For some lists, remembering the cards is actually part of the learning curve: when I have constructed a relatively complex rebel synergy squad, planning each turn and remembering to apply all the effects is what I'm supposed to do. I'd consider it a failure on mypart if my opponent had to remind me that because Lando just did a green move, I can put target locks on Dutch and Hobbie, for example.

But if I have something more straightforward in terms of game effects to remember, like, say, a bunch of black squadron pilots with predator, it's a somewhat different matter. Maybe I get caught up in rolling buckets of dice that I forget to apply predator in one case. If my opponent then points that out, I just think he's a nice guy and move on. It's a very subjective thing, but keeping the cards in mind is more 'the point' of the rebel synergy list.

Psychology predicts that most of the time, we attribute wins to our own skill. If you made a Fat Han list and win with it, you're probably not going attribute that win to the fact that your opponent reminded you of C3PO once or twice, but to your preparation and to your skill in keeping Han alive up to the end. And that psychological mechanism is generally a good thing, I would say. There's nothing gained by considering yourself to be a weak player every time your opponent helps you slightly just because he's trying to be friendly or a good sport.

In another thread, someone said something to the effect of "tournaments aren't fun, I play them for bragging rights." This suggests that bragging rights, or strengthening your ego, is for some a basic need like food, air or money. In some way that holds true for all of us. I think it is smart not to put yourself in a position where you're cut off from that need too easily.

Has 'strawman' become just a convenient term for an argument you disagree with?

Sometimes I think so. It does seem to be a way to try and dismiss someone's argument without actually you know countering it in any way.

See also "clickbait".

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

I can live with that if you can.

TL:DR

For practice and casual games, I remind my opponents. In a tournament not at all because I don't expect my opponent to help me. This is my opinion on the matter.

Edit: There is one exception. I remind everyone of rebel captive because it has to happen!

In casual play I'll remind my opponent of an action or point out a better or alternative move. If it makes him a better opponent it forces me to become a better player.

In a more competitive environment I think the old saying "Lessons learned hard are lessons learned well" may be more appropriate. That being said a lot depends on the attitude of your opponent. If he's struggling, yeah cut him slack. If he's being a putz then no quarter asked or given.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Sure it is.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

Because if you've just tabled them then tell them what they missed your just rubbing it in.

Doing it once during a game at least presents an opportunity for them to do better and if they don't take it then at least you made the effort when it counted.

just my opinion anyway.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

To be a strawman the argument must be a misrepresentation of something someone else said, i must be refuting an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

who's argument am i misrepresenting exactly?

Because i'm pretty sure what i did was use a well known meme as an example then go on to state my opinion, i don't think people learn just by being defeated.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Sure it is.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

If you're bothered by the fact that strawman fallacies are so prevalent and that I pointed out a pretty awful one, then you might consider why this particular fallacy comes up so often: many people have trouble reading, many don't like painting a nuanced and honest picture of a view that's not their own, etc. But what also plays a part is this: things like ad homs, poisoning the well, no true scotsmen, tu quoque and many other fallacies run afoul of forum rules because they're personal. The straw man does not. You can perpetrate it as much as you want without real consequences other than an opponent that cries foul - something he'd probably do anyway.

And straw men are also often effective because many are lured into actually defending a position they don't hold.

The best thing to do if someone accuses you of creating a straw man is ask somethhing to the effect of "then what did ou really mean? That seems much more useful. Really, what is the point of talking about 'people who play their opponent's card for them' if nobody thinks that doing so is a good idea?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

Based on the content of your post, I thought fixing this grammar error was very appropriate.

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

Should read "If a person isn't told they're (they are) making a mistake..."

Based on the content of your post, I thought fixing this grammar error was very appropriate.

I do that to annoy pedants

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

Because if you've just tabled them then tell them what they missed your just rubbing it in.

Doing it once during a game at least presents an opportunity for them to do better and if they don't take it then at least you made the effort when it counted.

just my opinion anyway.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

To be a strawman the argument must be a misrepresentation of something someone else said, i must be refuting an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

who's argument am i misrepresenting exactly?

Because i'm pretty sure what i did was use a well known meme as an example then go on to state my opinion, i don't think people learn just by being defeated.

I have to say hobo that while I see the point you are trying to make your meme example is really not fitting here. It is a straw man because those two situations have some very important differences.

