| |
BGonline.org Forums
ruling in Madison
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: ruling in Madison (Gregg Cattanach)
Date: Saturday, 12 September 2009, at 4:36 a.m.
Gregg, I find it interesting that you "haven't been convinced of anything" by the arguments in this thread. When I first heard about players agreeing to play legal moves, I thought is was a) against the rules, b) a bad idea in general, c) apt to create more conflicts and problems than the current rule, and d) something that would encourage more cheating.
From a few conversations, from trying it, and from reading the arguments in this thread, I have reversed my feelings about all 4 areas. I consider myself to be a very open-minded person, yet skeptical and independent. I also consider myself to be extremely experienced and in the writing and application of rules, and after giving this some thought, I see a lot of validity in the arguments concerning this rule. I wonder how you can find nothing? I can see that you might still not like the rule, or you might think it is unenforceable, or you might find one or more aspects of it objectionable. But to see no possible benefits where I, and many others see many benefits make me question whether you are truly being open-minded on this subject.
I can certainly admit that you raise some excellent points, but the reason I favor legal moves is NOT because it is perfect and there are no flaws, but simply because there are fewer flaws that the alternative. I can certainly provide a rule and process that is far closer to perfect to assure fair and honest and legal moves at all times (have a designated monitor make all the moves for the players, and have the players and monitors agree that the move was legal, and have the ability to check pictures of a video to be sure), but I don't recommend that because it is too extreme.
It's hard for me to understand or respect the opinions of anyone who can't find ANYTHING better about an alternative, such as legal moves, or the use of a baffle box, or the use of a computer to play, or the use of clocks, or dice provided by the director, etc. etc. I prefer a baffle box, but I can certainly see and admit that it is not the perfect solution, and I can even it admit that in some areas it might have some drawbacks compared to the current method of rolling, but overall, it is better in my opinion. But those who argue against every single point and conceded nothing, or who say that they haven't heard a thing that makes reasonable sense to them, put me on my guard that these people may not truly be objective or open-minded and are simply arguing about everything to support their point, just as an attorney is paid to do in a courtroom.
SURELY you can see that for many people, even if it's not you, playing legal moves leads to more self-imposed responsibility to be fair and honest; and that for some of us (if not you) the game becomes more enjoyable and pleasant because we are less worried about someone taking advantage of us, or about someone thinking we are trying to take advantage of them? Is there nothing about this argument you could conceded at all?????
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.