Board and Card Games

Rainbolt

1:53 PM

Whoops, I posted my Magic question on Programming Puzzles and Code Golf

diego

@Rainbolt And for some reason the autocard isn't working

Rainbolt

Lol

Fixed

Heh. @doppelgreener I did not study your old comment long enough to be able to tell the difference between it and your newly reposted comment

doppelgreener

@Rainbolt Ah, I just added the last sentence.

Rainbolt

Ah okay. I had a feeling it was the sympathy sentence

doppelgreener

it is not so much showing sympathy for the commenter, it is about understanding that maybe the message is reasonable ("you're thinking too hard about this") but the way they said it is not.

[edits slightly]

Rainbolt

2:02 PM

It's reasonable in an Unhinged sense

If he'd posted it on a normal question it would be less reasonable to me

diego

@Rainbolt I'm too lazy to write an answer now but for your missed trigger question: magicjudge.tumblr.com/post/115722915664/…

Rainbolt

@diego I think we have gotten that judge to reverse a ruling before. I'm not trying to be rude, but she doesn't cite anything when she answers questions.

And in this specific case, the guy asked if the trigger was missed, and she responded that it wasn't acknowledged.

I wish she would respond with the same concrete terminology. Now it sounds like "acknowledged" has some sort of weird MTG rules meaning.

Waterseas

@Rainbolt Are we talking about Regular REL or Competitive. If regular REL, makes sense they would not be considered a missed trigger.

Rainbolt

@Waterseas > Please answer for both Regular and Competitive REL, and make it clear if they differ.

Oh, we're discussing this question: boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/25355/6692

diego

Actually I have more time until my meeting than I thought I did, I think I will write up an answer.

Rainbolt

2:09 PM

I feel like the TR and the IPG conflict in this situation, but I fear that the answer will come down to some weird interpretation of what it means to "acknowledge" a trigger.

Waterseas

Unfortunately don't have the time to flesh out an entire answer ^^; I saw the question. Was just mentioning it based on Regular REL is supposed to be a bit more casual and to help bring newer players in; the fact that the trigger was announced, would likely make the judge think that it was a simple mistake on the player's part, and due to the fact that he acknowledged the trigger, would let him put a +1/+1 counter on it.

diego

Sort of

Rainbolt

By any normal English interpretation, you have acknowledged a trigger if you announce that it exists.

Waterseas

Yep, agreed

By announcing that it exists, that would logically imply that you're acknowledging that it goes on the stack. Missed trigger implies that you failed to put it on the stack at all.

Rainbolt

Well here's the tricky part

It doesn't say that you failed to put it on the stack

It says that it is "considered to have never been" on the stack

Waterseas

2:13 PM

Right

Rainbolt

So it may have been on the stack, but we'll pretend that it wasn't

diego

@Waterseas Except that isn't what a missed trigger is according to the IPG, a missed trigger occurs when you fail to change the game state due to a trigger

Waterseas

@diego Again, IPG is not relevant to Regular REL.

Rainbolt

Also, we've switched to the other document

I think we starting discussing IPG, then moved to TR

We should probably make it clear which definition of missed trigger we are using when we talk about it, or the discussion will go in circles

Waterseas

Then that would depend on what REL we're talking about.

Rainbolt

2:15 PM

Well, I guess it would be beneficial to discuss competitive, since regular is kinda "fix it how you think is best" right?

diego

@Waterseas The JAR has a similar definition

Waterseas

"These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge them in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect."

He did acknowledge it.

He failed to resolve it though

Rainbolt

So the JAR matches the IPG

diego

But not when choices had to be made or visible in game effects occured

Waterseas

He did though

Acknowledging is announcing. Resolving is the action of putting the counter on.

Besides, tis not relevant, I agree, competitive REL is what should be discussed in this question

Rainbolt

2:18 PM

If you cast a Lightning Bolt and then you forget that you cast it because a bunch of stuff happens, how would a judge handle that?

Waterseas

At regular REL? Resolve it as long as it wouldn't change decisions made since then

Rainbolt

mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings/…

The guy forgot to resolve half of his spell

Might provide some insight

Waterseas

Again, regular rel, as long as the game state hasn't advanced too far, then do the scry 2.

Unfortunately have only judged one competitive rel, and am rusty on it, so not sure how its handled at comp.

"I'm not an expert on higher RELs, such as a GP or Pro Tour, but this should be a Game Rule Violation. The judge could still rewind at his or her discretion, and you may receive a warning."

That's probably correct, except for the rewind part; that's very unlikely to occur

Rainbolt

By the way, I am Nathan in this situation.

Except here's the catch

I couldn't remember whether I announced the trigger or not

So I let it go

Rainbolt

2:42 PM

I have zero issues with diego's answer

I think what got me is that you can't just acknowledge a trigger. You have to acknowledge it at a specific point, which diego made pretty clear in his answer.

Waterseas

3:01 PM

I still disagree that is what the wording means honestly.

Rainbolt

Yea, I am becoming less and less sure the more Jefromi comments. He has a few points.

Oh well. I'm more concerned about my 2HG question. It looks like it isn't going to get a definitive answer at this point.

The one answer it does have shows dissent in the comments, and isn't very well upvoted.

Waterseas

Welcome to 2HG, the format that no one knows 100%, even most judges XD

Rainbolt

(Not that I use upvotes as a quality indicator, but it does help to know that more than a single user supports an answer)

Oh well. I have a pretty good track record for accepted answers. I don't mind letting another one slip.

This one has been itching at my brain for years now, even long before I asked it

I am starting to believe that maybe whatever blog or magazine I read when I was in high school made up the term or phrase that I think I am looking for. Or I'm just misremembering.

Waterseas

I mean, to be fair, it is essentially a variant of card advantage

Rainbolt

Assuming you both have the same cards, except one guy has extra cards, and can play them simultaneously, then yes.

Waterseas

3:12 PM

From google search, assuming that what you originally read was using chess as an example or specifically talking about chess, it might be "Material Advantage" that you're thinking of.

Rainbolt

You can have a material advantage in chess without actually having the same pieces

Waterseas

Yep

Rainbolt

I distinctly remember that both player had the exact same options but one player had some additional options.

Waterseas

That sounds oddly specific.

And unlikely to have a specific definition.

Rainbolt

Haha I know. I have had this discussion before

Some people tried to close the question because it is based on discrete logic.

Waterseas

3:16 PM

It might be valid to close, given that it's predicated on the assumption that there is, in fact, a definition.

Rainbolt

You mean a word/phrase

I provided the definition. It exists definitely.

Waterseas

That thing

The assumptions that the question is based on seem to be incorrect, thus, making the question itself not valid.

Rainbolt

I don't get the philosophy of "close because we think that the OP's logic is incorrect"

Waterseas

Because if the logic that the question is based on is incorrect, the question is fundamentally unanswerable as is.

Rainbolt

Wrong

Waterseas

3:18 PM

How not?

Rainbolt

I'm not deleting this. Attempting to prove the theory invalid as an argument for why it doesn't exist is a reasonable answer. Whether the proof is any good is a different question. Feel free to vote appropriately. — ire_and_curses ♦ Jun 26 '14 at 18:33

From one of the answers on that question

Proving the logic of a question wrong is a completely valid way to answer a question

Waterseas

Your question's assumption is that a term or phrase exists for the definition you provided. However, if the term or phrase DOESN'T exist, the question "What's the name of the theory that the player with the most options has the advantage?" is unanswerable.

So the options are, either close the question, or change the question.

Rainbolt

You are tunnel visioning here

I don't know how many ways I can say the same thing

Waterseas

If the question was changed to "Is there a term/phrase for X, and if so, what is the term/phrase", then it would be a good question.

Rainbolt

One last try: A question based on false assumptions is answerable by pointing out those false assumptions.

Waterseas

3:21 PM

Again, disagree.

The question is unanswerable. Saying 'the assumptions your questions are based on aren't correct' is not an answer to the question as it is.

Which is why I say the question title should be changed.

Rainbolt

Have you voted to close the question and downvoted the three or four answers that somehow answered an unanswerable question?

Or do you find your view to be unreasonable and take no action?

Or you just don't feel like it

Waterseas

A. Nope. B. The answers HAVEN'T answered the question.

C. I didn't know this question existed before, and now that I do, I may suggest an edit to the question title.

Rainbolt

Aren't you working under the exact opposite assumption?

Wouldn't it be more correct for you to say that the question is potentially unanswerable?

Waterseas

That the answer doesn't exist?

True

But the potential for unanswerability means that the question should be worded different.

To make it answerable and not based on potentially false assumptions.

The primary issue is that an answer saying 'no there's no definition' will almost never be accepted, because it is impossible to prove a negative like that.

So I guess my solution doesn't actually solve all the issues

Rainbolt

What if the OP is certain that it does exist because he remembers reading about it?

Would it then be acceptable to ask it in the form that I did?

