This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568479
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:09 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:59 pm So maybe the best resolution of this exercise ...*also* to remove some of the identified glossary text
No.
Ok, to use your playbook... why not? Help me understand.

Also, I edited my post to say "edit/update/remove"

How about instead of psychoanalyzing me you actually address the arguments I'm making, because at this point I'm starting to question what *your* motivations are in holding me out as some sort of ignoramus egotistical problem child.

I find your one word answer to my fairly lengthy and thorough post to be pretty lame. If I'm wrong, show me where. Everything you've pointed to so far is based on what I believe to be an ambiguous - at best - premise. So if you want to convince me, show me why my argument is flawed or wrong beyond any ambiguity.

I'm all ears.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568480
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:16 pm
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:09 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:59 pm So maybe the best resolution of this exercise ...*also* to remove some of the identified glossary text
No.
you actually address the arguments I'm making
We did very often Armus, we did. I do less and less want to convince you. I more and more respond to train social skills to no longer care in the sense to no more be triggered emotionally. I put you off my banlist and feel more and more relaxed. I like free practises.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568481
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:24 pm
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:16 pm
ShipNerd wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:09 pm
No.
you actually address the arguments I'm making
We did very often Armus, we did. I do less and less want to convince you. I more and more respond to train social skills to no longer care in the sense to no more be triggered emotionally. I put you off my banlist and feel more and more relaxed. I like free practises.
At no point have you addressed my core argument. If you did, please link to the specific post.
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568482
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:27 pm please link to the specific post.
No. You are free to be as unconvinced as you like. And you are also free to think about me whatever you like. I love myselve.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#568492
Takket wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:07 pm Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery (must be >0) is killed (opponent's choice). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.
If we're going with A (where you can tie for none), then Alice and it's kin have the appropriate templating.

If we're going with B (where we use the same logic we use everywhere else - you can't be targeted for having something if you don't actually have it), then that's just a ruling change/clarification.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#568493
AllenGould wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:40 pm
Takket wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:07 pm Personnel with highest CUNNING OR most Treachery (must be >0) is killed (opponent's choice). To get past requires Law and Archaeology OR Exobiology and 2 Leadership OR a President.
If we're going with A (where you can tie for none), then Alice and it's kin have the appropriate templating.

If we're going with B (where we use the same logic we use everywhere else - you can't be targeted for having something if you don't actually have it), then that's just a ruling change/clarification.
You have your letters reversed. A is you can't be targeted for having the most Treachery if you don't actually have Treachery. B is you can tie on Zero for most Treachery and get a de facto opponent's choice kill.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#568495
Armus wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:43 pm You have your letters reversed. A is you can't be targeted for having the most Treachery if you don't actually have Treachery. B is you can tie on Zero for most Treachery and get a de facto opponent's choice kill.
Fair.

Point being: Alice and other cards already have specific text that say what happens if there's no hit. So if that text isn't there, either (c) the card has to do something different - probably how it works for all the other cards; or (q) we're saying the text on Alice and those other cards are superfluous, because if you took those words away the card would work exactly the same way.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#568496
There's nothing wrong with having superfluous text if it avoids lengthy rules disagreements.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#568499
nobthehobbit wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:59 pm There's nothing wrong with having superfluous text if it avoids lengthy rules disagreements.
I disagree, because:

1. Extra clauses are usually read to imply that this is a change or exception to the normal rules. We don't put "(even if playing Fed)" on point loss cards, because Feds don't have special rules about bonus points. We *do* put "(even if playing Borg)" because we're making an exception.

2. Players tend to assume (fairly, IMO) that if two cards say things differently, it's because they do different things. We teach players that "lose 10 points" and "lose 10 points (even if playing Borg)" mean different things. So when the clause is missing, players would be forgiven for not knowing that a clause is just filling space.

(I am surprised that more people don't look at Alice and other comparable cards and assume it can't work the same way because it doesn't have the usual text. But I guess I shouldn't underestimate player's desire for cards to be more powerful than they are. ;) )
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#568503
AllenGould wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 7:27 pm
nobthehobbit wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:59 pm There's nothing wrong with having superfluous text if it avoids lengthy rules disagreements.
I disagree, because:

1. Extra clauses are usually read to imply that this is a change or exception to the normal rules. We don't put "(even if playing Fed)" on point loss cards, because Feds don't have special rules about bonus points. We *do* put "(even if playing Borg)" because we're making an exception.

2. Players tend to assume (fairly, IMO) that if two cards say things differently, it's because they do different things. We teach players that "lose 10 points" and "lose 10 points (even if playing Borg)" mean different things. So when the clause is missing, players would be forgiven for not knowing that a clause is just filling space.

(I am surprised that more people don't look at Alice and other comparable cards and assume it can't work the same way because it doesn't have the usual text. But I guess I shouldn't underestimate player's desire for cards to be more powerful than they are. ;) )
yeah here is the thing about Alice... and this is just my opinion. We're playing Misinterpreted History like it is B, which basically means it has a clause like Alice (Opponent's Choice if Tie or None). So if we are going to clarify MH, and we want it to work like B, we should add the same clause Alice has. That's fine, but we're painted into a corner on that because it won't fit on the card.

Also I think MH is too powerful with B. Alice has a "discard dilemma" so it won't keep picking people off as "opponents choice" if you have no Navigation and the requirements are easier to begin with.

So I suggested the clause that treachery has to be >0 (or you just pick off most cunning) since it sort of kills two birds with one stone.... it weakens MH while at the same time negates the "fix" of making it work like an established card (Alice) by copying its established clause, which isn't really an option because it just doesn't fit on the card.

This also, I hope, means no glossary addition is needed, since we're trying to avoid adding. Especially since said entry is going to have this weird quirk of "Here's what you are supposed to do if a card asks for the most of something, but please ignore the fact that I just made pointless superfluous text on Alice by adding this glossary entry." That's if you want B functionality.

If you want A functionality you have this almost as weird entry of "When asked for the most of a skill only cards with at least 1 of that skill are valid targets. If there is none, the card asking you to target the skills has no valid target, unless the card (e.g. Alice or Gorn Encounter) specifically tells you what to do if there is none." That whole entry is basically just for MH so maybe you ask "why not just have an entry for MH?" and I would think the answer would be "because we might want to use the same text on a card in the future and want to be covered for all time."
User avatar
 
By ShipNerd
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#568520
nobthehobbit wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:59 pm There's nothing wrong with having superfluous text if it avoids lengthy rules disagreements.
If. Doesn´t the design would need to know it in advanced then, which cards create rule discussions and wich not? And is that really possible with card space being limited?

There is nothing wrong having the competent rules department explaining/clearifing the rules, e.g like Takket suggest in the Dilemma Guide like Gorn Encounter, because apparently not everyone is having the same consent otherwise to play by the same rules.

Idealy talk internally with desing/playtest/rules that everyone tells their interpretation to see if there is consent or not. So its solved earlier, non-public. Talking to each other is useful before making a judgement.

Because both sides have always right to have different subjective opinions in democraties and stick to them, unaffected by Nob. I think its important and allowed to point out why once opinion is more competent then others, to the rest of the group/community though. What happens if people discuss it, without coming to the point that the otherone is allowed to be unconvinced. is seen here in the lengthy rules disagreement. I allow myselve to be unconvinced by armus too.

This is why I give armus the right to be as unconvinced as he likes and me to stop discussing with him after many pages, as I there is everything right with me to be as unconvinced as I like, too. Because i am frustrated that IMO discussions where on or both sides do not want to be convinced is pointless and ending with: Okay we agree to disagree is a solution i suggest. I am ok with armus to not share my point of view, as i expressed with: "you may be as unconvinced as you like". Also after I put (past tense, when I wrote it, as the moderators did not like to end the loop) him on my personal ban list, as a temporary solution. I decided to read his posts afterwards anyway. Because JeBus and others tried to see his point of view, which works sometimes to come to a consent. Did it help to end the discussion? or was allowing him the "you may be as unconvinced as you like" be the solution, for at least me and his endless loop? I say yes. Because the reason I am frustrated is that I like constructive discussions or ending them more, then lengthy rule discussions. So I am frustrated for the same reason as NobtheHobbit. We just have different solution suggestions. And I think being frustrated is ok, as well as having different solution suggestions. I am for not having Armus banned, I said I like the training and demonstrated it. I temporary put him on MY ban list (and read only when I want). and not read stuff as an alternative to Nob not wanting to call it a "we agree to disagree, end the loop". If I didn´t wrote the sentence correctly, I point out that germans have a language barrier to non-native English. I also do like being a community where mods do not call people jerks in public or private messages, as i already pointed out to Charlie and NobtheHobbit earlier.

I would like communities where positive behavior is enforced too. Where moderators see both sides. Try reconciliation, or accept both sides sticking to their opinion. Or seek mediation before judgment. Or admit fault in themselves too. Or have CoC, that is less subjective "not be a jerk", like "you may positively and negatively attribute the behavior of others but not calling them negative names as a person". or "don´t use s**ual language, as its a tabu for American culture" that way @VulcanHello would know exactly in advanced which culturally tabus to avoid. I know already that Americans are sensitive to that topic, so I avoided it. "or don´t use XYZ because of "german culture" to also welcome germans here. or more positive: instead of "don´t be..." "be respectfully by using praise (which I did by the way to armus)" or "listen to others (which I tried to armus at a point). or focus on making your point constructively (which I did). And if after X-pages there is no consent: Offer that both disagree and end the discussion (which is basically what I suggested to the authroity/mod by describing the infinity loop)". Or you are free to call the mods and suggest something to them without the risc of being blamed for that. Or: Do not assume you know the intend of other people´s words, know words are subjective and even in the same language in voice chat people talk past each other. Use I language, instead of implying what others meant. Or be paragons in respect themselves, as Mods, because IMO teaching/educating others does not work, others tend to mimic the behaviour that authority live. I did not call anyone a jerk here, though. I stick to I messages and my believes in this post here. I also would consider it better if FYI has a possibility to put in the other points of view. After all if people want to feel welcome giving them a chance to publicly show their point of view if moderators make theirs public. I respect those behaviors more. I also do not feel save, to have to post in a foreign language and have the safety to be understood correctly. Its important to me to be the authority for at least MY words.

Maybe i found my own community then, to have all that. I at least will raise my suggestions for those stuff, see above. :)
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation