Hero Academy Tourney Round 3

Hmm, it doesn't say there what the blue disks do.

 

I would just say "moderately paced" rather than "casual paced". I'm not playing more casually because I'm taking more time to consider my moves. People play correspondence chess, it's not more casual because they take time to think about their moves. If anything, I would say that, "Take a 2 minute break between meetings and move in all of your games," is a more casual style of play.

It seemed clear to me, right from the beginning, that "average at least one move per day" meant that games (25-30 moves per player) might take up to a couple of weeks. I don't have anything against people who want to play much faster, that's just not what I signed up for.

Sounds OK to me.

Sure, I wasn't questioning the information, I was just saying that it's not immediately accessible to someone who doesn't want to read through all of the RE forum threads. It would be nice to have all of the information in one place. But RE doesn't really seem to have that style.

 

I like Drvumad too. He's been really helpful on the forums, and really enjoyable to communicate with. That is why this whole thing surprises me.

Why in the first place give an either/or that either we speed through round 3 or we wait until the update because he can't withhold from updating, and then in the second place say that he would assent to ArtNJ's decision, to only then quit when things are decided against his preference?

I was originally willing to go along with things against my preferences and against my suggestions, only because it seems like the decision to start right away was the group's decision. When the group's decision was later made clear (and it thus seemed that based on certain constraints and certain preferences, it would be best to wait), I don't understand the difficulty in assenting to it.

 

I've also appreciated his forum contributions before this blow-up. (Although I did disagree with one suggestion of his on the HE forums, I didn't mind him making it.) And the game I played earlier with him, was fine.

 

Whatever decision you take, I'm ok with it. Don't understand why he went out though.

 

Hey guys, just putting on a peacemaker hat here for a second.

Please don't try to make things seem like Drv was/is being unreasonable, when earlier in this very same thread it was DaviddesJ who was quitting, then refusing to play his games vs Drv over this exact same argument.

DaveddesJ wasn't interested in playing under "Set of constraints X" while Drv wasn't interested in playing under "Set of constraints Y". Things got personal. "Y" won, so Drv's decided to spend his time otherwise. No need to beat on the dead horse.

There is also no need for "I like(d) the guy so I don't understand"-type comments. If things had fallen a different way, these exact same posts would have a different subject, and they wouldn't seem any nicer to that person, even if they are likely meant to be interpreted in a nice way.

Please just understand that this got out of hand, and let it be over, for better or worse. The nice thing about a 'majority wins' type ruling is that the majority is happy with it. However, a different mix of people would have ended up with a different decision, which might have negatively affected any one of you. Respecting Drv's decision is the only polite thing left to do.

The final three are agreed upon what the rules they will play with are, so all that is left now is for the games to be played.

 

Actually, this is not at all the case. First of all, Round 3 got started without the consent of two of four of the final four contestants, all because Drv was dictating that we get underway asap and that we finish Round 3 (and he said, perhaps also even Round 4!) in the remaining time until the update.

The most important point is that: Daviddesj was going to quit because of an inability to play at such a rapid pace, a pace that wasn't the agreed upon pace from the beginning of the tournament. Which is completely justified. If he can only play longer games, and we were about to rush through Round 3, then he would be unable to devote the needed time to Round 3; alas he would be forced to quit. This is not a choice.

Now, nowhere was Drv forced to quit. In fact, he agreed to do whatever ArtNJ decided. Drv was even given the opportunity to play Round 3 under the current version of the game, just as long as we all agreed not to update but instead finish our games (and Drv refused to agree to this). That he refused to agree to this was perfectly fine. But because he didn't agree to this, ArtNJ had to lean on the side of waiting until the patch landed. Upon ArtNJ making this decision, despite agreeing to do whatever ArtNJ decided, and despite in no way being forced not to play, Drv quit.

So you see? Under "Set of constraints X" Daviddesj was unable to play, and his saying that he has to drop out of the tournament merely reflects that inability. However, under "Set of constraints Y" everyone is able to play (including Drv), but nevertheless Drv quits.

Thus, it wasn't a case of merely conflicting preferences, as you explain it, but in an inability for Daviddesj to play under certain constraints, constraints which went against the agreed upon rules of the tournament, constraints which were forced due to Drv's insistence that we get Round 3 finished in a week.


This didn't have to look like a majority decision. It may have ultimately ended up appearing like a majority decision, but I'm sure ArtNJ would've defended the minority if it had come to that. For example, Daviddesj could've been the only one who wanted to wait for the update, and ArtNJ would've sided with him because of the tournament rules (and secondarily, because a decision to start early would force Daviddesj out, while a decision to wait would allow everyone the option to play—any quitting at that point would be from their own choice).


Please don't take this personally, but your prima facie "objective" assessment of the contingency of the current state of affairs is false.

 

Oy vey, what a narrow point of view you insist on having. Have you even considered the alternate viewpoint? It doesn't come across in your post if you have. I've tried to stay as neutral as possible, but this just infuriates me.

Nobody was forced to enter or exit this friendly tournament, and to state anything of the sort is a farce. I understand that everyone's life situation is different, and I can sympathize with someone who politely requests for a longer deadline. I can also sympathize with someone who wants to get things over with. Apparently, I can't point out how siding with one of the parties and piling on against the other is not very nice without being accused of bias. Classy. Note: I never claimed to not have an opinion on the matter. I just try to keep it to myself. Accusing me of not being objective enough when I never stated anything of the sort is amusing. Well done. Prefacing it with "Please don't take it personally" helped. I feel totally discredited now.

I have not and made any personal attacks, nor will I be goaded into it. I had a much longer post written to explain how your accusations are unfounded and how far off-base all of this is, but I realize that it is better for my personal sanity to be the one to let bygones be bygones. I'll let you enjoy the finale of this tournament, but that doesn't make me a fan of posts that manipulate a situation to make one side of the discussion appear totally wrong, when that couldn't be any further from the truth.

EDIT: just for clarification, my previous post wasn't about accusing anyone of wrongdoing, it was meant to (over)simplify the situation, so that it could be left behind without further piling on. It was meant to prevent further posts making DrvUMad out as the "bad guy" by showing that the situation is not as simple as 1+1 =2. Evidently, this point was missed.

 

Look, I appreciate your intentions behind your post. They were good intentions.


But regarding the content of what you said, you construed both sides as acting similarly for similar reasons (threatening to quit because their "preferences" weren't met), but what you said overlooked a crucial point:

If a player requires a longer period of time in order to play in the tournament (and if the tournament rules protect this requirement), then that is what should be accommodated. Now, if that isn't accommodated, then the player simply can't play. How is this result not equivalent to being forced to exit the tournament?

However, if a different player prefers a shorter play time, but that preference can't be met, then it seems to be a choice that this player has left, considering it in no way impedes his participation (and sufficient alternatives were kindly offered).


The thing is, nothing is impeding Drv from returning to Round 3 under the current decision. However, had we gone with Drv's preference, Daviddesj would have been unable to play.

 

Once again: that is completely besides my point. I'm interested in what is civil and friendly, not finding right and wrong. This is not a court of law. I do not need to be convinced of how hard life is for others, and how unreasonable it is to ask that they play more than one turn per day. That was the rule as written and Art has applied it as such. I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I ask that you not try to make it seem like someone else must change their personal point of view to fall in line with yours. That just doesn't make sense, and is unfair.

Now, since you seem adamant about defending your point of view, please consider this scenario for a moment:

If you find that 'forcing' someone to play more than once per day is unreasonable for strategic reasons (ie: that player chooses to take time to carefully consider moves), it stands to reason that playing less than 5 turns per day could pose as much difficulty for someone else (ie: if I don't have the game's previous moves fresh in mind, my long-term strategy is much harder to keep straight/apply) In either case, the player who is forced out of their comfort zone might chose not to play in this fashion. This does not 'force' them out of the tournament (either could chose to play), but they might very well chose to leave on their own.

Now, I'm not saying this was Drv's line of thought (I'm not psychic), just that whatever his thought process is, it is unfair to dismiss it as unreasonable and to make him seem like the bad guy since he's the one who left last. There was just as much mud slung in each direction here. Nobody is walking out of this clean (except maybe Leiss, who wasn't part of the argument at all ).

 

I see what you're saying, and it is a good point. I'm going to add this because I find the discussion interesting, and because it brings out a few really interesting theoretical points.


This is a tricky point to contest, but I don't think that strategic reasons were the only sorts of reasons that were going on here:

For example, I could finish a whole game in a couple days, even while carefully considering each move, if I had nothing else to do. But there are time constraints. These are life constraints that, by default, take priority over the game. That means that these higher reasons constrain those of gameplay. For example, when I play this game, it occupies my thought for a while after, and so I have to restrict my gameplay, because I have decided to prioritize, e.g., schoolwork. As long as I willfully make my higher-level choice to prioritize my work, regulation of my gameplay will be forced (or else I haven't really made the decision to prioritize my schoolwork).

So in a sense I've chosen to limit my moves per day in the game, but in another sense I've been forced to limit by moves per day in the game by virtue of making the choice to prioritize work. I intuitively sided with the latter description, but would you really side with the former? (Drv tried to argue the former: that this was a mere choice, inviting comparison with how busy his life is despite the fact that he manages to play his games quickly.)


That was one point, this is the other, on which the true force of everything rests: neither these strategic reasons nor life reasons would have as much force as they do were it not for the fact that the rules of the tournament protect them, and this is what things ultimately weigh on, so our discussion can't lose emphasis on the importance of the tournament rules. Players joined the tournament under these rules.

I feel like your clarification through "strategic reasons" is useful and illuminating, but I also feel like it draws out the peculiarity of your emphasis. I feel like you are drawing emphasis to wrong thing. It is not that everything begins with these life and strategic reasons but rather that the force of these reasons derives from the tournament rules. Had the tournament rules stated that games had to be played quicker/finished in a shorter length of time, then players who require a greater length of time (due to either life and/or strategic reasons) would be thus disqualified. Their prudential reasons are not justified by the rules of the tournament.

Ultimately, justification derives from the rules of the tournament, and this overrides strategic/life reasons against them, and this gives normative force to strategic/life reasons that align with those rules. Obviously, these rules also override preferences.

 

I just popped in to see how round 3 was getting on, going well I see...

Narziss I had been wondering about time zones, as whenever I went to make a move it was hours since you had last played. Thanks for staying up at the end to finish the games.

If you have players like me and Narziss, who are in different time zones and are available to play at different times you might only be able to do 1 or 2 moves a day no matter how often you check for new moves. say I am playing for 12 hours a day, Narziss for the other 12, we can still only make one move a day. So unless you are going to specify what times people should be awake and not eating or working or otherwise busy, in some circumstances you won't get many moves a day.

Anyway, good luck for the third round all of you.

 

Sure. I have no problem with someone who prefers to play faster. Everyone can have their own preference. But I don't understand being told that I'm "over the top" and "completely unreasonable" for wanting to play at the pace we all agreed to when the tournament started, especially when I know there are lots of other people who prefer a similar pace. From my point of view, that's when things got out of hand.

 

Hey, I think you have misunderstood me. I didn't know what happened, and my poor english ( and the fact that I read all this posts excesively fast) did the rest. That's what I said xD

 

this discussion is still going strong i see.. what an huge wall of text..
but your drifting from a healthy discussion into a pointless philosophy blurb of "sein oder nicht sein" and how much of that "sein" you can or can't spend on making a move..

the rules are loose and most decisions where made on case by case base which is fine.. now sitting like a hen on loose terms regarding the "speed" of moves is pretty pointless.. if it where true most like to play slow we would be still in round 1, likely half finished.

this all was started as a friendly get together for ta community members to play some hero academy against each other.. and i think all this debate makes it look alot more serious than it actually is..

everyone is open to his opinion and if one wishes to leave he surely has its reason to.. no matter if you understand them or not.. everyone has his preferences and debating about them is pointless.. "über geschmack lässt sich nicht streiten"

finish the damn thing and lets see who comes out of all this mess

and most important.. have fun

 

No, even the slowest games took much less time than that. I finished all of my games in much less time than you're saying (and some of my opponents weren't all tat fast either). Again, the whole problem here, in my opinion, is that Drv signed up for a tournament with rounds of a couple of weeks, and then started complaining that a game should take two days and that a couple of weeks is over the top and completely unreasonable. Plus, he seemed to agree to a format where players would agree not to update until the games were finished, and then he changed his mind.

You can't make the case that a two week game is completely unreasonable by arguing that if everyone wanted to play two week games, a round would take two months. It doesn't really make sense.

 

of course the sentence was an exaggeration.. and not aimed at you personally.. we never played (or did we?) and i did not track your personal playing speed or whom you played against.. i speak in general..

as for the two week game.. well since you guys have to play several games against several opponents .. of course this would take x more time..?

if someone has only time to move once a day how can he move once a day in several games.. that would be as time consuming as playing faster within a smaller amounts of games.. not?

if i play 20 games and move once a day due to time constraints or whatever other reasons.. i could play 10 games twice as fast, assuming my opponent reacts aswell.. so i don't see the point..

fact is if everyone played and like to play slow.. the tourney would not had advanced so fast.. so to make a circle if round 1 and 2 where played pretty quickly compared to the numbers of games and players involved.. one could assume round 3 with such a distilled numbers of players would finish even faster.. not slower... ? not? independant of the strong in stone carved rule..

but then again.. arguing pointless anyway.. he is out .. 3 are left.. you guys play and one will win..

this is not about right and wrong.. who is right and who is not.. i think h_'s bygone be bygone thingy would be good..




so when where you actually planing to finish the game? after the update? it got lost completely for me..



edit: btw auto resign is a new upcoming feature! amazing ;D hehe i already have some games who have dates on them for waiting instead of the days count..

 

Someone finally did get it!

 

btw why is your post count zero? is that an error?