Tournament rules regarding different backs on cards.

Kushiel wrote:

Xaddam wrote:

To make this totally clear, so you don't misunderstand again, I don't think anyone is cheating. I don't think anyone is not cheating. It's a non-topic. Let's talk about whether or not the rule is functional.

The point of the rule is to prevent cheating. Talking about whether or not it's funtional requires talking about whether or not people are cheating.

No. The point of rules is to define cheating.
The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating.
The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating.

Do you see the problem here?

Xaddam wrote:

3) You think the rules should make it as hard as reasonably possible to gain an unfair advantage. The current rules can reasonably be changed to make it harder to gain an unfair advantage.

If you think that the current rule isn't strict enough to prevent unfair advantage, which obviously you do because that's been your argument all along, you must think that the rule is being abused to create unfair advantage.

If you didn't think that the rule wasn't strict enough to prevent unfair advantage, there'd be no reason to change the rule.

There's no middle ground between the two, because the only two positions here are "change the rule" or "don't change the rule." There's no way to halfway change the rule.

henrik wrote:

No. The point of rules is to define cheating.

Good point.

henrik wrote:

The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating.
The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating.

Do you see the problem here?

I can see how you think it's a problem. It's clearly not the a priori problem that you think it is, since we don't all agree that it's a problem, and haven't done so for years and years.

I understand that, yes, you are unable to comprehend how it's not a given that not sleeving decks could fail to be problematic. But that failure to comprehend doesn't make you automatically correct.

Kushiel wrote:

henrik wrote:

No. The point of rules is to define cheating.

Good point.

\o/

Kushiel wrote:

henrik wrote:

The rules currently defines using differently backed cards as not cheating.
The rules currently defines using differently coloured sleevs as cheating.

Do you see the problem here?

I can see how you think it's a problem. It's clearly not the a priori problem that you think it is, since we don't all agree that it's a problem, and haven't done so for years and years.

So you don't think that it's a problem that the rules creates different environments for players depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks?
That the rules allows for an advantage (be it minor or not) to some players, depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks?

Kushiel wrote:

I understand that, yes, you are unable to comprehend how it's not a given that not sleeving decks could fail to be problematic. But that failure to comprehend doesn't make you automatically correct.

The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater.

henrik wrote:

Kushiel wrote:

Good point.

\o/

heh

henrik wrote:

So you don't think that it's a problem that the rules creates different environments for players depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks?
That the rules allows for an advantage (be it minor or not) to some players, depending on whether or not they sleeve their decks?

This is the wall we keep bumping into.

You're assuming that "mixed backs" = "advantage."

I don't make that assumption. I agree that it's potentially true, but not that it's automatically true.

The condition for that to be true is deliberate cheating on the part of the person building a deck such that they're using mixed backs to create an unfair advantage, such as the "all my Freak Drives are Jyhad cards and all my Jyhad cards are Freak Drives" situation from upthread.

But, as I mentioned above, that behavior is easier to catch than someone who's cheating by using marked sleeves, and doesn't impinge upon others' desire to not use sleeves if they don't want to (as well as my own). And since the current rule already defines that behavior as cheating, we already have a rule in place to prevent it. So adding a rule that decks must be sleeved is adding a rule that doesn't functionally do anything since what it's meant to prevent is already prevented by the current rule. Incidentally, that new rule would actually make me violate another rule, that of deck randomization, since I can't sufficiently randomize a sleeved deck. Admittedly, that's a side concern to what we're talking about here, but I think it's an example of a nontrivial knock-on effect that would occur as a result of chaning a rule that already accomplishes its given purpose.

henrik wrote:

The problem could also be solved be allowing differently coloured sleeves, though. But when I asked about that, Pascal said it wasn't allowed and KevinM called me out as a cheater.

And Pascal explained why that's the case - one is the fault of the publishers of the game, but the other is due to deliberate intention on the part of a particular player. I know that you and Xaddam keep saying that you don't care about player intentionality, but that doesn't mean that player intentionality doesn't matter.

I missed Kevin doing that, but I'm guessing he was using hyperbole to make the point that you're calling non-sleevers out as cheaters for the logical reasons I outlined above. I dunno, I can't always figure out where he's coming from.

Kushiel wrote:

The onus on you is not to prove whether or not different cardbacks give out information to people. I haven't seen anyone here argue that they don't. The onus on you is to prove that said information grants an unfair advantage which the rule on mixing sets doesn't prevent.

That's a fair point. I think the biggest point is that the rules intent is to prohibit a significant advantage (and implicitly not to prohibit an insignificant advantage).

First off the term significant is very vague. Is significant "changing the results of a game of VTES with differently backed cards", "changing the results of 1% of all games of VTES with differently backed cards", "changing the results of 51% of all games of VTES with differently backed cards", is it "changing the results of all games of VTES with differently backed cards". What was the definition used when deciding to accept Jyhad backed cards?

Secondly, can any advantage be insignificant? Some games hinges on the smallest of circumstances. If insignificant means 0% advantage then the rule is not functional because there are instances where this could matter, in a game-changing way. Then the intent is not followed.

Thirdly, if it's reasonably possible to have a 0% difference in advantage between players with jyhad and vtes backed cards mixed and players who only use one of these sets, is it not unfair to accept a 1% advantage in one party's favour?

Fourthly, no matter the definition of the word significant, the same advantage that can be gained with using Jyhad backed cards as with marking cards. Yet, marking cards or sleeves is not allowed, not even in "sufficiently mixed" proportions. In this the rules are inconsistent. This might be a smaller problem, but it's still a problem.

My conclusion is that in order to eliminate as much of an advantage (significant or otherwise) as possible the only solution is to enforce sleeves if you mix Jyhad and VTES cards. Now, you might think this is unreasonable, because it's cumbersome or expensive. It's up to VEKN to weigh the benefit of a leveled playing field between all players (at least in this matter) and the discomfort of a part of the player base.

I do, obviously, value fairness over comfort in competition.