Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 11:46:04 AM

How about we only reveal cards that...{gasp}...say "reveal" on them?!?   

So every time I draw Seeker of the Lost or Strength Revealed, I have to show it to my opponents?

I don't know what is so difficult about this concept. When you search for a specific type of card, you have to reveal the card you searched for to prove you're not cheating. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what's right. That's what's fair. When you're allowed to search for any card, there is no reason for this reveal because it's not preventing cheating. I see no reason that Look abilities should not follow this same guideline. If you are looking for a specific card - the way Divination allows you to - you have to reveal it to prove you're not cheating. If it's any card that was looked for - the way Susie allows - there's no need to reveal, because you're not trying to prevent cheating. Again, that's what's right. That's what's fair.

I also like fair.  It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.

You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 02:57:34 PM

I also like fair.  It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.

You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.

So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 26, 2012, 03:09:32 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 02:57:34 PM

I also like fair.  It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.

You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.

So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)

By all means, try.  What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.


Guns tempt murderers.  Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists.  Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves.  Outlaw affluence.

Quote from: lp670sv on January 26, 2012, 03:29:50 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 03:24:46 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 26, 2012, 03:09:32 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 02:57:34 PM

I also like fair.  It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.

You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.

So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)

By all means, try.  What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.


Guns tempt murderers.  Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists.  Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves.  Outlaw affluence.

Irrational jump in discussion is irrational and stupid.

Common sense is not irrational or stupid.  But it is not all that common.

//see what I did there.

Murder is morally wrong, let's make it legal since we can obviously trust people not to do it anyways.

No means no, your conscience should keep you from raping we don't need that law.

The bible says though shalt not steal we don't need that law either.

Quote from: STAMP on January 26, 2012, 03:32:44 PM

Common sense is not irrational or stupid.  But it is not all that common.

And neither is it in either of your previous two posts.  By all means, open communication and debate is welcomed here, but your arguments have been deviating from that.  Originally, you had a good point, but it was disproved.  Everyone involved thinks that it's a smarter idea to reveal, rather than hide.  Yes, people can cheat.  Yes, they will attempt to cheat despite the attempts of the rules.  However, that doesn't mean we should try to stop them.  We're not doing anything near as drastic as banning, simply recognizing that the way that the majority of players have been playing is correct.