First in the meme the reason it's harder to learn here is because people have an infinite reason for feeling a particular way. Any number of many reasons can all coincide to be why she is mad... Including events you had no control or even knowledge of (since they can affect her mood before hand or condition her to dislike certain things)

In a game however this is not the case. Ever mistake, every loss is confined within the game you played. Finding the mistake is far, far easier here since all you have to do is think back over a small period of time, and know a set number of defined rules, and you can discover and learn from your mistake.

I learn from mistakes and losses. When I lose I always take time to ponder my game and pick it apart so I can figure out WHY I lost. What did I do wrong? What could I do better? This allows me to become a better player. Sure I don't remember every mistake but I do recall a lot and I recall best the big mistakes. If I can do this others can as well. If what you are saying is true and people don't learn from their mistakes then I would say they don't bother trying. All it takes is some contemplation after a game.

That is why that was a bad argument you made. Those two situations are so different they can't be used as appropriate comparisons.

I learn from mistakes and losses. When I lose I always take time to ponder my game and pick it apart so I can figure out WHY I lost. What did I do wrong? What could I do better? This allows me to become a better player. Sure I don't remember every mistake but I do recall a lot and I recall best the big mistakes. If I can do this others can as well. If what you are saying is true and people don't learn from their mistakes then I would say they don't bother trying. All it takes is some contemplation after a game.

That is why that was a bad argument you made. Those two situations are so different they can't be used as appropriate comparisons.

When me and my friend play any game, 40K, XWM, infinity, whatever we kind of have an after action talk.

It's actually usually what I enjoy most about the game. We pick apart strategies, what went wrong, what went right, what the other could have done to win.

We acknowledge what units/combinations seem to be OP, and what seem to be situational. Sometimes there are disagreements there. (I still don't think drop podding my entire army is OP).

We frequently remind each other of rules etc, both the musts and mays.

Obviously we play casual against each other, either in a casual setting or occasionally in a cut-throat pre-tourney setting. (where gloves come off and we play our best nastiest lists).

In this case, obviously it makes sense for us to be pointing out everything. This isn't to speak to one side or the other in this argument, I'm just explaining what I do in relation to the above quote.

6 pages, yes, yessss.

Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.

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?

Highly contextual.

In a casual setting I care very little for who wins and who loses, so long as we're having fun doing it. The winner isn't really that important, and I don't place a great deal of pride in any victory, but rather savor the clinching moments when it could go either way. The question of who deserved to win seems largely irrelevant in that context.

I can't say anything about whether or not I'd feel that I deserved a win in that situation, but I can say *with certainty* that if I DIDN'T remind them of their own trigger and they absentmindedly missed one causing me to win, I wouldn't feel as if I'd earned THAT victory.

I tend to think about it like this: If we were playing a digital version of the game, where all the rules and moves were executed flawlessly and it was just move choice and ship selection that decided the match, would I have won?

Now, I'm not above using the rules to my advantage when my opponent makes errors. Just the other day someone running Tycho flipped over a k-turn with stress, failing to realize that Tycho still couldn't red with stress, and I flew him straight into an asteroid.

In the context of a tournament or other competitive environment, I can fully understand how playing precisely and efficiently is one of the skills being tested.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

Because if you've just tabled them then tell them what they missed your just rubbing it in.

Doing it once during a game at least presents an opportunity for them to do better and if they don't take it then at least you made the effort when it counted.

just my opinion anyway.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

To be a strawman the argument must be a misrepresentation of something someone else said, i must be refuting an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

who's argument am i misrepresenting exactly?

Because i'm pretty sure what i did was use a well known meme as an example then go on to state my opinion, i don't think people learn just by being defeated.

I have to say hobo that while I see the point you are trying to make your meme example is really not fitting here. It is a straw man because those two situations have some very important differences.

First in the meme the reason it's harder to learn here is because people have an infinite reason for feeling a particular way. Any number of many reasons can all coincide to be why she is mad... Including events you had no control or even knowledge of (since they can affect her mood before hand or condition her to dislike certain things)

In a game however this is not the case. Ever mistake, every loss is confined within the game you played. Finding the mistake is far, far easier here since all you have to do is think back over a small period of time, and know a set number of defined rules, and you can discover and learn from your mistake.

I learn from mistakes and losses. When I lose I always take time to ponder my game and pick it apart so I can figure out WHY I lost. What did I do wrong? What could I do better? This allows me to become a better player. Sure I don't remember every mistake but I do recall a lot and I recall best the big mistakes. If I can do this others can as well. If what you are saying is true and people don't learn from their mistakes then I would say they don't bother trying. All it takes is some contemplation after a game.

