Kibitzing

[Jim McLeod]

"A.2 ERRORS: All results stand once play has progressed past the point of commission. " still allows pointing the error just after it was commited, but before "play has progressed past" it.
E. g. just after a TH DR, one could point a forgotten (or erroneously added)DRM, before any other DR is rolled.
In friendly play, I would even go back to the TH process after the TK/IFT was rolled...

I agree with you Robin and I would even flip the wreck back over if an error in the TH or the TK DR is discovered. Of course this is provided that the game has not progressed too far past that point. I would, and have, done this in both friendly and competitive play.




=Jim=

 

[Jim McLeod]

Tate old man, you have not yet answered my question:

Tate, are you saying that at the instant a game event takes place, the time is past for catching the error and therefore can't be corrected?

If yes, then a person takes a shot and does not applying a DRM. If I understand you correctly, as soon as that DR is made the moment is lost to catch the error. Even if his opponent sees the error after the DR he can't change anything since A.2 now applies. The event, the DR, has already come and gone. Presumably, the player making the DR announces aloud the DRM to that shot. That is when the error can be caught but as soon as the dice a rolled, it is too late.

Is this what you are saying?

If yes, then I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

A game event, such as a TH DR, can and should be corrected if there are DRM forgotten prior to making that DR. I'm not talking about gowing back a phase or even another game event (other than the TK/effects DR) before the error is caught. What I am saying is that if the DR is made and buddy is tossing his TK/effects DR, then I should be able to air any concerns I may have with the TH DR.

=Jim=

 

[larth]

Pointing out a rule error does not result in benefitting one side. What it does is avoiding to (unfairly) benefit the other side.

Come on, Ole! That must be a point of view thing!

 

[Roy]

One time at a tourny I made a serious set up mistake.

Damn Tom, only once? We've played three times, I just thought it was normal!!!



Next time buddy, next time.

Roy

 

[Ole Boe]

Come on, Ole! That must be a point of view thing!

Possibly, but I don't really think so. You (and Tate) seems to argue that it is somewhat unfair to point out one error if you don't stand and point out every error in the scenario.

My view is that every error is unfair in itself, and for every error that is fixed, the game becomes a bit more fair.

I guess you can call that a different point of view, but an important one for this discussion though.

 

[rdw5150]

"You (and Tate) seems to argue that it is somewhat unfair to point out one error if you don't stand and point out every error in the scenario."

I happen to agree with this point of view.

Lets say I am playing a game and my opponent and I are making two errors the entire game. One error favors me, the other my opponent.

If a passer by points out the error that favors me, and walks away before pointing out the other, he has swung the game. Not fair IMHO.

Now, I we ask that is a different story.

Seriously how many times, have we all played a game and afterwards, while looking through the RB said to ourselves, HMMM played THAT wrong.

Peace

Roger

 

[Ole Boe]

Lets say I am playing a game and my opponent and I are making two errors the entire game. One error favors me, the other my opponent.

If a passer by points out the error that favors me, and walks away before pointing out the other, he has swung the game. Not fair IMHO.

But lets say that both of the errors favors you, or that only one error was made. In both of those cases, pointing out the error would make the game more fair.

There's absolutely no reason to think that there is such a balance of errors in a game as you make in your case. One error pointed out is simply one less error in the game that unfairly favours one side.

I would even go as far as to say that if there is any link between the errors, then the link is that one error that favours one side is likely to be repeated several times, still favouring the same side during that scenario.

Many errors discussed in this thread is of that type (ex: illegal set-up, firing CE RST AFV, illegal use of canister, fogetting that AFV are radio-equipped, etc.). It is extremely unlikely that there is another error in those games that keeps the balance of the game if the first error is ignored.

Seriously how many times, have we all played a game and afterwards, while looking through the RB said to ourselves, HMMM played THAT wrong.

I've done it many times. And every single time, if that error affected the outcome, both me and my opponent wished that the error had been discovered before affecting the outcome. Winning, and then finding out that you may not have won if the game had been played correctly is just not fun, IMHO.

 

[Bjoernar]

Hello


When I am playing a scenario, any comments that would correct something wrong is welcome. Even if it swing the scenario and disfavors me. I will much more prefer to loose a game that was played more or less correct than either winning or loosing a game when it was playing less correct. However, until now I have only answered asked questions.



bjørnar

 

[klasmalmstrom]

I voted No.

I'm on Tates and Lars (have to, we are in the same room at ASLOK ) side on this one.

Some people say that they would have liked to have errors pointed out to them, but that doesn't mean that all other players would like that.

Once a game has started I think it is best not to say (unless asked) anything and risk that one/both guys gets upset

Better to mention it afterwards.

