[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

rec.games.backgammon

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Tuesday, 15 November 2011, at 10:13 p.m.

In Response To: rec.games.backgammon (Chuck Bower)

Chuck wrote:

Relatedly, people who read votes in an OLM before making their own should admit that (in their vote post) as well

Here I differ from you. I assume that the default action is to read what others say. That's what I (almost always) do and I don't bother to announce the fact.

The flesh-and-blood chouette that I play in is a consulting chouette. Perhaps that's what influences me to view the OLM as a consultation match. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to include bots in the consultation, because bots are so strong (in most positions) that their opinion "poisons" the discussion. But allowing people to influence each other doesn't, in my mind, poison anything or make the discussion less interesting.

It sounds to me like you're saying that if I were originally going to play X but then saw everyone else voting for Y, then allowing myself to be swayed and switching to Y is somehow taking credit for Y if Y is right, and that's illegitimate. But I don't see why that's illegitimate, since you're also taking the blame for Y if Y is wrong.

Maybe you would argue that it takes more courage to vote "blind"? But what if you see everyone else voting for Y but go ahead and vote for X anyway (as I did with a recent OLM decision, for example)? Seems that that requires just as much independent-mindedness as voting blind.

Basically I just don't see any reason to believe that the only ethical way to play the OLM is to vote blindly and independently.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.