| |
BGonline.org Forums
Comments about random dice generators
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: New Rules in LA--What is the verdict? (Phil Simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, at 9:34 p.m.
1) Patrick took the proposed rules that Jeb, Phil, and I compromised in creating, made some modifications, got some 3rd party opinions, adjusted those modifications, and instituted the rules at his tournament. AFAIC he should be congratulated for having an open mind, something that seems to be lacking sometimes in our community. I think it's safe to say he'll consider the feedback and move forward with new modifications if he feels the feedback is justified.
2) I don't know where the idea of making baffle boxes or dicetubes take priority over dicecups came from. It wasn't mine and I doubt it was Jeb's. In fact I'm not yet convinced it's stated that way anywhere. Last week on this forum I proposed making them "approved" equipment and therefore on equal footing with dicecups, neither above nor below in the hierarchy. Then casting-of-lots would determine their usage, as is currently done with "approved" equipment.
3) Regarding "seal of approval" for a particular device (e.g. baffle box), I think we should do that using the same procedure that is currently in place for dicecups and dice.
4) The reality is that all of these devices have the same thing going for them when it comes to acceptance or lack thereof: opinions. There isn't a testing procedure, and objections are anecdotal at best, but usually just "feelings". It would be interesting (but maybe not helpful) to go back in time and see how dicecups became the preferred device over bare-handed rolling. I've seen ads from ~1930 with BG sets that contain dicecup(s) so I suspect it happened before any living person is even capable of remembering.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.