That is why that was a bad argument you made. Those two situations are so different they can't be used as appropriate comparisons.

Okay but who did i strawman?

i'll accept you think it's a bad argument but to be a strawman i must be misrepresenting someone and i'm still at a loss as to who that was supposed to be.

And i feel i must point out that i know irl people that don't learn from defeats even with an after action evaluation, you do i do but you cant blanket say everyone does.

I say play honestly. if they forget something then remind them. If you'd remind them of an effect that they forgot that befits you, then you should extent them the same.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

Because if you've just tabled them then tell them what they missed your just rubbing it in.

Doing it once during a game at least presents an opportunity for them to do better and if they don't take it then at least you made the effort when it counted.

just my opinion anyway.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

To be a strawman the argument must be a misrepresentation of something someone else said, i must be refuting an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

who's argument am i misrepresenting exactly?

Because i'm pretty sure what i did was use a well known meme as an example then go on to state my opinion, i don't think people learn just by being defeated.

I have to say hobo that while I see the point you are trying to make your meme example is really not fitting here. It is a straw man because those two situations have some very important differences.

First in the meme the reason it's harder to learn here is because people have an infinite reason for feeling a particular way. Any number of many reasons can all coincide to be why she is mad... Including events you had no control or even knowledge of (since they can affect her mood before hand or condition her to dislike certain things)

In a game however this is not the case. Ever mistake, every loss is confined within the game you played. Finding the mistake is far, far easier here since all you have to do is think back over a small period of time, and know a set number of defined rules, and you can discover and learn from your mistake.

I learn from mistakes and losses. When I lose I always take time to ponder my game and pick it apart so I can figure out WHY I lost. What did I do wrong? What could I do better? This allows me to become a better player. Sure I don't remember every mistake but I do recall a lot and I recall best the big mistakes. If I can do this others can as well. If what you are saying is true and people don't learn from their mistakes then I would say they don't bother trying. All it takes is some contemplation after a game.

That is why that was a bad argument you made. Those two situations are so different they can't be used as appropriate comparisons.

Okay but who did i strawman?

i'll accept you think it's a bad argument but to be a strawman i must be misrepresenting someone and i'm still at a loss as to who that was supposed to be.

And i feel i must point out that i know irl people that don't learn from defeats even with an after action evaluation, you do i do but you cant blanket say everyone does.

You're misrepresenting the point. We're talking about playing a game, not communicating with women. That's why it's a strawman.

Is there any way to filter the thread so it hides every post with the word "strawman" in it? Just asking.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

Why isn't that the time to tell them? Even in casual settings I usually wait until the person has made the mistake and then tell them of it. With my typical play partners we don't undo mistakes casually because we all feel the mistakes you learn from are the ones that hurt, so we'll remind after the trigger is missed and then you hopefully remember it next time.

I see no difference between someone forgetting or missing a trigger and someone missing a maneuver and landing on a rock.

Because if you've just tabled them then tell them what they missed your just rubbing it in.

Doing it once during a game at least presents an opportunity for them to do better and if they don't take it then at least you made the effort when it counted.

just my opinion anyway.

For those interested, take note: the example cited above is an actual strawman.

To be a strawman the argument must be a misrepresentation of something someone else said, i must be refuting an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

who's argument am i misrepresenting exactly?

Because i'm pretty sure what i did was use a well known meme as an example then go on to state my opinion, i don't think people learn just by being defeated.

I have to say hobo that while I see the point you are trying to make your meme example is really not fitting here. It is a straw man because those two situations have some very important differences.

First in the meme the reason it's harder to learn here is because people have an infinite reason for feeling a particular way. Any number of many reasons can all coincide to be why she is mad... Including events you had no control or even knowledge of (since they can affect her mood before hand or condition her to dislike certain things)

In a game however this is not the case. Ever mistake, every loss is confined within the game you played. Finding the mistake is far, far easier here since all you have to do is think back over a small period of time, and know a set number of defined rules, and you can discover and learn from your mistake.

I learn from mistakes and losses. When I lose I always take time to ponder my game and pick it apart so I can figure out WHY I lost. What did I do wrong? What could I do better? This allows me to become a better player. Sure I don't remember every mistake but I do recall a lot and I recall best the big mistakes. If I can do this others can as well. If what you are saying is true and people don't learn from their mistakes then I would say they don't bother trying. All it takes is some contemplation after a game.

That is why that was a bad argument you made. Those two situations are so different they can't be used as appropriate comparisons.