So after the game it is ok to :blab: :blab:

but during the game (unless asked) it is better to :hush: :hush:

All IMHO of course.

And as a side note:

By the way, A12.34 does not prohibit Guns from setting up HIP in an orchard-road hex. The Gun just cannot setup emplaced & loses its HIP status (becomes concealed) automatically when an enemy unit gains a LOS to it. Now, should a player loose his HIP 88s (or two) to KIA simply for forgetting this? I don't think so, but apparently a certain (small?) percentage of ASLrs do.

A12.34 does prohibit a Gun from setting up HIP in an Orchard (paved) road. A12.34 says that a Gun can setup HIP if it sets up Emplaced, and since you can't be Emplaced (see C11.2) in an Orchard (paved) road - then you cannot set up a Gun HIP there.

You can set it up there Concealed - but not HIP.

 

[larth]

Possibly, but I don't really think so. You (and Tate) seems to argue that it is somewhat unfair to point out one error if you don't stand and point out every error in the scenario.

My main issue was that it is not my call to walk up to a game in process and point out any errors unless asked for.

There are enough games finished without being played correctly so that can't be the highest priority. Take the situation when both players almost remembers something, can't find it in the ASLRB after and after a couple of minutes solve the issue by making a dr - thus both accepting that they just did something 50% likely to be against the rules.

My view is that every error is unfair in itself, and for every error that is fixed, the game becomes a bit more fair.

Certainly! The question is of when (and who) to point out the errors. Or do you mean that everybody should point out everything in every game they see that they believe is against the rules just to maximize the chance of a fair game?

 

[Tater]

My view is that every error is unfair in itself, and for every error that is fixed, the game becomes a bit more fair.

That makes absolutely no sense and is clearly not true. If all of player _B's_ errors are pointed out but none of player _C's_, how does that make the game more fair? The fact is, it doesn't. The fairest thing would be to let errors fall where they may for both players.

Once you (collective you) start pointing out errors then you have inserted yourself into the game and now, IMHO, you have obligated yourself to keep pointing out errors. Otherwise you run the risk of unbalancing the game in favor of one player or the other.

Let the players deal with their own game. They are the only ones responsible for their game. Once you (a spectator) start pointing out errors then you have taken on some of the responsibility for that game. It is unfair to take such responsibility only to shirk it at a whim.

Again, there is no such thing as a perfect game.

 

[larth]

I voted No.

I'm on Tates and Lars (have to, we are in the same room at ASLOK ) side on this one.

Sssh! Just agree - that looks better! :devious:

 

[Tater]

A12.34 does prohibit a Gun from setting up HIP in an Orchard (paved) road. A12.34 says that a Gun can setup HIP if it sets up Emplaced, and since you can't be Emplaced (see C11.2) in an Orchard (paved) road - then you cannot set up a Gun HIP there.

You can set it up there Concealed - but not HIP.

That applies to the free HIP only.

However, if one is willing to use any given HIP capability [EX: "2 squad equivalents may set up HIP (along with any SW/leaders stacked with them)"] then such a Gun can set-up HIP by virtue of it's crew being HIP (Guns & SW share the '?'/HIP status of the possesing unit). Also, in CG's, players often have fortification purchase points with which to buy HIP capability. Such purchased capability can be used to HIP crews (which HIPs the possesed Gun).

 

[Tater]

If one or both players do not wish to hear about the error, Mark can't say anything and shold take the hint.

But it is to late after the "spectator" has interfered. If the "spectator" even asks "can I point out an error" then there is an effect on the game because now both players think an error has occured. Not only that, but how do I know as a player whether this "helpful" spectator isn't my opponents buddy and that the only "errors" he is going to point out are those helpful to my opponent? The only safe, sure way to avoid even the appearance of impropriaty is for specatators to keep their traps shut.

It should end there.

Nope, it shouldn't even start.

If Mark, or anyone else for that matter, were to persist in his efforts in error notification, I believe that the player(s) concerned should bring Mark's actions to the TD's attention.

Oh, great...now I not only do I have to deal with playing my game...I got to make sure any spectators are aware that I/we don't want any body butting in. Even worse, what if my opponent is OK with having errors pointed out but I'm not...what then?

The safest, fairest, and easiest thing to do is to have a no kibitzing policy. The one doesn't even have to ask or tell or complain or anything.

 

[Pitman]

That makes absolutely no sense and is clearly not true. If all of player _B's_ errors are pointed out but none of player _C's_, how does that make the game more fair? The fact is, it doesn't. The fairest thing would be to let errors fall where they may for both players.

It is not Player B's error or Player C's error. If both players accede to an error, they are both committing it. It is not a question of making the game more or less fair; it is a question of making it more or less correct.

