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".
This analogy may seem pretty convincing for the naive bystander, but it is flawed: the conclusion you came to is adequate for the beaten wife, but cannot be transfered to our Magic situation.
Here's why: We have an Perpetrator and a Victim. My right to remain silent is superceded by my obligation to offer help (or find help). If my neighbor beats his wife, I MUST intervene, or seek help.
In the Magic situation, the «perpetrator» is the same person as the «victim»: that player is doing it to himself/herself. There is no crime; it is self-inflicted damage. If we had the obligation to stop people from hurting themselves, we'd have to close down MacDonald's!
If my neighbor's wife slams herself on the head, I MAY choose to remain silent. (but I'd probably call a psychiatrist)
(P.S. Alas, Zoidberg courageously unsubscribed from the Thread, after throwing this last comment...)
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.
Here again, your conclusion is correct for the example given.
Here again, the fundamental differences between this situation and our Magic situation makes it impossile to transfer the conclusion.
Here's why: First, this is a life and death situation; it is very far from having someone at risk of losing a card game. Life and death emergency situations allow us to break many laws, to step on many High Principles; saving an endangered human life supercedes every other considerations we may care for. When lives are at stake, my right to remain silent is canceled.
Second, this situation implies a helpless child; once again, my right to remain silent (or motionless) is superceded by my obligation to render help. It is our duty to protect children, elderly people and other vulnerable sub-categories.
But incompetent-Magic-players-entering-tournaments IS NOT a vulnerable sub-category we're bound to help.
(I still agree the rule should be maintained, for the fun factor and for the economy it allows on judges' fees; I still believe it is illogical and unfair, but that's less important than fun and cash)
«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.»
Again, you misunderstand the purpose of an argument of mine even though I stated it clearly and explicitly in the post you quote. That analogy (and it's not the only such example, not by a long shot, just the first one most people use to introduce the topic) is there to problematize the whole "act vs omission" distinction you were leaning on previously - to show that you can't just say some bit of behaviour was an omission rather than an act, and act like that settles the matter of whether that bit of behaviour is okay. Far from disputing this point, you seem to actually now be agreeing with it as far as I can tell, since you are now appealing to completely different considerations and not even mentioning acts and omissions.
But anyway, in the aspect that's relevant to these boards, we're close enough to agreeing for practical purposes. I still think you've reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, and you no doubt think the rest of the world has done the same (you say you still think the rule is unfair, I could not disagree more), but that's probably going to have to be good enough.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Here's why: We have an Perpetrator and a Victim. My right to remain silent is superceded by my obligation to offer help (or find help). If my neighbor beats his wife, I MUST intervene, or seek help.
In the Magic situation, the «perpetrator» is the same person as the «victim»: that player is doing it to himself/herself. There is no crime; it is self-inflicted damage. If we had the obligation to stop people from hurting themselves, we'd have to close down MacDonald's!
If my neighbor's wife slams herself on the head, I MAY choose to remain silent. (but I'd probably call a psychiatrist)
(P.S. Alas, Zoidberg courageously unsubscribed from the Thread, after throwing this last comment...)
I'm still there, and I sill strongly disagree with you, I could push the fact that if the lady is not doing anything, she is self-inflicting herself with the beating too, but as I've already remarked: you will strongly reject any argument thrown your way, so it is useless discussing with you.
It is only a good thing those rules exist to DQ people like you in tournaments.
Even then, knowing "players" like you exist don't push some people to play in tournaments (even prerelease) because you're there to spoil the fun.
Congrats: you're a pretty good jerk.
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 .
«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.»
Please don't resort to name calling and sarcasm here.
For all we know, "fun and cash" was the deciding factor behind Wizards putting this rule on the books. We can argue the point of their motivations all day without getting anywhere.
As to whether it's fair: that's a subjective term. No one is going to budge.
I think we can let this thread settle with the knowledge that Chaikov (as well as anyone who has agreed with him and remained silent) is in agreement with the rest of us on the point that the rule is good for the game in the end.
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
Somone on the Internet actually got convinced by arguments? Wow...
I must say, this allows us a broader understanding of Human Nature.
I tipmy hat to you, good Sir! You fought valiantly!
[The above is meant honestly, and without Sarcasm]
