Re: [eia] dice re-roll policy

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>  To me, what you guys are saying is that people
> can cheat.  I'm not saying there was any maliciousness in the orders this
> turn, it's just the concept of rewriting your orders and not rerolling
> seems like cheating to me.  We are that far apart on this.
>          The only resolution to the argument I can see is that orders
don't
> get rewritten once you start resolving them.
>

    Mike, you've been very honest in your appraisal of how our judgments
seem to you.  (You think we are cheaters.)  I'll be equally honest in
appraising how your judgments seem to me: you are being completely
unreasonable.  (I tried to extricate myself from this discussion, but being
called a cheater was just enough to keep me engaged.)
    Your principle is that no one should benefit from their own mistake.  We
are all in complete agreement with you on that.  That's why I proposed a
principle whereby a person would have to re-roll combat rolls if the
mistake-maker has derived any actual advantage from not doing so.  If no
advantage can be identified, what possible reason could there be to force a
re-roll?  And more to the point of your accusation, how can one be said to
have cheated if one has not benefitted in any way?  (If we are cheaters, we
must be pretty lousy ones...)
    We also all agree with you that fore-knowledge of the combat rolls is
rife with the *potential* for advantage-taking.  That's why we insist on
looking closely at the revised orders to ensure that no advantage was
*actually* gained by the mistake-maker.  Apparently, in your mind, the
*potential* for taking advantage of a situation is the same as *actually*
taking advantage of a situation.  I think that if you tried a little harder
to distinguish these two things, you'd see our point.
    Let me try to explain my point in a different way.  This game is built
on trust.  We all trust each other not to cheat when we purchase troops,
when we place them on the map, and when we keep tracks of the identities and
strengths of corps.  With all the private decisions that get made and
actions that are taken, this game is rife with the *potential* for abuse.
But we all trust one another enough to assume that no *actual* advantage
will be taken in any of these situations.  How is it, Mike, that you are
able to trust your fellow players to not cheat when no one is looking over
their shoulder, but you think it is impossible for your fellow players to
make a move right in front of your eyes without cheating (i.e., taking
illicit advantage of a situation)?

    However, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter at all what I think
about Mike's position.  It is his prerogative to maintain it, whether I
think it is reasonable or not.  As I stated in a previous email, since
consensus is clearly impossible on this matter, THE DEFAULT POSITION FROM
NOW ON SHOULD BE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAYER GETS HIS OWN VETO REGARDING
WHETHER HIS OPPONENT SHOULD RE-ROLL WHEN THE OPPONENT HAS MADE A MISTAKE.
(I assume that Mike's "resolution" above was suggested mostly for rhetorical
effect.  In any case, I don't think it is a viable solution.)  From this
point forward, those rolling against Mike are fairly warned that he will
expect them to re-roll if they make a mistake.  (My personal recommendation
to those players is that they get his consent before rolling any dice which
might affect him, but that is for each player to decide for himself.)  This
individualized policy guarantees that Mike will never again face a situation
where he feels he is being cheated, while the rest of us can continue giving
people a break when we think it is warranted.

kdh

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia