Everyone has their own criteria for when they feel it's appropriate to assist their opponents, and that is in no way being frowned upon here. The 'accusation' that you were playing your opponent's cards didn't seem like it was intended to have a negative connotation as far as your own actions were concerned. Look at the other side of the equation: people are sometimes criticized for not assisting their opponents, the inference being that lack of good sportsmanship equates to bad sportsmanship. I wholly disagree with that notion. If you want to help your opponent that's your prerogative, and you can pat yourself on the back for being a good sport if you like. By the same token, I don't expect to be judged negatively because I let my opponents make mistakes. Sometimes making mistakes is the only way we learn, especially if the consequences are severe enough. So I think we can discount the good sportsmanship aspect of assisting your opponents, since you're really only hurting them in the long run.

The second major justification for assisting your opponent, besides being a good sport, is because it behooves you as a player to have the best match possible. I also take issue with this, and that's where our most recent argumentative tangent comes in. People say "I want to play my opponent at his best," but you really aren't playing your opponent at his best if he has assistance. You're playing him at his best along with your help. So maybe we can discount the only other major justification for assisting your opponent as well. That having being said, if not making mistakes is part of the skill in the game, and your opponent is using your skill to compensate for a lack of his own - whether that skill is solicited or not - then you are, in fact, playing both sides of the board.

But for casual gaming, nah that stinks.

Which is why pretty much everyone agree's that for casual friendly games we're more likely to remind someone of something they missed.

That said, I'm not being a poor sport by not pointing it out, even in a friendly/casual game. I may or may not, but as soon as someone expects it, they are the one who is guilty of poor sportsmanship.

But for casual gaming, nah that stinks.

Which is why pretty much everyone agree's that for casual friendly games we're more likely to remind someone of something they missed.

That said, I'm not being a poor sport by not pointing it out, even in a friendly/casual game. I may or may not, but as soon as someone expects it, they are the one who is guilty of poor sportsmanship.

Oh this I can absolutely agree with. You should at least make an effort to learn your own deck.

This argument isn't so much on which side of the equation is right, but which situation is occurring.

I'm going to make a statement here which some would disagree with. In a competitive setting, then the only reminders that really should be said are those with must in the card. It helps that rewinds generally don't happen as per the FFG tourney guidelines.

My arguments stem from the fact that 90% of the time I play casual games, in which case one possible reason is that you are playing to make yourself better, and you want your opponent to be using everything they have at their disposal, and playing at their best. That they learn and memorize the rules - which happens if they make mistakes or if they are reminded both - is also cool. If you play in a small group, then no matter what that groups skill at least against each other evolves the more they play.

Tangentially: This topic seems to be drifting towards tourney vs casual gaming, the arguments of which I've had enough of with 40k. I think the TLDR is Competitive games - no, be quiet, casual is sure.

I think the TLDR is Competitive games - no, be quiet, casual is sure.

Agreed.

Here's the thing, and part of this is baggage from us having this debate so many times in the past. Most times, some who are 'pro-reminder' have come right out and said that you're a WAAC poor sport jack-*** if you don't remind people, in either competitive or casual games.

Sometimes it's out and out said, sometimes it's heavily implied. Part of the problem is, there is a tendency to think of sportsmanship as a good/bad thing, with no neutral ground. I've actually had someone out and out say that if you're not a good sport then you are a poor sport.

The irony being that really, sportsmanship in this case is all neutral ground. Eye of the beholder so to speak, and entirely situational (casual vs competitive).

It's not like 40K where you can slap together a list made of tau, eldar, and maybe an unkillable deathstar and play a play to win list which goes against fluff - that's my best example of poor sportsmanship, you can only push play to win so far... but I guess that's why I only 40K casual.

It's just play friendly vs play tight. Play verbose vs play stoic.

Will Wheaton's law ultimately decides it. Whichever you choose to do, don't be a ****.

Will wheaton is a SJW so he can rot.

So, according to your logic, misrepresenting a strawman as a simple misrepresentation, rather than a separate and unrelated argument set up simply to be knocked down, is itself a strawman. Funny, but not entirely accurate.

