]

An interesting, similar situation arose recently in the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials. Two athletes in the women's 100 meter final tied for third place to the thousandth of a second, the limit of the timing system.

[eHalcyon]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

[nopawnsintended]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Case in point with sprint cycling.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/05/consider-the-equilibrium-16/

[eHalcyon]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Case in point with sprint cycling.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/05/consider-the-equilibrium-16/

 

I don't understand... but OK.

[Young Nick]

Not to get off-topic, but
a) clearly a 100m sprint is nothing like the linked video. Especially in 100m and 200m, you are just sprinting all out, there is no thought process about when to make a move. For that reason, there isn't that much difference between a one-, two-, or eight-man 100m race.
b) I have no idea what was happening in that video, despite the commentary. Regardless, it was awesome.

[Dsell]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Not to get off-topic, but
a) clearly a 100m sprint is nothing like the linked video. Especially in 100m and 200m, you are just sprinting all out, there is no thought process about when to make a move. For that reason, there isn't that much difference between a one-, two-, or eight-man 100m race.

Also not meaning to get off-topic, but I disagree with Young Nick here. While the goal in the 100m is to just go as fast as you can, having one competitor vs. seven can influence the preparation as well as the race for many people. Seeing others move or flinch in the blocks and seeing how others are running in your peripheral vision are just two examples that can be really big factors and make a difference in a 100m. Not so much as in many other races, sure, but every single little thing makes a difference in that race (especially when the race comes down to thousandths of seconds!).

[Eevee]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Case in point with sprint cycling.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/05/consider-the-equilibrium-16/

That was awesome, thanks for the link.

[nopawnsintended]

Not to get off-topic, but
a) clearly a 100m sprint is nothing like the linked video. Especially in 100m and 200m, you are just sprinting all out, there is no thought process about when to make a move. For that reason, there isn't that much difference between a one-, two-, or eight-man 100m race.
b) I have no idea what was happening in that video, despite the commentary. Regardless, it was awesome.

The point of the video is that a 2 player head-to-head sprint brings strategic interactions (parallel to duchy dancing in Dominion) that might break down in a 3+ player game.  In the same way that it only matters that you go faster than the other person in a race (on foot or on bike), all that matters in a 2P game is having more points than the other.  The parallel is not exact (and drafting isn't so important in sprint running), but there may be subtle strategic interactions (as in Dsell's response) that are different for 2P than 8P foot races.

[Lekkit]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Case in point with sprint cycling.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/05/consider-the-equilibrium-16/

That... Was probably the best representation of a Rabble heavy game I've ever seen.

Also, it was pretty awesome.

[Ozle]

Curious -- how is a 2-person race different from 8-person?  You're trying to be the fastest either way, aren't you?

Case in point with sprint cycling.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/04/05/consider-the-equilibrium-16/

That was awesome, thanks for the link.

This is how every sprint cycling goes!

Watch it in the Olympics, its awesome!

[Captain_Frisk]

Well I have learned something today.

[HiveMindEmulator]

- It's not essential to send someone to Chicago but fine if you want to. If you win a Magic PTQ and then the next day decide you aren't going, they don't send the 2nd-place guy. But I can see how you would want to send someone and don't mind if you do.

This is an important point. Neither Ednever nor Personman won a trip to Chicago, so neither has a real reason to be upset at you if they don't get to go. So the "tie-breaker" can be whatever. It's a just a chance for them to win a free spot that they already failed to earn via the tournament. You're giving both of them something free. So I don't see a problem if it doesn't reflect what might have happened had they played the sixth game, which is totally irrelevant at this point. A 2-player game/series seems fine to me, as does a coin-flip, or even a hot dog eating contest (though something dominion-related is preferable). Just pick something and do it.

[eHalcyon]

or even a hot dog eating contest (though something dominion-related is preferable). Just pick something and do it.

A hot dog eating contest could be construed as Dominion related.  It is a reenactment of Feast.

[Grujah]

Also, each round you could have different toppings to choose from.

[Morgrim7]

And a gift of any card in the suppply costing up to five to the host. Funny, a lot of the times they choose a Witch.

[rrenaud]

Final game results:  rrenaud wins with Council Room

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201207/09/game-20120709-193636-1f275aed.html


rrenaud wins!
All Provinces are gone.

cards in supply: Council Room, Explorer, Haven, Loan, Militia, Mint, Stash, Talisman, Throne Room, and Walled Village
Default card selection was used.  All players get identical starting hands.  The point tracker will be available.
----------------------

#1 rrenaud: 51 points (5 Provinces, 6 Duchies, and 3 Estates); 15 turns
         opening: Silver / Militia
         [46 cards] 7 Throne Rooms, 5 Militias, 4 Havens, 3 Council Rooms, 1 Mint, 1 Talisman, 1 Walled Village, 2 Silvers, 8 Golds, 3 Estates, 6 Duchies, 5 Provinces

#2 ednever: 33 points (5 Provinces and 3 Estates); 15 turns
         opening: Silver / Militia
         [26 cards] 5 Walled Villages, 2 Council Rooms, 2 Havens, 1 Militia, 1 Mint, 1 Talisman, 2 Coppers, 1 Silver, 3 Golds, 3 Estates, 5 Provinces

#3 Personman: 27 points (2 Provinces, 4 Duchies, and 3 Estates); 14 turns
           opening: Silver / Militia
           [27 cards] 3 Walled Villages, 2 Council Rooms, 1 Haven, 1 Militia, 7 Coppers, 2 Silvers, 2 Golds, 3 Estates, 4 Duchies, 2 Provinces

[Personman]

Well, you can all breathe a sigh of relief: the scumbag deceptive cheating lying smarmy good-for-nothing asshat with terrible opinions that no one likes won't be representing y'all in Chicago.

I did record video of my loss, though, which you may be interested in. Here you go, and best of luck to ednever! He was a great sport throughout the entire ordeal.

[theory]

I don't think anyone thinks of you that way, Personman.   I certainly don't.