I agree Pierre, rules are really only needed for it in events.
And MasterSelf, I understand. I'd still try to avoid any negative connotation. "Agree/Disagree: Conceding to deny triggers or a win?" That seems short enough, yes?
That is too broad. If the person who was denied was not hurt, annoyed or offended, then it matters less to me. Also, one player may concede before the player's turn of someone who stole their creature and that could be denying them a win, but that does not matter to me. Same with someone conceding after a bribery resolved. Actually I would probably be ok with someone conceding to a bribery target, so I guess I'm ok with some instant scooping. I just think insta-scooping is where most of the problems arise.
I realize this thing is very difficult to put into words. I doubt even what I wrote earlier exactly covers everything while not covering too much. I guess this suggests house or store rules are the way to go. People really just know it when they see it and I really don't have a problem with a group of people who enjoy spite scooping playing that way.
I was just saying I think the polls here are more useful than anecdote. You don't need to provide me with tons of links. I am willing to admit I am wrong here, but could you please explain to me why the polls here that have had multiple people respond are equivalent to an individual anecdote? I would like to learn. If you are correct does that mean the Commander statistics here are just as bad?
Sure its really simple, because your poll is not randomized biased and unrepresentative of the total population its completely useless at providing an accurate representation of the population. Similarly a single anecdote also does not provide an acruate representation of the population both of them mean exactly nothing ... unless your target population is (all the people who wanted to take part in my poll who have viewed mtgs in the last few days and clicked on this link) in which case it would be 100% accurate if you had not used biased wording XD. Its pretty simple you have not done anything to make sure your poll is representative of the population so its pretty much worthless
That was my target population...
How was my wording biased? I was not interested in learning about non-spite scooping...
the word spite is biased. If you are only looking to have the results be applicable and relevant to those who took this poll and no one else its fine you just cant draw any conclusions about any population outside of exactly the people who took this poll. It is not a sample at all its a full representation of this exact population but again whats the relevance ? unless we form a group that plays together formed of exactly the people who took this poll what can you do with the information? you cannot draw a conclusion that includes anyone who choose not to take your poll so what is the point? to me this is just as useless as anecdote is not more so
It looks like I added the following to the post you quoted before you were able to read it, so here it is.
Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?
Im saying your poll here has 0 relevance to anyone who did not take it. If any person who did not take this poll came up and we had to take make a bet whether not they say yes or no to any question the odds are completely unknown not 50/50. Since your poll is not a sample of a larger population they cannot predict anything outside of this population. The difference in your example is you have all the data so the results are relevant. if you had used a sampling method that works you could at least be fairly certain its representative of a large population. The method used in this thread is worthless at predicting anything for anyone outside of the population so the results are irrelevant if i want to draw a conclusion for anyone who did not choose to take your poll.
You should do a Google search for 'ad hominem' good sir.
Maybe you should. I was attacking your reasoning. You made a frankly ridiculous logical leap and I made fun of it. You held up combo as your only alternative to relying on other players to let you get combat triggers. Others have pointed out that It is easy to avoid getting hurt by tactical scooping, several times.
Also, do you really think an online push poll with a small sample size will answer anything?
"If you can't win without that round of combat triggers, you can't adapt your play to the possibility, and you see combo as the only other option, you aren't very good."
Seems like an ad hominem attack to me.
Please explain why players wouldn't be incentivized to win via combos that don't rely on other players staying in the game in an environment of people who spite scoop? If your prime goal is to win does that not make sense? Why choose a strategy that relies on others and could be thwarted by spite scooping?
Also, I expect an online push poll with a small sample size to provide more information and justification for positions than we currently have (which is only anecdotes). For example, 6 out of 86 people who replied admit to spite scooping, 18 out of 86 admit to sometimes spite scooping, and 62 out of 86 admit to not spite scooping. That would suggest spite scooping is uncommonly practiced by a majority. I don't expect the percentages to be right, but I believe that suggests it is more common that people do not choose to spite scoop. Would you disagree?