"I want a car."

"So you approve of global warming."

Now, owning a car and global warming are related, in a way, but this response is clearly a strawman because of all the 'ifs' and 'buts' that are assumed, and simply because the first speaker didn't actually say anything about global warming. That is the typical way that strawmen and actual arguments are related.

What's being debated here is whether it's bad form to not remind your opponent of his triggers. Many, including myself, would assert that your opponent's triggers are his responsibility and his alone, and making any attempt to assist your opponent is actually playing both sides of the board. That's not an unrelated argument, that is the argument.

According to traditional definitions, that's not a strawman. I wouldn't even consider that a simple misrepresentation, not with the poorest of argumentative framing.

And on the internet I see strawmen a lot, mostly because of the "I don't really understand what you're saying but I know I disagree" attitude. This one was just too obvious to pass.

I don't want to derail this too much but... The same could be said for you, so your calling it a strawman could actually be a strawman itself. I personally can see the logic in what he said.

"I try to when I see they haven't used them.

Hell, i've reminded enemies that they've missed a unit firing at me in 40K before."

to this:

"Playing your opponent's upgrade cards for them..."

is not warranted, I think. The first poster clearly did not claim that he wanted to play his opponent's upgrade cards for that opponent. Yet it was interpreted that way, and that interpretation was made to be a bad thing.

As for the actual subject, "the argument" as Wonderwaagh put it, I can see some sense on both sides here. As my gaming is also/mostly for social reasons, I tend to care not too much if what I do disadvantages me somewhat, even if I do try to win. But that's not an answer. Whether I remind an opponent of some effect is situational, I guess.

If I'm expected to remind the other person of every option they have and according to some even point out when they are making tactical mistakes, there's not much difference between that and me playing both sides.

I've never seen a strawman argument that was truly unrelated. Take for example the following exchange:

"I want a car."

"So you approve of global warming."

Now, owning a car and global warming are related, in a way, but this response is clearly a strawman because of all the 'ifs' and 'buts' that are assumed, and simply because the first speaker didn't actually say anything about global warming. That is the typical way that strawmen and actual arguments are related.

Would you say that using an example of an exchange about a car to discredit someone else's definition is a strawman? I hope you begin to see why we should endeavor to use a more specific definition, rather than this nebulous 'anything misleading is a strawman.' We could go around in circles for ages, but that's the point; we're going in circles because that definition is simply ill suited for meaningful conversation. Instead of making fallacious claims about arguments, similarly fallacious or otherwise, let's discuss their actual merit.

Would you say that using an example of an exchange about a car to discredit someone else's definition is a strawman? I hope you begin to see why we should endeavor to use a more specific definition, rather than this nebulous 'anything misleading is a strawman.' We could go around in circles for ages, but that's the point; we're going in circles because that definition is simply ill suited for meaningful conversation. Instead of making fallacious claims about arguments, similarly fallacious or otherwise, let's discuss their actual merit.

We don't really have to go in circles, I've abundantly explained why I thought the post I originally responded to was a strawman argument. You and VanorDM seemed to respond mostly to the general subject of the thread. I don't really see a problem there.

I love these threads. I just skipped from the initial post to page 5, and I'm greeted by SJW and strawman multiple times. Yup, right on schedule.

Votes for when it gets locked?

We're not quite there just yet, considering how civil we're all being right now.

This thread

... delivers?

... isn't really about ethics in tabletop gaming?

Threads like this always start that way, but they never end up that way.

I'm just going to note that the answer to this question is the answer to many questions regarding ethics, at least in my humble opinion.

Treat others as you would like to be treated.

In a casual, fun game, if I mindlessly forget some ability trigger in my excitement to see a maneuver play out or because I'm a little inebriated, I'd VERY MUCH like my opponent to calmly and casually mention it or, in the case of several casual games I've played, let me go back and trigger it so long as that doesn't adversely affect moves made since. In turn, I do this for others.

In a competitive setting, I would NOT want people leaning over my shoulder second guessing my moves, even if I am simply being forgetful, and so I don't do that to other people.