Okay but who did i strawman?

i'll accept you think it's a bad argument but to be a strawman i must be misrepresenting someone and i'm still at a loss as to who that was supposed to be.

And i feel i must point out that i know irl people that don't learn from defeats even with an after action evaluation, you do i do but you cant blanket say everyone does.

You're misrepresenting the point. We're talking about playing a game, not communicating with women. That's why it's a strawman.

Then it's not a strawman, to be one I must be responding to an argument someone didn't make while making it look like they did.

I've also not made it look like I've won the argument I just started an opinion.

So unless you can point to a person's argument I misrepresented I want an apology.

You are responding to an argument, though. You're responding to the general sentiment that it's not a player's responsibility to communicate their opponent's mistakes to them during a match. By comparing that argument to a communication breakdown between a man and a woman, and then inferring that because the latter is wrong that you shouldn't do the former, you've created a straw man fallacy.

You know when you upset a woman but you've no clue how and they say "if you don't know I'm not telling you" what lesson do you learn?

If a person isn't told their making a mistake then they'll remain ignorant, you can't learn by being left in the dark.

And after a 100-0 loss is not the time to tell em where they went wrong.

The first and most apparent fallacy is the loaded question. "What lesson do you learn?" is intended to suggest that the person learns nothing when in fact, this is not born out by the example at all. The person that the woman is talking to might learn something, who knows? Nothing is told about why it would be credible that nothing can be learned if a woman - or a man, wo could say the same thing just as well - says this to you.

And when you think about it, the suggestion is that if you're not told about your mistakes in X-Wing, you cannot learn from those mistakes. But there is no argument given as to why this should be true. I suspect it is false, because I can see that someone could recognize his own mistake and learn from that.

So that's the typical fallacy: it is used to drive a point home in place of actual arguments. These are not retorical tricks, which are meant to support an argument.

Then there is the weak analogy. In this case it can be summarized like this:

"If a woman doesn't tell you why she is mad, you will not learn anything.

If you don't remind your opponent of cards, you're not telling him that he made a mistake.

Therefore, by not being reminded, the opponent will not learn anything."

This is the form that the weak analogy takes: the analogy has property A ("not telling") which leads to B ("not learning"). In a similar argument as before, what is missing here is a reason why the analogy is so similar to warrant that A will lead to B in our game. Even assuming that the analogy is true, i.e. this is a typical way for people to behave, then it still should not be obvious that something that happens in relations between two people really can predict what will happen when learning a game.

Finally, there is the straw man. This one is present too, but more hidden than the others and not as related as the previous two. But it really is very simple, as I pointed out before. This is the straw man: "If a person isn't told [he is] making a mistake..." This position is not actually defended in this thread, or please point out if I am mistaken. The point is clearly that people are not given clues that could help them, but it is up for grabs if someone wants to say something to the effect of "you know, if you had remembered Lone Wolf you could have won." Letting the other player know at some point is not the issue, it's about helping the opponent during a game when that help is still relevant.

You are responding to an argument, though. You're responding to the general sentiment that it's not a player's responsibility to communicate their opponent's mistakes to them during a match. By comparing that argument to a communication breakdown between a man and a woman, and then inferring that because the latter is wrong that you shouldn't do the former, you've created a straw man fallacy.

Not by any definition I've looked up i haven't.

So i ask again who specifically have i strawmanned by misrepresenting their argument, where did i claim i had won said argument through misrepresentation?

Unless there's an actual victim it's not a strawman, you can say it's a poor argument but i'll reiterate it's just an opinion.

This is now the third time i've asked for the specific poster i have done this against, please show me the victim or just admit your trying to undermine my side through painting me as unreasonable.

You are responding to an argument, though. You're responding to the general sentiment that it's not a player's responsibility to communicate their opponent's mistakes to them during a match. By comparing that argument to a communication breakdown between a man and a woman, and then inferring that because the latter is wrong that you shouldn't do the former, you've created a straw man fallacy.

Not by any definition I've looked up i haven't.

So i ask again who specifically have i strawmanned by misrepresenting their argument, where did i claim i had won said argument through misrepresentation?

Unless there's an actual victim it's not a strawman, you can say it's a poor argument but i'll reiterate it's just an opinion.

This is now the third time i've asked for the specific poster i have done this against, please show me the victim or just admit your trying to undermine my side through painting me as unreasonable.

Then you might want to consider looking up some new definitions. I'd love to help you understand your argumentative pitfalls better, but alas, that responsibility ultimately lies in your own hands, and I'm not inclined to explain it to you for a third time.