That's fine, you don't know what ad hominem is. I'll help you out there, as someone else has explained to you why your poll isn't much better than anecdotes. Ad hominem is when you personally attack someone to ignore their argument. I directly attacked your assertion that not being able to rely in getting combat triggers every time you kill someone means combo is your only answer. Since that was entirely based on your ability to handle the situation, it's appropriate to address that. Saying "I'm only playing combo because of this" is a drastic (histrionic) reaction, and I called you on it.
You are assuming. I never said combo is one's "only" answer. Stop ignoring my question. Here, I'll clarify it for you. Do you not think the reality of spite scooping would incentivize rational individuals who desire to win to favour combos that do not depend on people not spite scooping?
Also, I never claimed my polls were "much better" than anecdotes. I merely claimed they were "better" than anecdotes. Stop twisting my words.
No, it would not incentivize a rational player to play combo. That's why I was attacking your statement as irrational, aka drastic or histrionic. A rational player would slightly adapt their gameplay and continue to play what they want, because tactical scooping only hurts you if you walk into the obvious, typically advertised trap. It's an emotional, rather than rational, reaction.
Also, you appealed to the poll to prove your point. Polls on the site are fun exercises, and every bit as useless for proving points as anecdotes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Sure its really simple, because your poll is not randomized biased and unrepresentative of the total population its completely useless at providing an accurate representation of the population. Similarly a single anecdote also does not provide an acruate representation of the population both of them mean exactly nothing ... unless your target population is (all the people who wanted to take part in my poll who have viewed mtgs in the last few days and clicked on this link) in which case it would be 100% accurate if you had not used biased wording XD. Its pretty simple you have not done anything to make sure your poll is representative of the population so its pretty much worthless
That was my target population...
How was my wording biased? I was not interested in learning about non-spite scooping...
the word spite is biased. If you are only looking to have the results be applicable and relevant to those who took this poll and no one else its fine you just cant draw any conclusions about any population outside of exactly the people who took this poll. It is not a sample at all its a full representation of this exact population but again whats the relevance ? unless we form a group that plays together formed of exactly the people who took this poll what can you do with the information? you cannot draw a conclusion that includes anyone who choose not to take your poll so what is the point? to me this is just as useless as anecdote is not more so
It looks like I added the following to the post you quoted before you were able to read it, so here it is.
Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?
Im saying your poll here has 0 relevance to anyone who did not take it. If any person who did not take this poll came up and we had to take make a bet whether not they say yes or no to any question the odds are completely unknown not 50/50. Since your poll is not a sample of a larger population they cannot predict anything outside of this population. The difference in your example is you have all the data so the results are relevant. if you had used a sampling method that works you could at least be fairly certain its representative of a large population. The method used in this thread is worthless at predicting anything for anyone outside of the population so the results are irrelevant if i want to draw a conclusion for anyone who did not choose to take your poll.
So you wouldn't take the bet?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Maybe you should. I was attacking your reasoning. You made a frankly ridiculous logical leap and I made fun of it. You held up combo as your only alternative to relying on other players to let you get combat triggers. Others have pointed out that It is easy to avoid getting hurt by tactical scooping, several times.
Also, do you really think an online push poll with a small sample size will answer anything?
"If you can't win without that round of combat triggers, you can't adapt your play to the possibility, and you see combo as the only other option, you aren't very good."
Seems like an ad hominem attack to me.
Please explain why players wouldn't be incentivized to win via combos that don't rely on other players staying in the game in an environment of people who spite scoop? If your prime goal is to win does that not make sense? Why choose a strategy that relies on others and could be thwarted by spite scooping?
Also, I expect an online push poll with a small sample size to provide more information and justification for positions than we currently have (which is only anecdotes). For example, 6 out of 86 people who replied admit to spite scooping, 18 out of 86 admit to sometimes spite scooping, and 62 out of 86 admit to not spite scooping. That would suggest spite scooping is uncommonly practiced by a majority. I don't expect the percentages to be right, but I believe that suggests it is more common that people do not choose to spite scoop. Would you disagree?
