Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28398 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #175 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:25:48 PM »

"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false. You're making that up on the spot. Or if not, why are no other elders agreeing with that made-up bad rule?

The Schaef · « **Reply #176 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:35:15 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:25:48 PM

"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false. You're making that up on the spot. Or if not, why are no other elders agreeing with that made-up bad rule?

I'm not "making up" anything, it's just a different form of "discard all the cards in your hand".

Neither is it false just because in its brevity it doesn't account for exceptional situations. I would not argue that AoC's ability to discard all ECs in play is "false" just because it does not discard ECs that are protected, or if certain potential discards get re-destined. Most reasonable people would accept or reject the correctness of the general premise without demanding that every possible exceptional possibility be openly stated for maximum clarity. To the contrary, I'm frequently criticized for taking the time to explain my position in detail with examples and citations. So either people want me to keep it brief and simple, or to spell everything out in exacting detail. Whichever it is, I just need people to make up their minds so I know what's expected of me.

Lastly, I'm not aware of a single elder in this thread who disagreed that you can discard an empty hand to meet this requirement. Instead, you choose to attach accusations of rules being "made up" and "bad" to pretend that somehow I'm being irrational or obtuse. If I have to be turned into an adversary just to have this discussion, it's not going to go very far.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #177 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:36:10 PM »

I sure started a winner. I think it's really interesting how only 1 player (that I remember) has sided with the PTBs, and the rest have disagreed. Just interesting.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #178 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:37:40 PM »

Schaef, none of the other elders have been responding for quite some time, especially as the opposition presents more and more valid proof. I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.

STAMP · « **Reply #179 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:38:02 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2011, 01:36:10 PM

I sure started a winner. I think it's really interesting how only 1 player (that I remember) has sided with the PTBs, and the rest have disagreed. Just interesting.

Yeah, well just wait until election day.

The Schaef · « **Reply #180 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:48:53 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 01:37:40 PM

Schaef, none of the other elders have been responding for quite some time, especially as the opposition presents more and more valid proof. I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.

Argument from silence is a logical fallacy, since they may also just get tired of repeating the same things over and over. Or, I could just as easily argue that browarod gave up because he knows I'm right, but I intend to keep things reasonable, and that would be an unreasonable assumption.

What is becoming plain, however, as this discussion goes on, is that the more effort I make to clarify and reconcile my position, the more you move away from any additional information and pigeonhole my statements more and more. To look at your posts now, one might conclude the only thing I ever said on the subject was "hand ends up empty", neither more nor less. That's a reductive fallacy.

To continue to respond in this fashion disinclines me from wasting any more effort trying to increase understanding. If I had to make an argument from silence about why the elders have stopped responding, it would probably be what I am actually the last one to realize is how little regard you are showing for those efforts.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #181 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:52:59 PM »

What efforts? If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is? I propose that it's "every card that was in your hand went to the Discard Pile." Do you have a different suggestion?

The Schaef · « **Reply #182 on:** January 21, 2011, 01:56:25 PM »

If you don't know my response to that, you have only proven my point that you haven't read anything I wrote for the last hour.

In fact, what interests me most is that ever since that exact response, you have used that reductive phrase in every post you've made, even though it doesn't appear in my response or ANY of my posts after that, other than once to address your fallacious treatment of my words.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #183 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:02:15 PM »

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

That's really a simple question. Perhaps the answer was lost in your over-long responses to everything.

The Schaef · « **Reply #184 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:09:34 PM »

Please inform me which displeases you more, when my responses are too detailed, or when my responses do not have a suitable degree of specificity, causing you to run around tearing down the over-simplified version of my position, which I note again that you are the one still using that phrase.

I'd like to respond in a way that will generate real discussion, but I'm having trouble determining what you actually want from me. I even allowed the use of your definition for the purposes of this discussion, and employed it in my explanation, and not only was that not good enough for you, you seem to have lost it in an "over-long" response of exactly two sentences totaling less than 50 words.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #185 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:14:44 PM »

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

The Schaef · « **Reply #186 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:17:01 PM »

Quote

I even allowed the use of your definition for the purposes of this discussion, and employed it in my explanation

I didn't ask you to quote what I already read, I asked you to start reading what I write.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #187 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:20:56 PM »

Just read all your posts since I asked that question, no answer found. So again,

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #188 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:22:33 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 02:09:34 PM

Please inform me which displeases you more, when my responses are too detailed, or when my responses do not have a suitable degree of specificity, causing you to run around tearing down the over-simplified version of my position, which I note again that you are the one still using that phrase.