Waterseas

3:27 PM

If that is why they are 'certain', then it is not a certain assumption, because THAT then makes the assumption that the memory is correc.t

Rainbolt

I don't know why I am going down this road with you

It is simply not true that a question needs to be edited just because it makes a poor assumption

Tons of questions make poor assumptions, and I encourage authors to leave those poor assumptions because most of the time they are the reason for the question.

Waterseas

Which is probably because we disagree that it's okay if there's potentially unanswerable questions on the site.

Rainbolt

If you go around editing the incorrect assumptions made by questions, then you would literally destroy the entire existence of certain questions.

I mean the question would not even be a question any more because fixing the mistake makes it so obvious what the answer is that the question answers itself.

The attitude that a question should be (logically) flawless is just wrong.

Waterseas

Not true. You can word them in a manner similar to how I did. Instead of asking, "How do I do Y?", you could word them to say "Is X true, and if it is, then how do I do Y?"

Rainbolt

You can fix my question to ask two questions. You can't do that with some.

Waterseas

3:32 PM

Why not?

We're talking about questions where the assumptions made by the question are wrong.

Thus the questions could, instead of assuming that the assumptions are true, instead ASK if the assumptions are true, and if they are, is X true.

Rainbolt

Oh, I see. You are saying that the question should be edited to demonstrate an awareness of a totally different question that the original OP thought he knew the answer to when he asked the question.

Waterseas

Yep, especially if the answers aren't actually answering the question, and instead are saying that the assumptions aren't true.

It twofold has the benefit of making what the answers address more findable.

Rainbolt

Your definition of an answer is too strict. You think an answer is only an answer if it literally answers the question that was asked. I think an answer is an answer if it addresses what the OP needed to know.

Waterseas

Because if someone is searching whether the assumptions are true, they'll be more likely to stumble across this question, and thus, the answers, than if the question doesn't mention the assumptions at all because they're assumed to be true.

Rainbolt

Since we disagree on that basic definition, I don't think there's any point in continuing the conversation.

You just have a different idea of what an answer is. Plain and simple.

Waterseas

3:36 PM

I think the disagreement between us is in who the answers are truly supposed to benefit; the OP, or subsequent people looking for the information.

Rainbolt

Not true

Waterseas

Fair enough

Rainbolt

My view is that people who arrive at the question will most likely have the same misconceptions as the OP that wrote the question in the first place.

Fixing those misconceptions actually drags the question further away from the people who need to find it.

murgatroid99

2

A: Policy of questions which are wrong/have erroneous assumptions

How does the search engine deal with these kind of questions, closed, but still not classified as erroneous in assumptions? Basically, these questions are treated the same as any other. In your specific example, I don't think it's a big deal that the initial assumptions were wrong. If someon...

Not exactly the same thing, but relevant, I think

Waterseas

"The normal approach to a closed question is to edit it to make it better."

Answer seems to agree with my opinion.

Rainbolt

3:39 PM

You haven't proven that my initial assumption is erroneous

murgatroid99

> In your specific example, I don't think it's a big deal that the initial assumptions were wrong

I can cherry-pick too

Rainbolt

Both of you are cherry picking from an irrelevant post

The assumptions in my question may or may not be wrong. Deal with that how you want to in your answers.

Waterseas

I'm not cherry-picking : p "To sum up, the editing tools we have are what's supposed to help us avoid ending up in a situation where we have a "wrong" question with the "right" answers."

murgatroid99

OK, sorry. I thought it was more relevant when I first read it

Rainbolt

I, the author, think the assumptions are correct.

Waterseas

3:41 PM

But yes, I agree that in this scenario, it's irrelevant

Rainbolt

I seem to have effectively communicated my assumptions because Waterseas picked up on it immediately.

His only issue now is that he can't answer the question because of a roadblock that he has built for himself.

I'm not going to cater just because he built himself an imaginary roadblock

Waterseas

Don't twist my words.

I could care less about answering the question.

And there is no 'imaginary roadblock'

Rainbolt

Sorry, I meant to say that, hypothetically, if you wanted to answer, it sounds to me like you would have trouble because the question is, according to you, unanswerable.

Waterseas

I did change to 'potentially unanswerable', since that's what I meant.

murgatroid99

For the record, I agree with Rainbolt and ire_and_curses here.

Waterseas

3:50 PM

Not sure who Ire is

Or what their stance on this is

murgatroid99

@Waterseas the mod who made the comment that, as far as I can tell, started this conversation

Waterseas

Where at?

murgatroid99

32 mins ago, by Rainbolt

I'm not deleting this. Attempting to prove the theory invalid as an argument for why it doesn't exist is a reasonable answer. Whether the proof is any good is a different question. Feel free to vote appropriately. — ire_and_curses ♦ Jun 26 '14 at 18:33

Waterseas

Ahh, alright.

