55 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Mark Myers and I live in the St. Louis

Dad??

21 hours ago, Flurpy said:

Let me give you an example why its not always easy to pinpoint it.

Someone brings cookies to work. I take a cookie. Nobody complains. I take a second cookie. Nobody complains. I take a third cookie. Nobody complains. I take a fourth cookie. Everyone calls me out. There is no significance to the fourth cookie, the fourth cookie is just as much cookie as the third or the fifth, and in another firm or another day it might have been the second cookie that was too much or the sixth. Its not the specific measure thats the problem, its the intention.

Theres no, this cookie is one cookie too much moment in his match, its the intention.

If the cookie rules were set up to incentivize you to take four cookies, the I would dislike it but would not blame you for it. If you and I stood over the cookie plate and shifted back and forth for the whole lunch break so nobody got cookies, that would be a bummer. We would have to do a final chip salvo and that is way less fun than eating cookies.

1 hour ago, Dreadai said:

Dad??

I don't know if you're calling me that because @catachanninja calls me that, or if you're making a joke about your parentage.

@Frimmel - I stumbled upon this quote of yours in another thread...

Quote

I don't go to tournaments but we do play our games tournament style with the clock and such.

I don't understand your investment in the (unfortunate) direction of this thread.

1 hour ago, gennataos said:

@Frimmel - I stumbled upon this quote of yours in another thread...

I don't understand your investment in the (unfortunate) direction of this thread.

What happens in tournaments effects points and rulings and design and the game seems to be designed around the tournament format. I also read the first page and saw... Well I didn't much care for something I saw. It offended many of my sensibilities. I have been considering attending tournaments. So what happens in tournaments and around tournaments is not just some other world that doesn't impact me. So there are a number of reasons for me to care about the content in this thread.

Just eat it.

12 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

What happens in tournaments effects points and rulings and design and the game seems to be designed around the tournament format. I also read the first page and saw... Well I didn't much care for something I saw. It offended many of my sensibilities. I have been considering attending tournaments. So what happens in tournaments and around tournaments is not just some other world that doesn't impact me. So there are a number of reasons for me to care about the content in this thread.

Thanks for the response...it all makes sense to me.

35 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Thanks for the response...it all makes sense to me.

How and why is this still going?

I think we're in agreement that the current scoring system of winning games based on squad points destroyed/preserved is problematic due to the perverse incentives it offers many lists.

And I think we're in agreement that the way to fix this is not straightforward. It can't be solved as easily as saying "Stop stalling" because the nature of precisely what can be defined as stalling is elusive.

The fact that avoiding engagement is the win condition of many lists means that for any definition of "stalling" you come up with, the players will exploit any existing loophole or push any boundary they can while remaining within the legal bounds of tournament play. This isn't because they're bad sports, but because ultimately, competition is about winning.

Ergo, if this really is a problem for competitive play, the only workable solution is to change the scoring system to something that inherently incentivizes engagement. Some (including myself) believe that objective-based victory would be conducive to that end, and may differ on exactly how it should be implemented. Others doubt how successful objectives would be to prevent skirting and turtling. Still others believe this isn't a problem and the existing state of Organized Play is just fine.

Beyond that I don't really see why people are still talking.

34 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

How and why is this still going?

I think we're in agreement that the current scoring system of winning games based on squad points destroyed/preserved is problematic due to the perverse incentives it offers many lists.

And I think we're in agreement that the way to fix this is not straightforward. It can't be solved as easily as saying "Stop stalling" because the nature of precisely what can be defined as stalling is elusive.

The fact that avoiding engagement is the win condition of many lists means that for any definition of "stalling" you come up with, the players will exploit any existing loophole or push any boundary they can while remaining within the legal bounds of tournament play. This isn't because they're bad sports, but because ultimately, competition is about winning.

Ergo, if this really is a problem for competitive play, the only workable solution is to change the scoring system to something that inherently incentivizes engagement. Some (including myself) believe that objective-based victory would be conducive to that end, and may differ on exactly how it should be implemented. Others doubt how successful objectives would be to prevent skirting and turtling. Still others believe this isn't a problem and the existing state of Organized Play is just fine.

Beyond that I don't really see why people are still talking.

48 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Beyond that I don't really see why people are still talking.

Because this is the internet and cookie gifs exist.

Doesn't matter, its not like there is a limited number of bits for the forum that people are using up chatting in circles

15 minutes ago, XPav said:

Two doubles and a bottle of Cobra.