I will bow out of this thread as well. Chaikov, I have read your posts/points, and I disagree. A lot. In the Chess example I gave, I am obviously cheating. Not punishing me for this behaviour would incite me to actively lie to my opponent about everything - why do I have to tell my opponent my Life total if they can keep track of it for themselves? Or how many Poison counters they have, for that matter? Or which of my tokens represent what exactly, which are summoning sick, which are tapped or untapped?
No, just No. Mike Long's bluff about the Contents of his Deck was okay, since Content of Deck is not publich Information and if their opponent believes Mike Long - well, they should know better.
But this introduces Lying about Public Information, and that just can not be tolerated.
If you wish to bow out, just do it. If you wish to comment, just do it. But throwing one last comment and running away to avoid hearing the response... well, that doesn't seem very courageous!
[why do I have to tell] which of my tokens represent what exactly, which are summoning sick, which are tapped or untapped?
Oh! there's a rule for that! 400.5. (...) objects in other zones can be arranged however their owners wish, although who controls those objects, whether they’re tapped or flipped, and what other objects are attached to them must remain clear to all players.
Remember: I am opposing ONE rule, a tournament rule. I totally concur with all other rules. Try not to digress.
...why do I have to tell my opponent my Life total if they can keep track of it for themselves? Or how many Poison counters they have, for that matter?
Didn't I say «Players are responsible for what they say»? If they ask for your life total, you HAVE to tell the truth. If you lie, you cheat. Lying about public information is cheating, of course!
But lying is an action: one has to utter words to lie. (or use body language) It is impossible to lie if you keep silent and motionless. Lyers are cheaters and should be punished accordingly. But the guy who keeps his mouth shut? Whatever he's doing, he's not lying!!!
Take the following Example: If I play a game of chess, my opponent moves their King, and later on moves it back to its original place (This means they can not Castle any more). Later on, they Castle (because they forgot about moving their King earlier). The castling Move (while usually an advantage) is in the current Boardstate a bad move, because I can now attack easier. I notic ethis, but decide not to call my opponent on it, because it works to my advantage. Am I cheating?
THERE IS NO LIE in that example.
Your opponent forgot something. You kept your mouth shut. Nobody lied. If, at anytime, your opponent were to ask «have I moved my king yet?», THEN you're obligated to say the truth. (or remain silent and let him call a judge).
But one just cannot lie when keeping one's mouth shut!
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
I believe that keeping quiet when you know something to be false, especially when you have a responsibility to point out the truth, can be a form of lying.
Even if you disagree that it is your responsibilty to point out an opponent's play error, you must accept that your opponent would expect you to follow the rules, and therefore would expect you to point out any play error that you caught. Since you didn't point out any error, it is implicit that the play is legal to the best of your knowledge.
Intentionally so or not, you have misused your opponent's trust. I understand that you don't count it as explicity telling a lie, but do you agree that this is a form of deception? Do you feel that deception pertaining to the legality of gamestate should be accepted?
I believe that keeping quiet when you know something to be false, especially when you have a responsibility to point out the truth, can be a form of lying.
This is circular logic: A leads to B. B leads to A. The responsibility to point out the truth only exists BECAUSE of the rule I am challenging. If that rule were deleted, so would the responsibility.
You have the right to remain silent. Rings a bell?
you must accept that your opponent would expect you to follow the rules, and therefore would expectyou to point out any play error that your caught.
My opponent is only allowed to expect me to follow the rules. And I do. Any other expectation they may have is their own business. Don't forget: THEY are commiting a rule violation; not ME.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Fair enough. The responsibility, as well as the expectation, to point out what is correct comes only from the rule. The rule exists and should be followed, but we are here to argue whether that rule is right.
I do trust my opponent to point out any play mistake of mine they notice. Maybe I'm wrong to do so, but I find it hard to enjoy Magic among those who take it too seriously. In the context of the game, we may be planeswalkers at war, but outside the game, we are just people playing cards against each other. To extend the theatrical war to real life is, in my opinion, taking things too far. My goal in a game of Magic is first to make sure that we are all having fun, and second to win the game.