When your responses don't address the questions asked or simply rehash a previous response (typically involving the restatement of a ruling rather than an explanation thereof).

The Schaef · « **Reply #189 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:34:51 PM »

Let's look at what Polarius said:

Quote

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to make the condition "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile?"

In response I said:

Quote

If you read my reply, you see that my third possible response is the same condition as this, just worded differently. And worded as you have done so, Mayhem and PO still work because it doesn't contradict the rule about discarding an empty hand.

My assertion is that I took his response, incorporated it into the discussion and moved it forward. Please explain how I did not address the question, and/or restated a ruling with no explanation.

The "third possible response", by the way, refers to three different possible explanations as to why discarding an empty hand for PO can work within the existing ruleset while accounting for the I Am Hole rule, and NONE of which rely on a basic, unqualified "hand ends up empty" statement.

Meanwhile, Polarius said in subsequent posts:

Quote

"Hand ends up empty" is bunk and false.

Quote

I think you're the only one who hasn't realized that "hand ends up empty" doesn't work.

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

Quote

If "hand ends up empty" is not the check for whether you Discarded your hand, then what is?

There is somebody repeating the same points over and over, and there is somebody who is adding new information or trying to explain the same information in a different way to increase understanding. Yet, somehow there seems to be some confusion about which is which.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #190 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:38:40 PM »

Oh, you're going back to that? I explained why that was wrong, so I thought you must have been talking about something else.

Mayhem and PO do not work with an empty hand unless the condition is "empty hand at the end." This obviously can't be the condition. So what set of checks are you proposing for whether or not a hand was Discarded or shuffled?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #191 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:44:39 PM »

The third possible explanation? Where was the first possible explanation? Doesn't an explanation account for holes in it? Pol exposed holes in the dam. Do we need a flood before we fix it? The ruling adjustment that is being presented is so minor - why does it matter this much? Literally every player on this thead but Hobbit has stated that they feel it is more logical to overturn to current ruling. We have given reason. You have provided the main argument, with mostly passive support from other playtesters. Guardian went so far as to say he didn't necessarily disagree with me about PO discarding your hand. If this issue was so abundantly clear like you seem to suppose it is, we wouldn't be having a 13+ thread about it.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #192 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:46:32 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on January 21, 2011, 01:10:02 PM

There's no need to drag this down a rabbit hole. All I'm asking is that you go easy on the dude, seriously, just because I asked you a question regarding Primary Objective, not having gleaned your reference to IaH which was never openly stated.

I can think of at least three different explanations that could separate that ruling from this discussion. The first being that IaH specifies its quantity. If there is not a card quantity equal to one with the discard effect applied, cost not met. But this doesn't apply to PO which specifies no quantity.

The second, which is kind of an extension of the first, is that you could argue Chamber applies a different effect but you still discarded all the valid targets in your hand for discard, after discounting cards that get re-destined.

The third would be to concede that the discard MUST be the effect and it MUST be applied to all the cards in hand, meaning Chamber would stop the PO discard option. Even given all those things, since I have reduced the cards in my hand to zero, and since I have not applied any other effect to my hand that would remove them in a different manner, I still have met the condition by discarding an empty hand.

So despite your claims to the contrary, I have three potential legs to stand on, even if I concede every single other point you've made. That is because you haven't disproven the empty hand argument, only demonstrated that as a general statement taken by itself, it doesn't account for exceptional cases which may or may not require additional clarification.

browarod · « **Reply #193 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:47:41 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef

Or, I could just as easily argue that browarod gave up because he knows I'm right, but I intend to keep things reasonable, and that would be an unreasonable assumption.

I'm not going to let you even bring that up. I gave up because you have a browarod-brigade evil enhancement on your Golgotha and have ignored or "I didn't say that"'d everything I tried to say over the course of a good 4+ pages of this thread. I gave up because I realized that talking to a brick wall will get me nowhere.