Rainbolt

Just to be clear, he's referring to a different assumption

Waterseas

3:52 PM

To be fair, tis also irrelevant for the topic at hand.

Rainbolt

One assumption is that the theory exists. Another assumption is that the theory is correct.

Waterseas

Because the assumptions Rainbolt's question make are logically impossible to disprove.

Rainbolt

Oh, I see. So you are proposing that I edit the question to ask a question that is impossible to answer negatively?

murgatroid99

@Waterseas Wait, which assumption are you talking about there?

Waterseas

5

Q: What's the name of the theory that the player with the most options has the advantage?

A long time ago, I remember reading about a theory that sounds like this: Players A and B have access to options X and Y. Player A also has access to option Z. Player A is, at worst, equal to and, at best, at an advantage to player B. Ok, so that was poorly worded. Let me put it another way...

terminology

The assumption that there is a name for that theory.

murgatroid99

3:53 PM

There are a lot of questions like that

Rainbolt

He would have them all edited

Waterseas

Mmhmm

Rainbolt

We've been through this

murgatroid99

Have you ever seen the identify-this-game tag?

That's literally every question there

Waterseas

Identify this game I consider actually different.

murgatroid99

3:54 PM

How so?

Waterseas

Because the assumptions are more solid.

Than "I think I read this a long time ago"

Rainbolt

Why? I can easily apply your behavior to it. "Does the game I described exist, and if so, what is its name?"

murgatroid99

So, now it's a matter of degree?

Waterseas

Yep

murgatroid99

How solid does an assumption have to be before you'll accept it?

Can you quantify it?

Rainbolt

3:55 PM

What murg is hitting on is why I proposed that we agree to disagree some time ago

Subjective disagreements are best left to voting

Waterseas

Nope, tis unquantifiable. However, ability to provide an accurate description of game mechanics and looks and such is far-flung from providing a rough description of a theory.

Fair enough, then shall go through that channel.

Rainbolt

Appreciate the downvote :)

Doesn't look much like a close vote to me

I guess you had a change of heart or are confused about the uses of each type of vote.

Waterseas

Hope you understand twas not a spiteful one, twas actually me agreeing with the idea that voting is a good way of solving this.

Rainbolt

Some users think of downvotes as lesser-degree close votes.

murgatroid99

He only has 300 rep here

Rainbolt

3:57 PM

Oh, I see

Waterseas

I sort of do honestly.

And yeah

I'm not actually that active here XD

Rainbolt

Okay, that doesn't really justify using downvotes where a close vote is appropriate

Waterseas

Down votes are also used for poor questions.

Rainbolt

That's fine if you think that. A lot of close worthy questions are also not useful by definition.

Waterseas

Yep

The downvote is for the very rough and questionable assumptions that the question is based on, which makes it, in my opinion, not a good question.

Rainbolt

4:00 PM

If I were voting on a question that would be useful if it had a positive answer, but not useful if it got debunked due to questionable assumptions, then I'd neutral vote (same as not voting). Clearly you only see the not useful half in this situation.

Waterseas

Tis why with such questions, I wouldn't downvote right away.

I would wait to see if someone could relatively quickly provide an answer.

If so, then it shows the assumptions aren't questionable.

If not, then it makes it more likely the assumptions are questionable.

Rainbolt

So you need an answer or lack of to judge the quality of a question?

That seems like an odd way to vote

Waterseas

For this kind of question? Yes.

There's no other good way to judge the quality.

Rainbolt

There's no other good way for you to judge the quality.

Waterseas

And that is the beauty of subjectiveness.

To be fair, I'm curious to hear how you would judge the quality of such a question.

Rainbolt

4:04 PM

I already told you.

> If I were voting on a question that would be useful if it had a positive answer, but not useful if it got debunked due to questionable assumptions, then I'd neutral vote (same as not voting). [...]

Waterseas

Which I also see as being reasonable.

That doesn't explain the 5+ upvotes the question has gotten.

Rainbolt

Perhaps five people find that, between the two possible outcomes, one has more weight than the other.

Like you said, you apply more weight to the negative outcome because of other circumstances.

Waterseas

Perhaps. Or, perhaps, they upvote the question because the assume the question's assumptions are correct.

I don't apply more weight to the negative outcome at all. I think the negative outcome should be avoided if possible though.

To be fair, I am very much an over-thinker.

Transcript for

Board and Card Games