If you don't accept that inaction can be deception, then I don't think that I can move you. I must respectfully disagree, as I believe some of the worst lies are told through silence.
Even if I haven't convinced you to change your stance on the rule, I hope that what little I've said has helped to show the point of view of those who feel it belongs.
I believe that keeping quiet when you know something to be false, especially when you have a responsibility to point out the truth, can be a form of lying.
This is circular logic: A leads to B. B leads to A. The responsibility to point out the truth only exists BECAUSE of the rule I am challenging. If that rule were deleted, so would the responsibility.
Exactly backwards. The rule is there to reflect the fact that you have the responsibility.
You have the right to remain silent. Rings a bell?
I am not sure what your point is here. Here, too, the right exists independantly of the officer reminding you of it; it's granted by the US Constitution (and may or may not exist in other countries - so it's odd for a Canadian to be explaining this to (IIRC) a Frenchman...) In practise the officer, having reminded you of your right against self-incrimination as he (or she) is legally required to do, typically does everything in his power to get you to waive it, but that's another discussion. In any case, I don't see any analogy between the Miranda declaration and the situation on the table.
You're leaning on a very strong distinction between acts and omissions. Without going into a lot of philosophy on actions and omissions (more usually "doing" versus "allowing" in the literature), intending and foreseeing (the usual refuge when people see how problematic the doing/allowing distinction actually is), problems with distinguishing acts, etc, let me just say here that this is a lot more problematic than you seem to think, both to spell out with precision, and in terms of just what if any ethical relevance it actually has. But whatever their views, nobody thinks omissions are never wrong, so even if we ignore that whole philosophical morass, it's still not enough to just say one is an act and the other is an omission and call it a day.
EDIT: I'm probably being too vague, so without turning this into a philosophy seminar, I'll give the most common example used to illustrate the point. Consider two not very nice people:
Smith: For whatever reason, maybe a bigger share of a forthcoming inheritance, Smith wants his cousin (currently a young child) dead. While his cousin is having a bath, Smith goes into the bathrooom with murderous intent, and drowns his young cousin.
Jones: For whatever reason, maybe a bigger share of a forthcoming inheritance, Jones wants his cousin (currently a young child) dead. While his cousin is having a bath, Jones goes into the bathrooom with murderous intent, and finds his cousin thrashing about, already clearly in the process of drowning without Jones having done anything. Jones doesn't intervene, either to make the situation worse or to save his cousin (though he could easily do the latter), and the cousin drowns.
Most people think Jones' behaviour is just as bad as Smith's. Even if they don't, nobody thinks Jones did nothing wrong. But then it can't be the case that the ethics of these situations come down to doing versus allowing; even if you think the distinction is relevant, clearly it can't be a get out of jail free card for Jones.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
If you wish to bow out, just do it. If you wish to comment, just do it. But throwing one last comment and running away to avoid hearing the response... well, that doesn't seem very courageous!
[why do I have to tell] which of my tokens represent what exactly, which are summoning sick, which are tapped or untapped?
Oh! there's a rule for that! 400.5. (...) objects in other zones can be arranged however their owners wish, although who controls those objects, whether they’re tapped or flipped, and what other objects are attached to them must remain clear to all players.
Remember: I am opposing ONE rule, a tournament rule. I totally concur with all other rules. Try not to digress.
...why do I have to tell my opponent my Life total if they can keep track of it for themselves? Or how many Poison counters they have, for that matter?
Didn't I say «Players are responsible for what they say»? If they ask for your life total, you HAVE to tell the truth. If you lie, you cheat. Lying about public information is cheating, of course!
But lying is an action: one has to utter words to lie. (or use body language) It is impossible to lie if you keep silent and motionless. Lyers are cheaters and should be punished accordingly. But the guy who keeps his mouth shut? Whatever he's doing, he's not lying!!!