That's fine, you don't know what ad hominem is. I'll help you out there, as someone else has explained to you why your poll isn't much better than anecdotes. Ad hominem is when you personally attack someone to ignore their argument. I directly attacked your assertion that not being able to rely in getting combat triggers every time you kill someone means combo is your only answer. Since that was entirely based on your ability to handle the situation, it's appropriate to address that. Saying "I'm only playing combo because of this" is a drastic (histrionic) reaction, and I called you on it.
You are assuming. I never said combo is one's "only" answer. Stop ignoring my question. Here, I'll clarify it for you. Do you not think the reality of spite scooping would incentivize rational individuals who desire to win to favour combos that do not depend on people not spite scooping?
Also, I never claimed my polls were "much better" than anecdotes. I merely claimed they were "better" than anecdotes. Stop twisting my words.
No, it would not incentivize a rational player to play combo. That's why I was attacking your statement as irrational, aka drastic or histrionic. A rational player would slightly adapt their gameplay and continue to play what they want, because tactical scooping only hurts you if you walk into the obvious, typically advertised trap. It's an emotional, rather than rational, reaction.
Why would it not incentivize a rational player to play combo? If one wants to win and has two options to do so: (1) Utilize a method that does not allow for the possibility of 'walking into the obvious' or (2) Utilize a method that does allow for the possibility of 'walking into the obvious' (I also disagree it is always obvious, some players may not even be at risk of lethal, but may spite scoop either way). Why not go with option (1)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
How was my wording biased? I was not interested in learning about non-spite scooping...
the word spite is biased. If you are only looking to have the results be applicable and relevant to those who took this poll and no one else its fine you just cant draw any conclusions about any population outside of exactly the people who took this poll. It is not a sample at all its a full representation of this exact population but again whats the relevance ? unless we form a group that plays together formed of exactly the people who took this poll what can you do with the information? you cannot draw a conclusion that includes anyone who choose not to take your poll so what is the point? to me this is just as useless as anecdote is not more so
It looks like I added the following to the post you quoted before you were able to read it, so here it is.
Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?
Im saying your poll here has 0 relevance to anyone who did not take it. If any person who did not take this poll came up and we had to take make a bet whether not they say yes or no to any question the odds are completely unknown not 50/50. Since your poll is not a sample of a larger population they cannot predict anything outside of this population. The difference in your example is you have all the data so the results are relevant. if you had used a sampling method that works you could at least be fairly certain its representative of a large population. The method used in this thread is worthless at predicting anything for anyone outside of the population so the results are irrelevant if i want to draw a conclusion for anyone who did not choose to take your poll.
So you wouldn't take the bet?
I did not understand your bet you will need to elaborate and be more specific i did not follow you.
the word spite is biased. If you are only looking to have the results be applicable and relevant to those who took this poll and no one else its fine you just cant draw any conclusions about any population outside of exactly the people who took this poll. It is not a sample at all its a full representation of this exact population but again whats the relevance ? unless we form a group that plays together formed of exactly the people who took this poll what can you do with the information? you cannot draw a conclusion that includes anyone who choose not to take your poll so what is the point? to me this is just as useless as anecdote is not more so
It looks like I added the following to the post you quoted before you were able to read it, so here it is.
Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?
Im saying your poll here has 0 relevance to anyone who did not take it. If any person who did not take this poll came up and we had to take make a bet whether not they say yes or no to any question the odds are completely unknown not 50/50. Since your poll is not a sample of a larger population they cannot predict anything outside of this population. The difference in your example is you have all the data so the results are relevant. if you had used a sampling method that works you could at least be fairly certain its representative of a large population. The method used in this thread is worthless at predicting anything for anyone outside of the population so the results are irrelevant if i want to draw a conclusion for anyone who did not choose to take your poll.
So you wouldn't take the bet?
I did not understand your bet you will need to elaborate and be more specific i did not follow you.
"Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
What part do you need clarification on?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
So you think the chances are 50/50 based on the information provided (i.e. your chances of being right are equivalent to a coin toss with the information you have been provided)? You think the poll on this site is not even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more useful than an anecdote when making a guess on the results of a mega study?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
So you think the chances are 50/50 based on the information provided (i.e. your chances of being right are equivalent to a coin toss with the information you have been provided)? You think the poll on this site is not even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more useful than an anecdote when making a guess on the results of a mega study?
not exactly I have no population size no population mean your sample is not random i don't know the variance or standard deviation you literally have 0 relevant information that would let me do any math at all to tell you what the confidence interval would be nothing.
