The reason Intentuonal draws are a complete and utter joke.
Sorry AW, but I'm all out of likes for today. I'll have to drop you one tomorrow.
Sorry AW, but I'm all out of likes for today. I'll have to drop you one tomorrow.
It's the thought that counts
If an ID counted as a loss for both players, I'd have no problem with it.
If draws were not in the game at all and there was a fair system for determining the winner at the end of time if equal score, I'd be even happier (though would still want my first point to happen).
Edited by slowreflex
Sorry AW, but I'm all out of likes for today. I'll have to drop you one tomorrow.
It's the thought that counts
Usually, but don't try that one out on your significant other. It'll rarely work and usually make for a hole more difficult to get yourself out of. Free advice of the day, brought to you by thatdave and married men everywhere!
If the top 8 players can ID into the top 8, it just means that tournament should have ended there and there were too many rounds of Swiss.
I can guarantee you the people who made it into the top 8 had less losses than the people who didn't. People who hate ID don't understand how tournaments ARE supposed to work.
We could always get the top 8, tie them up and throw them in a duck pond.
If they float then they obviously colluded and we can burn them.
If they drown then they didn't and we can all live happily ever after.
Cheers
Baaa
If the top 8 players can ID into the top 8, it just means that tournament should have ended there and there were too many rounds of Swiss.
I can guarantee you the people who made it into the top 8 had less losses than the people who didn't. People who hate ID don't understand how tournaments ARE supposed to work.
Maybe Swiss doesn't account for drops? Was it the drops that ultimately caused this problem?
and here you have it then....
Edited by Velvetelvis
If the top 8 players can ID into the top 8, it just means that tournament should have ended there and there were too many rounds of Swiss.
I can guarantee you the people who made it into the top 8 had less losses than the people who didn't. People who hate ID don't understand how tournaments ARE supposed to work.
This has been discussed ad naseaum. I mentioned that it would be nice if the tourney rounds could be flexible based on drops, but at the start of the tourney, there were 45 players. For all X-1 to make it, that means 6 rounds is necessary.
You do know, that mathematically, that they only prevented a handful of players from having a chance of the cut. It is at least a bit cleaner than using tiebreakers.
But that brings us back to the question of how many people being affected by something does it take before it is the wrong thing to do?
Whether they denied one person or six makes no difference.
Edited by Dr Zoidberg
Of course as an addendum to the above post, you then have a responsibility to defend the ethicality of your actions when challenged. And so far there has been no defence apart from "The law says I can do it" (which we have already established is not a moral justification) and "Someone else did it", which is also not a valid defence.
Just because someone takes an action they believe to be right, does not entitle them to be free of criticism. No-one goes into the situation thinking "I'm going to be an evil bastard here" - they may just make mistakes. But if no-one ever pulls you up and forces you to re-evaluate your mistakes, there is no way to learn from them.
No, actually nobody has a responsibility to defend their ethics. You can always choose to not care what others think
But do you (I'm adressing this to the haters not you personally) have a moral right to accuse people and talk *** like I've seen here? Publicly shame pheaver for having different morals? That does not look like falying casual to me.
You can hold whatever ethics you want, so long as you never act on them. As soon as you act on your beliefs and that action affects other people, they have the right to ask you to justify them. Thus we have courts that require people to defend their actions. Otherwise you could say "Brah, stabbing him in the neck is just what my ethics said - you can't naysay me".
Good to make a comparisons between a game and thing's that can have a real life consequences because losing a game and being stoned to death should be on an equal level.
When I use my own critical thinking I know ID's are bad because they are not suited in this game and shouldn't be allowed for all the reasons listed in the last 28 pages. But I would never question anyone for following a bad rule. Its still a rule. and this is still a game if you want change fill the FFG inbox with complaints. I hate what the top 8 did but they have every right to do so and I would never attack them personally
as said above hate the game not the players
You are not a robot following a script. You are a human being with the capability of governing your own ethical actions. Act like it.
every part of our lives is filled with systems and procedures to make us act like robots. From systems at work, roads with signal's and signs telling us where to go what to do, advertising telling us what to buy, education systems that say stay in school go to university get a degree in free thinking rock up debt doing so then get a job a McDonalds follow a system and pay off your student loan the rest of your life. and don't even get me started on the systems government have that you need to follow to if you need something from them.
Is it really any wonder why people follow rules as written?
If you can't tell the difference between arguing against an example and arguing against a point, I can't be bothered talking to you. I'm not attributing moral equivalency to the two actions, don't be absurd. I am saying that you cannot dismiss complaints about someone's behaviour based on "You're not allowed to question them because it's their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong". Opinions can be wrong, just like anything else.
