| |
BGonline.org Forums
Clock Settings with non-Standard Devices and Equipment (Long)
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Clock Settings with non-Standard Devices and Equipment (Bill Riles)
Date: Tuesday, 13 September 2016, at 12:01 a.m.
Baffle boxes and dice tubes accomplish little when players play truly in the spirit of the game. This most certainly involves handling the dice properly. Many players' experience is that some don't do this however, and that some others generally do but they are not very consistent. I have to say that personally, of the 30% of players who decline to use a baffle box, I feel only about 30% of them have good shaking/rolling habits. Further, if one or both players find that rolling dice in this way is more fun and/or more satisfying, then it is certainly not detracting from their game, far from it. BTW my experience is that cocked dice are generally reduced by 90% with a baffle box. That's not 'accomplishing little'. I accept that with sensible rollers, huge boards, high sides, thick chequers and small dice this saving could be very small indeed, but that is the ideal scenario.
It is a shame that some organisers regard baffle boxes as 'non-standard' equipment. In a sense they are, in that they are 'superior standard' equipment: they achieve the aim of approaching randomness consistently and also efficiently. It makes me very sad that major people in the game choose to ignore this. You stated in a post last month:
"I'm not a baffle box fan; I see no reason they should be given precedence over those not wishing to use them."
If one accepts the obvious truth that baffle boxes are BETTER at generating random rolls than cups alone, then why would you give precedence to the latter? If anything, surely the opposite should apply! It should be irrelevant that, at present, relatively few players own a baffle box. (Pilgrims let us be.) Your generally discouraging stance towards them is no doubt, to some degree at least, self-fulfilling. In any match there are but two sides; why should the feelings of one be given precedence over the other just because the other player currently has a minority stance? He's not a minority in that match. As long as his stance is a REASONABLE one, then it should carry as much weight. Preferring that dice are dropped/cast into a baffle box to thoroughly randomise the roll is clearly reasonable. Now, if the baffle box were designed so that players needed a step ladder to get dice into it, then it wouldn't be reasonable (not to mention the Health & Safety isuues). But they are generally easy to use. I argue therefore that AT LEAST EQUAL rights should be given to the baffle box player and, at worst, a roll of the dice should decide (using cups into the box, if players can't agree).
Something else that you stated in a post, a few weeks ago, also stood out to me:
"I am continually amazed at the short-sightedness of directors and others. Exposure and promotion of the game is key."
Have you considered the possibility that players relatively new to the game might find the use of a baffle box by both players as a more impressive approach in streamed matches? Apart from the inconsistencies, ambiguities, llegalities and certainly reasonable doubts that can arise with cups alone, one suspects some players may find watching players shaking dice to be rather dull, and watching a re-run of it, after a cocked roll, to be duller still. I'm not claiming that baffle boxes are going to bring the crowds in, but the possibility that they may have a moderately beneficial effect here should be seriously considered.
Several years ago I suggested here that delay settings should be changed for baffle boxes and dice tubes. My own tests and those of Chuck Bower's (who was opposed to such a change) showed that the Meyer Dice Tube saved about 2s per turn compared to the conventional method. I also found that, cocked dice savings aside, baffle boxes saved about 1s per roll if used without cups (Henrik Bukkjaer reckoned 1-2s) but were time equivalent if cups were still used. It is good that you bring this up but, as one who has often stated his negativity towards baffle box use, one does doubt your true motives, for you seem to be using it to disallow one player from using a baffle box alone. Certainly, the popular Excalibur clocks can not be set with individual delay settings, but the silver Saitek can and, I think also, the more common blue ones. Chronos, I guess, will allow this. Rather than stop a player from using a box in a clocked match you should look at how to equalise matters here. It may just require him to use a cup with the box, and perhaps also shake the dice a little. In the case of the dice tube it might simply mean flipping it twice! If settings are going to be adjusted, then they should be based upon proper research. Reducing delay from 12s to 8s with a baffle box is WAY too much; Bob Koca is right - particularly if - as with the progressive EUBGF rule, players can stop or refresh their delay after cocked dice.
Personally, I agree with your suspicions about dice apps, but see a real inconsistency with your banning able bodied players from using them altogether. The implication is that players need protecting from their own ignorance and naivety. Well, some players actually believe that you can't cheat with a lipped cup; is this a reason for banning them? I know this to be true, and went to the funeral of one such player today. Willy Stanton always agreed to use a baffle box on the many occasions that we played, but I recall him expressing his opinion to me (that you can't cheat with lipped cups) more than once. Well, I say give the players a choice, but by all means insist that delay settings are adjusted for consistency. This is even more relevant now with the BMAB awards.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.