Take the following Example: If I play a game of chess, my opponent moves their King, and later on moves it back to its original place (This means they can not Castle any more). Later on, they Castle (because they forgot about moving their King earlier). The castling Move (while usually an advantage) is in the current Boardstate a bad move, because I can now attack easier. I notic ethis, but decide not to call my opponent on it, because it works to my advantage. Am I cheating?
THERE IS NO LIE in that example.
Your opponent forgot something. You kept your mouth shut. Nobody lied. If, at anytime, your opponent were to ask «have I moved my king yet?», THEN you're obligated to say the truth. (or remain silent and let him call a judge).
But one just cannot lie when keeping one's mouth shut!
Nearly all moral Codes specificly include "Action (or non-Action)" as a safe guard against these kinds of arguments, becasue the choice to not act is also a choice.
Pretending that there is no Mis-Communication or Mis-Conception and thereby upholding it is equivalent to any other Action that would uphold that Mis-Conception.
Re: Not-Lying: How far could I go? If I were asked "Is your Life Total 16?", Can I pretend to not hear and just vaguely nod in a non-comittal kind of way?
But one just cannot lie when keeping one's mouth shut!
"Keeping your mouth shut" in such situations is not directly lieing (spelling?) but it is masking the truth, and masking the truth, is lying.
Let's take an extremecomparison: You learn that your lady neighbour is beaten by her husband, she doesn't dare to go to the police because she's afraid. You decide to "keep your mouth shut", the reason is not important.
You haven't beaten the woman yourself but do you really think you did the right thing, again, whatever the reason?
If you purposely "keep your mouth shut" in those situations while you know a mistake has been done during a game, whatever if you get an edge through that (in)action, you cheated. You guys call that deception or whatever, it is cheating.
If your opponnent makes a bad move, because he didn't read the card carefully and the combination of several cards does not have the effect (s)he thought it had, let him/her run into the wall, AS LONG AS THE RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED: example: your opponnent plays a Wrath of God while you have a permanent with an activated ability allowing your creatures to be indestructible this turn, of course you'll let her/him kae the mistake, but ONLY if (s)he can get two white manas, no less!
If this doesn't convince you chaikov, I don't know what will.
Unsubscribing.
Rules question? Have you read the Basic rulebook already? No? Why not take some time to do that?
How to autocard (do this to specify a card in your posts): Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus . Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One .
If your opponnent makes a bad move, because he didn't read the card carefully and the combination of several cards does not have the effect (s)he thought it had, let him/her run into the wall, AS LONG AS THE RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED: example: your opponnent plays a Wrath of God while you have a permanent with an activated ability allowing your creatures to be indestructible this turn, of course you'll let her/him kae the mistake, but ONLY if (s)he can get two white manas, no less!
This is a good point: Suppose your Opponent has 3 colorless and 1 white mana (and no other sources - they were doing something complicated involving floating lots of mana). You have several Creatures and would win next turn if you can attack with them. Your Opponent tries to cast WoG. Obviously, you call them out on it, and win in the subsequent turn. No Problem.
Round Two of the same match:
It is basically the same situation as above, except that your Boardposition is a lot weaker, but you have a critical Creature in your Hand that would allow you to turn the Game around. However, your Opponent decides to wrath (and again has insufficient mana). This time, because it is advantageous to you, you let it stand, since the WoG is now wasted and the Creature you want to play later is safe.
Now, ypou want to tell me that both options are ethically/morally alright? Two diametrically opposed actions (that are not meaningless but have a real impact) should have the same moral value? How would that work, without shifting the basics of the moral system in between?
In the end, you guys managed to convince me: the rule must be maintained.
I now believe that keeping the rule does more good than deleting it would.
Not that I agree with everything you say. Far from it, actually. But some of the arguments presented did break the deal: in particular, the fun factor seems to be the most convincing one. Playing the game should be fun! I just wish I'd realized it sooner.
I must thank all of you for your patience. You've allowed me to broaden my understanding of human nature.
Thanks again, Bruno
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