Un sportsman like. Insurrection is the classic example i cast it on you, you scoop. Is not stradegy. If it was you would of played around it. You are just a baby and prob. Have buddies at the table you want to d*** ride. Who wants to play longer when the game prob already went on for 2_3 hours. I rather shuffle and start a new game.
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
So you think the chances are 50/50 based on the information provided (i.e. your chances of being right are equivalent to a coin toss with the information you have been provided)? You think the poll on this site is not even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more useful than an anecdote when making a guess on the results of a mega study?
not exactly I have no population size no population mean your sample is not random i don't know the variance or standard deviation you literally have 0 relevant information that would let me do any math at all to tell you what the confidence interval would be nothing.
I asked 'with the information you have been provided', but fine. Our back and forth has gone on for a long time already. I can see you're just gonna continue to give noncommittal responses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
So you think the chances are 50/50 based on the information provided (i.e. your chances of being right are equivalent to a coin toss with the information you have been provided)? You think the poll on this site is not even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more useful than an anecdote when making a guess on the results of a mega study?
55-45 would support his position more than your own, and still be a majority. Any reasonable person would interpret supporting the poll to mean showing a similar result, not being 20 points off but on the same side of 50. You set up a ridiculous bet, so not taking isn't an argument for your position.
Also, if you use your logic re: combo, you should have played combo from the start, because it is less vulnerable to kinds of disruption and interaction you would regularly run into in the course of normal play. If you are OK with being able to be disrupted by kill spells, sweepers, blockers, and a host of other things that disrupt combat damage based strategies, but an easily avoided corner case that only has a major impact if you let it has you going from combat based strategies to only combo, you are irrational, either because you should have been playing combo in the first place and we're forcing a suboptimal strategy (which based on competitive lists is true), or you let something incredibly minor force a major change in strategy based on emotion. Given you are suggesting some pretty goofy rules, I'm going with emotion. Btw, conceding while nowhere near lethal isn't "spite scooping", it's not wanting to play anymore. I used to agree with the posters that said "you can't force someone to play" was a lame argument, because no sane person would hold someone hostage to a game of magic, but then you went and suggested it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So say we're playing at my place. An opponent moves to combat, I tell them "if you attack me, I'm just gonna kick you guys out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. That's totally cool right? Just using politics to add an extra layer of depth and strategy right? Give them something to think about before they go swinging, maybe they'll be less inclined to attack me if it can cut their night of cards short?
So say we're playing at my place. An opponent moves to combat, I tell them "if you attack me, I'm just gonna kick you guys out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. That's totally cool right? Just using politics to add an extra layer of depth and strategy right? Give them something to think about before they go swinging, maybe they'll be less inclined to attack me if it can cut their night of cards short?
Now THATS how you do a fallacy. It's like comparing doom blading a creature that attacks you with focusing all your effort on anyone who hits you with anything.
What makes reductio ad absurdum a stupid argument is that most normal magic behavior when taken to an extreme is childish. Of course, quitting when your about to lose to deny a small benefit is comparable to shutting down the game, but I can see how a person would frame it that way if they realize they have no argument. Hey, you know what's closer to what you described? Arbitrary house rules, which OP suggested.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So say we're playing at my place. An opponent moves to combat, I tell them "if you attack me, I'm just gonna kick you guys out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. That's totally cool right? Just using politics to add an extra layer of depth and strategy right? Give them something to think about before they go swinging, maybe they'll be less inclined to attack me if it can cut their night of cards short?
So say we're playing at my place. I move to combat and i tell my opponent "if you scoop my sword of fire and ice trigger im going to kick you out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. that's totally cool right? Just using politics to make people play the game the way i want it to be right? Give them something to think about before they go scooping, Maybe they will be less inclined to scoop if i can cut their night of cards short?
The way I see it, Medomai's controller made a choice to swing for lethal...he's the king of the table atm and the rest of the table doesn't have an answer right then.
But there is still the option of conceding on the spot to give the rest of the table a chance, why not take it? It's in the rules on modo, well at least the mechanic to disallow the player damage triggers.
So say we're playing at my place. An opponent moves to combat, I tell them "if you attack me, I'm just gonna kick you guys out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. That's totally cool right? Just using politics to add an extra layer of depth and strategy right? Give them something to think about before they go swinging, maybe they'll be less inclined to attack me if it can cut their night of cards short?
So say we're playing at my place. I move to combat and i tell my opponent "if you scoop my sword of fire and ice trigger im going to kick you out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. that's totally cool right? Just using politics to make people play the game the way i want it to be right? Give them something to think about before they go scooping, Maybe they will be less inclined to scoop if i can cut their night of cards short?
You're not very clever, huh? The point of that statement was to demonstrate that a spiteful course of action outside of the scope of the game is not a good thing. Don't you think that maybe a person that is against the concept of spite scooping would avoid performing a comparable action?
I don't think scooping is spiteful in the first place. Its just part of the game. To answer your question based off how you handle playing with people of differing opinions not only do i think the actions are not comparable in the first place but what you do is what is truly spiteful and very comparable.
So say we're playing at my place. An opponent moves to combat, I tell them "if you attack me, I'm just gonna kick you guys out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. That's totally cool right? Just using politics to add an extra layer of depth and strategy right? Give them something to think about before they go swinging, maybe they'll be less inclined to attack me if it can cut their night of cards short?
So say we're playing at my place. I move to combat and i tell my opponent "if you scoop my sword of fire and ice trigger im going to kick you out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. that's totally cool right? Just using politics to make people play the game the way i want it to be right? Give them something to think about before they go scooping, Maybe they will be less inclined to scoop if i can cut their night of cards short?
You're not very clever, huh? The point of that statement was to demonstrate that a spiteful course of action outside of the scope of the game is not a good thing. Don't you think that maybe a person that is against the concept of spite scooping would avoid performing a comparable action?
There comes a point when stretching the metaphor becomes ridiculous, and the originally quoted individual well passed that. You're absolutely running under the perception that scooping isn't part of the game, something clearly under contention, and you won' gain any ground with that comparison.
There comes a point when stretching the metaphor becomes ridiculous, and the originally quoted individual well passed that. You're absolutely running under the perception that scooping isn't part of the game, something clearly under contention, and you won' gain any ground with that comparison.
While I agree the metaphor itself is ridiculous, the essence of what the person in question is trying to say holds true: by scooping, or threatening to scoop, you're actively bringing outside influences into the game. Obviously Wizards made rules for what happens if someone scoops since you cannot force someone to keep playing if they don't want to, but these rules are not intended to be used actively. It's comparable to a force majeure clause in commercial contracts: both parties acknowledge that something outside of their influence can affect their dealings (game) and that in such a case the other parties are not entitled to any compensation. However, the same contracts often include penalties for willingly breaking the contract, since if you enter into it, you're supposed to uphold your end of the bargain (playing the game) even if it doesn't quite work out as well as you would have liked.
There comes a point when stretching the metaphor becomes ridiculous, and the originally quoted individual well passed that. You're absolutely running under the perception that scooping isn't part of the game, something clearly under contention, and you won' gain any ground with that comparison.
While I agree the metaphor itself is ridiculous, the essence of what the person in question is trying to say holds true: by scooping, or threatening to scoop, you're actively bringing outside influences into the game. Obviously Wizards made rules for what happens if someone scoops since you cannot force someone to keep playing if they don't want to, but these rules are not intended to be used actively. It's comparable to a force majeure clause in commercial contracts: both parties acknowledge that something outside of their influence can affect their dealings (game) and that in such a case the other parties are not entitled to any compensation. However, the same contracts often include penalties for willingly breaking the contract, since if you enter into it, you're supposed to uphold your end of the bargain (playing the game) even if it doesn't quite work out as well as you would have liked.