I do not, cannot, and will not believe that you are right, I will never, ever admit/say/hint/joke that you are right, I will never agree with the ruling as is and your stance on it, so please learn that now and leave my giving up out of this discussion from now on. Retracted.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #194 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:51:34 PM »

I read that, and so thoroughly debunked it I was sure he was talking about something else.

The first one still leaves the question as to what does constitute a check on whether a hand was Discarded. Therefore, it is not an answer in and of itself.

The second one directly contradicts the "instead" ruling.

The third one relies on the assumption that "empty hand" is the check for having Discarded hand, combined with a bottom-up rule about "I didn't happen to apply any instead abilities."

Furthermore, when everyone is on the other side of this, why not acknowledge that a ruling, affecting exactly three cards, that is by all appearances agreed to be the more logical ruling, has merit? Why not consider it? And where are all the other elders in this?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #195 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:52:54 PM »

To his first, the quantity is the Hand.
To his second, refer to Pol's responses of Schaef apparentely missing the IaH thread.
To his third, PO does not say reduce your hand to 0. It says discard your hand.

It is flooding.

The Schaef · « **Reply #196 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:58:30 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:38:40 PM

Oh, you're going back to that? I explained why that was wrong, so I thought you must have been talking about something else.

This is false. As I demonstrated from each of your subsequent posts, you have not addressed anything that I have said on this topic that wasn't "hand ends up empty" going back to before you even offered that definition. So no, you did not even respond to that point, much less explain why it was wrong. Else, show me where you responded to it specifically.

Quote

Mayhem and PO do not work with an empty hand unless the condition is "empty hand at the end."

I adopted your definition for this discussion: "Every card in the hand went to the Discard pile". I noted that Mayhem and PO work with an empty hand using this definition. Again, these statements all go back several posts now, as I have been trying to move the discussion forward while you are intent on moving the discussion backward.

Quote

The ruling adjustment that is being presented is so minor - why does it matter this much?

... say the people who have spent thirteen pages insisting that it is so critical that it MUST be changed, it MUST be to this other ruling, and it MUST happen now.

Quote from: browarod on January 21, 2011, 02:47:41 PM

I do not, cannot, and will not believe that you are right, I will never, ever admit/say/hint/joke that you are right, I will never agree with the ruling as is and your stance on it, so please learn that now and leave my giving up out of this discussion from now on.

Well, now that we've established who is approaching the topic with an open mind, I think that if you have a problem with this, you need to talk to Polarius, who thinks it's okay to take people who haven't been saying anything on a topic, and just make up reasons why they're not continuing to respond.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 02:51:34 PM

Why not acknowledge that a ruling, affecting exactly three cards, that is by all appearances agreed to be the more logical ruling, has merit? Why not consider it?

More false claims to irrationality. The merits of the argument were acknowledged. The issue was considered at some depth when it first came up, and this was the decision that was reached. If you have so little regard for the process that you genuinely believe rulings are just invented on the fly with no forethought or logic applied, there's really nothing else to talk about.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #197 on:** January 21, 2011, 03:01:02 PM »

When everyone else on the thread is calling your claims irrational, and you're calling them rational, are our claims really false?

The reason we are insisting on the change is so that Redemption gets one step closer to logical, consistent rules. We point out that it is a very minor change to make the proposition more palatable to the great poo-bah of stasis.

The Guardian · « **Reply #198 on:** January 21, 2011, 03:03:22 PM »

I still agree with Schaef, I simply hadn't logged on yet.

The condition is "did you discard every card possible from your hand?"

If you did this, whether your hand consisted of 0 cards, 16 cards or somewhere in between, the condition is met.

The Schaef · « **Reply #199 on:** January 21, 2011, 03:03:48 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 21, 2011, 03:01:02 PM

When everyone else on the thread is calling your claims irrational, and you're calling them rational, are our claims really false?

As has been demonstrated by a review of recent posts in the thread, I am expanding the discussion to incorporate your viewpoint, and you are using fallacious arguments to belittle and disregard what I'm trying to say. Appeal to the majority is also a logical fallacy, especially when there is a demonstrable difference between your claims and what has been said on this thread, and by whom.

News:

Author Topic: The zero card hand (Read 28398 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef