Grudge Rules as Tournament Rules

[Robin Reeve]

Of what I understand, those "grudge rules" could be problematic because they are enforced for all scenarios played.
But if they were originally part of a scenario's SSR (such as "Kindling is NA"), they would not be problematic.
Do I get things right here?

I tend to agree with Mark Pitcavage: why take the pain to impose useless rules to all games played?

Some of those tournament rules seem OK when integrated in a scenario's SSR (not allowing vehiculat crews to gain control or Kindling NA); but others (such as changing a FT TK# or the way snap shot across hedges is resolved) seem rooted in some people's (quite ridiculous) contestation of the rules themselves.

Imposing the use of precision dice if required is, I dare say, morally disgusting: it glorifies superstition and tries to impose an irrational belief.
Why not require players to pray "Our Father in Heaven" or the wearing of a rabbit's paw at the start of every game?
I am quite concerned about the obscurantist regression that such a rule reveals.

Some tourney organizers seem to heed to the childish desire of omnipotence and take the opportunity to twist other peoples' arms...

 

[wrongway149]

Do you like the rules enough that you want to force a whole room of people to play with those rules instead of official ASL rules? THAT is the point, not whether you or anyone personally likes or dislikes any of the rules.

I would probably insert each specifically by scenario if there is a 'pick list'. Sometimes stupid truck tricks matter- sometimes they don't. (I generally avoid scenarios with OBA any more. But like all things ASL- there are EXC

Each issue should be addressed at the scenario level. Ancient scenarios may need to be updated, but that's nothing new.

 

[STAVKA]

I just saw this thread and (as the TD of the Arnhem ASL Tournament) I may response eventually. Meanwhile I say; "Don't worry, be happy".

Only you and I have organized tournaments in this thread.
Believe, you must be around 15 now, while I have reached over 30.

Any who does not like the rules do not attend, if you do attend and still complain, that is ok too.

 

[asloser]

Only you and I have organized tournaments in this thread.

Ahem. I have done it too....

 

[STAVKA]

Ahem. I have done it too....

So true, been to a handfull too. You write with reason and with no complaints, that should have been an indicator to me.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Having organized tournaments has no bearing on the pertinence or not of the rules we are debating about.
It is an argument of authority which misses the point of the discussion.
Perhaps does it try to underline a "common usage" of such regulations, but it has no bearing on their validity.

What are the logical reasons to impose rules that change the normal, official rules of the game, and that supersede the scenarios' SSR (which are the usual way to divert from some aspects of the normal rules)?
And what does that mean about the psychological motives that cause the need to enforce them?

Taking a caricatural example: if a chess tourney organizer imposed that Queens can only move a maximum of three squares, what would be their reasons?

 

[ScottRomanowski]

no one is forced to attend.

No one is forced to attend, but often there is no where else to go without expensive travel. We're a niche hobby and there is not a plethora of tournaments. :-(

 

[Sparafucil3]

No one is forced to attend, but often there is no where else to go without expensive travel. We're a niche hobby and there is not a plethora of tournaments. :-(

So I have been to few tournaments in Scandinavia. I have been to Albany. These SSRs are no big deal. They are published well in advance and are posted publicly on the their web sites. If we trust the TD to pick a list of scenarios then we should trust them to understand how the SSRs affect balance.

IMO, this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot. SSRs change the rules all the time. You trust the designer to get those right. Why not extend the same trust to the TD? -- jim

 

[Jazz]

The return of The Pittman as he rears his head.....

 

[ScottRomanowski]

Imposing the use of precision dice

If people are worried about biased dice, why not require all dice used to have been tested? The TD could provide a pair to each player; it would take at least 100 rolls per die (per Wayne Hadady's chi-squared post to the ASLML circa 1999) so it would be best done by several people weeks before the tournament.

As my ASL dice wore out, I've tested several 12mm non-precision d6 with that method. Many are biased to roll high since the pips affect the CG, shifting it toward the faces with fewer pips.

 

[STAVKA]

If people are worried about biased dice, why not require all dice used to have been tested? The TD could provide a pair to each player; it would take at least 100 rolls per die (per Wayne Hadady's chi-squared post to the ASLML circa 1999) so it would be best done by several people weeks before the tournament.

As my ASL dice wore out, I've tested several 12mm non-precision d6 with that method. Many are biased to roll high since the pips affect the CG, shifting it toward the faces with fewer pips.

We use the same Requirement for Precision Dice as in Backgammon Tournaments, that is about 5 times more events and participants than in ASL tournaments, your suggestions are just silly requirements in any of the two games.

 

[asloser]

If people are worried about biased dice, why not require all dice used to have been tested? The TD could provide a pair to each player; it would take at least 100 rolls per die (per Wayne Hadady's chi-squared post to the ASLML circa 1999) so it would be best done by several people weeks before the tournament.

As my ASL dice wore out, I've tested several 12mm non-precision d6 with that method. Many are biased to roll high since the pips affect the CG, shifting it toward the faces with fewer pips.

Dice in general are cheap pieces of plastic. What is called a precision dice is a slightly more expensive piece of plastic, but it is still not a 100% proof for fair dice.

The only way to know is, as Scott writes, to test it out. So unless you are prepered to provide statistically sound evidence the excat of dice you use are fair, it does not mean much what menufacturer calls them to be. And then I'd rather be playing ASL than testing dice. I will comply if tournament requires precison dice but it really is a bit silly.

 

[DVexile]

If anyone is honestly worried about "precision" dice in a tournament setting, then physical dice of any kind should simply not be used, marketed as "precision" or otherwise. Everyone should just use random.org for their die rolls if that is a real concern. People with counter factual beliefs about dice and random variables will always be finding some excuse to explain their losses, it will always be something other than them that is at fault. Hence the probable correlation between "grudge rules" and "precision dice required" by the same players. They are just two sides of the same "it wasn't my fault" coin, external factors are always to blame.

But the larger point here is that tournaments are a community activity. I don't think it is necessarily correct to blame the TD for any such rules. The reality is the TD is set with the task of attracting a sufficiently large and cohesive group of players who will cooperate sufficiently for a successful tournament. The TD probably knows a good cross section of the likely attendees and may need to make judgement calls on what sort of rules will keep things going smoothly with the expected group of attendees. Obviously they can't appeal to everyone and so some compromise is necessary. It isn't clear to me that choosing "pure ASL" just because it is "pure" necessarily leads to every tournament being more successful than it would be with various tournament specific rules.

Related to that, I don't get the sense that many successful repeated tournaments operate in a vacuum with the TD arbitrarily ruling from on high. Presumably TDs get feedback and if they want to keep the tournament going respond to said feedback over time.

As someone else already stated, in many cases the TD is already to be trusted for selecting appropriate and balanced scenarios. That's probably going to be a far larger factor in the "success" of the tournament than some random but hardly ever relevant "grudge rules" or kowtowing to the "precision" dice fanatics.

So for me, I'm in the avoid blanket "grudge rules" camp, but instead designers should certainly apply SSRs when they feel a particular otherwise infrequent "sleaze" technique (e.g. rubble victory building) might unbalance an otherwise nice scenario. Sometimes said "grudge SSR" is the easiest and clearest way to keep things balanced. That said, as was already pointed out, often "grudge rules" don't even come into play and so doesn't seem like a reason to decide for or against a tournament.

My opinion, however, is probably of limited utility as I'm too new a player to really care one way or another!

 

[Pitman]

In our group we decided after discussing it, not to fly over the pond, to Albany or Aslok, all had our reasons, one of the reasons were no site with prior tournaments info throughout the years and no tournament rule set. Like all Scandinavian and most european tournaments have.

Not sure what you mean about "prior tournaments info," but ASLOK has always had rules posted. I think Albany has also had rules posted. Anyway, you did go to ASLOK.

 

[Actionjick]

Not sure what you mean about "prior tournaments info," but ASLOK has always had rules posted. I think Albany has also had rules posted. Anyway, you did go to ASLOK.

Hopefully they had a good time.

 

[Pitman]

Tournament directors, IMO, should be able to impose rules designed to make the playing of particular scenarios more fair, like adding a balance to a scenario known to be unbalanced.

They should also be able to impose rules designed to resolve or minimize conflicts between players, or to resolve unfinished scenarios, or to deal with other tournament situations. They can even impose rules regarding dice (although doing so is silly).

The idea that a tournament director should be able to mandate changes in the official rules of ASL for no reason other than "I think that rule is yucky" is, IMO, beyond the pale. That is making all other people play some alt-version of ASL that you want to play. I think most people--and I know I do--go to ASL tournaments expecting to play real ASL.

 

[Pitman]

Hopefully they had a good time.

I correct myself, maybe it was Winter Offensive they were at. One of the two, because I was there and played them.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Tournament directors, IMO, should be able to impose rules designed to make the playing of particular scenarios more fair, like adding a balance to a scenario known to be unbalanced.

What makes you think that haven't considered their tournament rules with balance in mind? -- jim

 

[STAVKA]

Not sure what you mean about "prior tournaments info," but ASLOK has always had rules posted. I think Albany has also had rules posted. Anyway, you did go to ASLOK.

Provide me with the links to the two tournament rules pages. I cannot find any for the recent years.

I attended 20 years ago at ASLOK, four of us Swedes were surprised when we looked upon 4-5 Americans that had set up a kibutz party to help out with my opponents set up as a defender.
Pre-rubbled had already been rolled for.

 

[Tesgora]

To paraphrase a former British prime minister: Never in the field of ASL comments was so much generated by so many by a single comment.