Once you (collective you) start pointing out errors then you have inserted yourself into the game and now, IMHO, you have obligated yourself to keep pointing out errors. Otherwise you run the risk of unbalancing the game in favor of one player or the other.

That is silly. If you give money to one homeless person, does that mean you have to give money to every homeless person? If a nation comes to the defense of nation that has been invaded, does that mean that it must come to the defense of every nation that has been invaded? Obviously not. And obviously not in this case too. You are making up a fictitious obligation.

 

[MrP]

Mark>White!
Tate>Black
Mark>White!
Tate>Black
Mark>White!
Tate>Black
Mark>Oh how ridiculous, you're building a strawman Tate, everyone knows it's white.
Tate>blackblackblackblack!!!

Love you both, but it's bloody tiresome reading through pages of this tosh. However I have to agree with Tate on this one. No kibitzing=less potential for people influencing the game. Allowing kibitzing might catch a few setup screwups every now and again but allowing it IMHO opens the door for people to sit watching and interfering. One mans definition of kibbitzing may not be the same as the next mans, just look at how many arguments there are over well defined terms in the RB!

:hush:

Cheers

Ian

 

[Tater]

Tate old man, you have not yet answered my question:

Sorry, I must have missed it...

Originally Posted by Jim McLeod
Tate, are you saying that at the instant a game event takes place, the time is past for catching the error and therefore can't be corrected?

No, if another DR/dr/move/action hasn't taken place the play has not "passed" that point. But then, if it is pointed out at such a point it isn't an error yet.

However, since play has not passed can a player change their mind on the action. For example, a DRM is missed and the player rolls...a spectator points out the extra DRM...the rolling player says "oh, well if I had seen that DRM I wouldn't have taken that shot...my shot was in error". Now we are into the realm of spectators changing the play.

If yes, then a person takes a shot and does not applying a DRM. If I understand you correctly, as soon as that DR is made the moment is lost to catch the error. Even if his opponent sees the error after the DR he can't change anything since A.2 now applies. The event, the DR, has already come and gone. Presumably, the player making the DR announces aloud the DRM to that shot. That is when the error can be caught but as soon as the dice a rolled, it is too late.

Is this what you are saying?

No, another action/DR/dr/move/etc must occure for play to have "passed". See my question above though...does the player doing the rolling get to change his mind based on the new info...play has not passed, right? So, again, we now have spectators effecting the play on board.

In short, allowing kibitzing opens a whole can of worms for what might and/or might not be OK with different players. The only sure, safe, and fair way to handle this is with "zero" tolerance for kibitzing _after_ play commences (i.e., after the first DR/dr of the game).

A game event, such as a TH DR, can and should be corrected if there are DRM forgotten prior to making that DR. I'm not talking about gowing back a phase or even another game event (other than the TK/effects DR) before the error is caught. What I am saying is that if the DR is made and buddy is tossing his TK/effects DR, then I should be able to air any concerns I may have with the TH DR.

I think the players are free to voice their concerns at any time. Corrections (or not) for those concerns are between the players.

What we are talking about is what spectators should be free to do or not do.

Also, how is a player suppose to know whether this supposedly "helpful" spectator is on the up-and-up. Maybe this _helpful_ spectator is his opponents buddy and is only pointing out those "errors" that help his pal. Maybe this spectator isn't even doing it intentionally but is just more concerned with his friends welfare than yours.

Again...safer, fairer, and easier...no kibitzing.

 

[Tater]

It is not Player B's error or Player C's error. If both players accede to an error, they are both committing it. It is not a question of making the game more or less fair; it is a question of making it more or less correct.

If that is truly one's aim then one must stay and catch every error. If even one error occurs then it is an incorrect game and is unworthy of ASL (so we have been told).

Either one believes in what one is saying or one doesn't. If one corrects an error in the name of a "perfect" game then wonders off to grab a brew then I would say one has no real conviction for "correct" play...one would just be giving lip service to appear righteous (i.e., being selfrighteous) for a particular discussion.

That is silly.

No, silly is the idea that there can be a perfectly correct game of ASL. Silly is saying I can interfer becuase I am a crusader for "correct" ASL play...as long as it is convienent for me. Silly is someone arrogantly allowing themsleves the freedom to get involved in others games.

 

[Pitman]

No, silly is the idea that there can be a perfectly correct game of ASL. Silly is saying I can interfer becuase I am a crusader for "correct" ASL play...as long as it is convienent for me. Silly is someone arrogantly allowing themsleves the freedom to get involved in others games.

Silly is your putting words in other people's mouths, since no one has said that there can be a perfectly correct game of ASL. I also note that you conveniently deleted rather than respond to part of my post.

 

[Tater]

I also note that you conveniently deleted rather than respond to part of my post.

There was no need to respond to an utterly rediculous comparison between starving people and a game.