Much more interesting comparison, solid way to save the argument. The issue here remains, however, that the contract itself comes before (and typically above) the transactions. The game, in our metaphor, becomes the transactions that follow the contract. It may not play out the way we want it to, true, but that contract is behind us and has established how we are supposed to behave.
In magic, however, our contract is social, and between multiple uniquely opposed parties. Attempting to staple the concept of "the game" as in some way binding becomes equally ridiculous because the etiquette of the game is established before the game even starts; in the social contract. My groups primary clause in our social contract is to keep the majority possible happy and in the game; therefore, tactical scooping is approved of.
If part of our social contract was that the hosting player could kick us out when he gets salty, we wouldn't have ever entered the agreement to begin with. It's up to groups to police themselves in this way.
If you "sometimes" spite scoop, then yes, you spite scoop.
That is too broad. If the person who was denied was not hurt, annoyed or offended, then it matters less to me. Also, one player may concede before the player's turn of someone who stole their creature and that could be denying them a win, but that does not matter to me. Same with someone conceding after a bribery resolved. Actually I would probably be ok with someone conceding to a bribery target, so I guess I'm ok with some instant scooping. I just think insta-scooping is where most of the problems arise.
I realize this thing is very difficult to put into words. I doubt even what I wrote earlier exactly covers everything while not covering too much. I guess this suggests house or store rules are the way to go. People really just know it when they see it and I really don't have a problem with a group of people who enjoy spite scooping playing that way.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Im saying your poll here has 0 relevance to anyone who did not take it. If any person who did not take this poll came up and we had to take make a bet whether not they say yes or no to any question the odds are completely unknown not 50/50. Since your poll is not a sample of a larger population they cannot predict anything outside of this population. The difference in your example is you have all the data so the results are relevant. if you had used a sampling method that works you could at least be fairly certain its representative of a large population. The method used in this thread is worthless at predicting anything for anyone outside of the population so the results are irrelevant if i want to draw a conclusion for anyone who did not choose to take your poll.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
No, it would not incentivize a rational player to play combo. That's why I was attacking your statement as irrational, aka drastic or histrionic. A rational player would slightly adapt their gameplay and continue to play what they want, because tactical scooping only hurts you if you walk into the obvious, typically advertised trap. It's an emotional, rather than rational, reaction.
Also, you appealed to the poll to prove your point. Polls on the site are fun exercises, and every bit as useless for proving points as anecdotes.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So you wouldn't take the bet?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Why would it not incentivize a rational player to play combo? If one wants to win and has two options to do so: (1) Utilize a method that does not allow for the possibility of 'walking into the obvious' or (2) Utilize a method that does allow for the possibility of 'walking into the obvious' (I also disagree it is always obvious, some players may not even be at risk of lethal, but may spite scoop either way). Why not go with option (1)?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
"Here, let me explain myself a different way. Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind agrees with the results of the poll here. Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
What part do you need clarification on?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
this part are you saying if the number is anything other than 72.4 I win? so if its 68.6 do I win the 20$?
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Oh, definitely not. That would be 'exactly', I said 'agrees', but I guess that could mean 'exactly' in some situations. So let me clarify.
Let's imagine someone did a study where they polled every single multiplayer mtg player in existence and they had an assistant who did not know the game ask them "Do you personally spite scoop?". Then they compiled the results. Next, we are sitting together about to make a bet on the results when one random mtg player approaches and says they spite scoop and everyone they play with spite scoops. This was an anecdote. We also both look at the results of the poll to that question here where 72.4% of respondents admit they do not spite scoop. I bet you $20 the results of the mega-poll performed blind concludes a majority of people admit they do not spite scoop (i.e. agrees with the results of the poll here). Would you take that bet? Do you think the chances are 50/50?"
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
No I would not take the bet I have no relevant information.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
So you think the chances are 50/50 based on the information provided (i.e. your chances of being right are equivalent to a coin toss with the information you have been provided)? You think the poll on this site is not even .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more useful than an anecdote when making a guess on the results of a mega study?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
I asked 'with the information you have been provided', but fine. Our back and forth has gone on for a long time already. I can see you're just gonna continue to give noncommittal responses.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
55-45 would support his position more than your own, and still be a majority. Any reasonable person would interpret supporting the poll to mean showing a similar result, not being 20 points off but on the same side of 50. You set up a ridiculous bet, so not taking isn't an argument for your position.
Also, if you use your logic re: combo, you should have played combo from the start, because it is less vulnerable to kinds of disruption and interaction you would regularly run into in the course of normal play. If you are OK with being able to be disrupted by kill spells, sweepers, blockers, and a host of other things that disrupt combat damage based strategies, but an easily avoided corner case that only has a major impact if you let it has you going from combat based strategies to only combo, you are irrational, either because you should have been playing combo in the first place and we're forcing a suboptimal strategy (which based on competitive lists is true), or you let something incredibly minor force a major change in strategy based on emotion. Given you are suggesting some pretty goofy rules, I'm going with emotion. Btw, conceding while nowhere near lethal isn't "spite scooping", it's not wanting to play anymore. I used to agree with the posters that said "you can't force someone to play" was a lame argument, because no sane person would hold someone hostage to a game of magic, but then you went and suggested it.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Now THATS how you do a fallacy. It's like comparing doom blading a creature that attacks you with focusing all your effort on anyone who hits you with anything.
What makes reductio ad absurdum a stupid argument is that most normal magic behavior when taken to an extreme is childish. Of course, quitting when your about to lose to deny a small benefit is comparable to shutting down the game, but I can see how a person would frame it that way if they realize they have no argument. Hey, you know what's closer to what you described? Arbitrary house rules, which OP suggested.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
So say we're playing at my place. I move to combat and i tell my opponent "if you scoop my sword of fire and ice trigger im going to kick you out and you have to find somewhere else to play at 1 in the morning" or some such. that's totally cool right? Just using politics to make people play the game the way i want it to be right? Give them something to think about before they go scooping, Maybe they will be less inclined to scoop if i can cut their night of cards short?
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Some dude at the table swings for lethal at a player, with a double striking Medomai the Ageless equipped with Sword of Feast and Famine....
The way I see it, Medomai's controller made a choice to swing for lethal...he's the king of the table atm and the rest of the table doesn't have an answer right then.
But there is still the option of conceding on the spot to give the rest of the table a chance, why not take it? It's in the rules on modo, well at least the mechanic to disallow the player damage triggers.
You're not very clever, huh? The point of that statement was to demonstrate that a spiteful course of action outside of the scope of the game is not a good thing. Don't you think that maybe a person that is against the concept of spite scooping would avoid performing a comparable action?
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
There comes a point when stretching the metaphor becomes ridiculous, and the originally quoted individual well passed that. You're absolutely running under the perception that scooping isn't part of the game, something clearly under contention, and you won' gain any ground with that comparison.
While I agree the metaphor itself is ridiculous, the essence of what the person in question is trying to say holds true: by scooping, or threatening to scoop, you're actively bringing outside influences into the game. Obviously Wizards made rules for what happens if someone scoops since you cannot force someone to keep playing if they don't want to, but these rules are not intended to be used actively. It's comparable to a force majeure clause in commercial contracts: both parties acknowledge that something outside of their influence can affect their dealings (game) and that in such a case the other parties are not entitled to any compensation. However, the same contracts often include penalties for willingly breaking the contract, since if you enter into it, you're supposed to uphold your end of the bargain (playing the game) even if it doesn't quite work out as well as you would have liked.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Much more interesting comparison, solid way to save the argument. The issue here remains, however, that the contract itself comes before (and typically above) the transactions. The game, in our metaphor, becomes the transactions that follow the contract. It may not play out the way we want it to, true, but that contract is behind us and has established how we are supposed to behave.
In magic, however, our contract is social, and between multiple uniquely opposed parties. Attempting to staple the concept of "the game" as in some way binding becomes equally ridiculous because the etiquette of the game is established before the game even starts; in the social contract. My groups primary clause in our social contract is to keep the majority possible happy and in the game; therefore, tactical scooping is approved of.
If part of our social contract was that the hosting player could kick us out when he gets salty, we wouldn't have ever entered the agreement to begin with. It's up to groups to police themselves in this way.