Your second argument seems to be that because you work in a morally empty system, it is acceptable to act in a morally empty fashion. That being the case, we can never attribute blame to anyone working for a criminal organisation - because they are living within an immoral environment, and therefore cannot exert their own sense of morality. Which is nonsense. You always have a choice.
the next time I talk to my cousin who was a victim of family violence ill let her know the her Ex-husband is just as bad as 8 people who decided to follow rules in a game.
The older you get the more you you begin to realize things that are wrong and not always on the same level and to comparing acts of violence with people exploiting a game rule is crazy and very offensive. please find a better example to make your argument.
as for the second. yes you do always have a choice you have the choice to follow a game rule.
people's morals are not something that comes out of a book for everyone to follow. They are something people learn and develop over time and differ from others no one has the same morals as everyone else. The environment you live in is a big part of how you develop you own morals.
I hate what the top 8 did but I hate it on the same level as stubbing my toe on a door frame. it hurts but I don't tear down the door frame because of it. I just be more careful next time. If you hate what the top 8 did don't tear them down tell FFG about it so they can make change so it does not happen again
If an ID counted as a loss for both players, I'd have no problem with it.
If draws were not in the game at all and there was a fair system for determining the winner at the end of time if equal score, I'd be even happier (though would still want my first point to happen).
You can/could already concede if you're in this position.
It is important to note, that the calls for intentional draws is likely coming from another game, most likely the Netrunner crowd.
I'm not sure Netrunner can draw.
you can. If the score is tied at time, each player gets 1 point for that game. Same as a modified win, but both players get the point instead of just the leading player. Someone won the first game, though, so it's to that player's benefit.
of course, you play 2 games in netrunner (scoring up to 2 points per game), so they don't have an intentional draw rule. they have an intentional split rule, where each player concedes one game to the other. basically the same result. Of course, natural splits happen all the time, so it's not that weird in the standings.
If the top 8 players can ID into the top 8, it just means that tournament should have ended there and there were too many rounds of Swiss.
I can guarantee you the people who made it into the top 8 had less losses than the people who didn't. People who hate ID don't understand how tournaments ARE supposed to work.
You can guarantee that no one (9th or 10th place) was at one loss, like some of the top 8 were? And what about if they'd been required to play out the games? I can guarentee you that if those who had a chance to slip out of the cut played and lost that some would have been replaced them. Which is exactly why they should have been required to play - everyone should have an equal opportunity to make the cut.
the next time I talk to my cousin who was a victim of family violence ill let her know the her Ex-husband is just as bad as 8 people who decided to follow rules in a game.
And that's all I need to know you actually aren't listening to my point. See ya.
You do know, that mathematically, that they only prevented a handful of players from having a chance of the cut. It is at least a bit cleaner than using tiebreakers.
But that brings us back to the question of how many people being affected by something does it take before it is the wrong thing to do?
Whether they denied one person or six makes no difference.
I'm not saying FFG shouldn't look real hard at this. The intentional draw should probably go. But, affecting 1-6 is far, far different from the claim of it affecting the remaining 31 players.
Hyperbole is annoying.
So...is Hitler the TO here? Or is he Roanoke #9?
Awesome either way. I never get tired of these re-edits.
According to Sentrybox on now on Twitch there has been an official announcement by FFG - according to their chat box
https://www.twitch.tv/SentryBox
Edited by KnightHammerOkay math people need a little help. Do extra first round bys create a more likely senario for top x being in a situation where they can all draw. Or is have just enough people to have an extra round create this senario?
My math is bad but it looks like if they had only had 44 players and played 5 rounds with 6 first round byes it would have been possible for there to be 3 undefeated players at the end of round 4 no idea how many 3/1.
I done remember but if memory serves there were between 15-20first round byes at my regional last year when. Combo-ed to draws in the final round I don't see a reason to go.
Edited by dojiAccording to Sentrybox on now on Twitch there has been an official announcement by FFG - according to their chat box
Elaborate? I can't seem to do anything with that link on my mobile. Thanks.
According to Sentrybox on now on Twitch there has been an official announcement by FFG - according to their chat box
I can't get twitch at work. What did they say?
I really dislike the ID rule, anything that makes not playing the game a better choice than playing the game is a bad rule.
How do you feel about first round byes?
According to Sentrybox on now on Twitch there has been an official announcement by FFG - according to their chat box
Elaborate? I can't seem to do anything with that link on my mobile. Thanks.
They are playing a game atm but are supposed to have an exclusive and will be talking about that soon
Any word on what the ruling is? In the meantime I came across an article that really shows why this is bad at every level not just premier level events. http://www.tabletopgeneral.com/2016/04/