Now obviously nobody else is me, but I'm fairly sure these guidelines apply to virtually everyone.

If someone is going to get mad because I point out a possible mistake in a casual game, I have no interest in playing with them. If someone is going to throw a tantrum because I let them have enough rope to hang themselves in a competitive round, I similarly have no interest in ever playing with them.

These things have a way of working themselves out when you stick to the golden rule.

Treat others like you'd want to be treated, I can get behind that. Tell me, if an opponent has to remind you about your triggers and you win the game, do you feel like you won it on your own? Do you feel that you deserved the win?

Treat others like you'd want to be treated, I can get behind that. Tell me, if an opponent has to remind you about your triggers and you win the game, do you feel like you won it on your own? Do you feel that you deserved the win?

Answer.

"It depends."

what was reminded, how many times, friendly or competitive, did I return the favour or pay it forward.

so many variables.

Treat others like you'd want to be treated, I can get behind that. Tell me, if an opponent has to remind you about your triggers and you win the game, do you feel like you won it on your own? Do you feel that you deserved the win?

If you win because the other guy forgot something vital that you noticed and he didn't are you proud of that win?

I wouldn't be I'd feel pretty crappy the rest of the day, it'd plague my thoughts running over and over how I'd got that victory.

Pride doesn't really enter into the equation. In fact, it doesn't matter to me if I beat a seasoned vet or a 12 year old neophyte; their respective skill levels and reasons for being there are their own business and responsibility. I'm certainly not going to have a pathological fit hours afterward because of a silly game. Anyone who does might want to seek counseling, and fast.

Now if I win a big event after defeating any number of players who forgot their triggers then yes, I'd feel proud. I was the guy who didn't make mistakes; my opponents weren't.

If you win because the other guy forgot something vital that you noticed and he didn't are you proud of that win?

Assuming he wasn't a newbie. Yes, because he missed something vital that was his mistake, and I was able to capitalize on it and win the game. That is after all the very nature of winning. If he was a newbie, then I'm not really playing to win, I'm playing to teach.

You played better then the other guy did. Playing better by definition includes not making mistakes, especially vital ones.

Frankly we'll never agree on this, because we don't agree on a basic concept. What is someone's "best" to you their best means you beat them when they made no mistakes, even if that means they have to have outside assistance.

Where as people like myself and WW believe that someone's best can only include what they are capable of, and if outside help is provided they are no longer playing their best, they're playing better then they are capable of. Quite often their best will include some or even many mistakes.

During casual games I usually remind my opponent of their forgotten things. If someone is going to fly Advanced Sensors bro bots and forget about it every time he's about to bump something I typically say something so that way I'm getting practice against well flown bro bots.

But in a tournament I don't care. Maybe against a new guy I won't crush someone, but even then if there isa medal on the line or something I want, I'm not letting you take back that 3 bank that flew your Deci off the board.

If he was a newbie, then I'm not really playing to win, I'm playing to teach.

like this

If we are all playing to win (tournament) then I may not remind you, otherwise and if your opponent is eager to learn and receptive to inputs, teach.

If we are all playing to win (tournament) then I may not remind you, otherwise and if your opponent is eager to learn and receptive to inputs, teach.

Yes exactly. I think I've made the point enough that I don't need to keep making it, but there is a difference between playing a newbie, playing a friendly casual game, and playing at Regionals.

I'll offer more or less help depending on the situation. A newbie and I'll point out every mistake they make to help teach them. If it's a friendly game I'll point out mistakes here and there, but normally not the same mistake twice. When I was at Regionals, I didn't point out a single mistake or let someone take a missed action.

I don't have a problem with people offering help persay, I just object to the notion that it's unethical or poor sportsmanship to not do it.

Now back to the topic of playing ones best. For me the inverse is true as well. If someone were to point out a boneheaded mistake I made, and let me fix it. Like say if I get my Firespray too close to the edge and they let me try more then one maneuver to see if I can save it. For me if I were to do that and go on to win, it would make it a cheap win IMO. I'd rather lose playing my best, then win because someone else helped me.

Yes, you should. Else, people are laughing at you behind your back.