Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 29th, 2020, 9:24pm

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
Arimaa Forum « 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid »


   Arimaa Forum
   Arimaa
   Events
(Moderator: supersamu)
   2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid  (Read 16925 times)
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #75 on: May 11th, 2015, 6:28pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

My previous responses in this thread were directed mostly at Omar.  I would now like to say more comprehensively why I believe that sharp's victory was valid, in light of what many people in addition to Omar have said.
 
In a court of law, it is foolish to pursue two contradictory lines of argument in the hopes that one or the other will persuade the judge.  Each argument makes the other less persuasive; your case is stronger if you advance only the better argument and stick to it.  That said, if you lose the case with one consistent line of reasoning, you can rest assured that another lawyer will say you could have won with the other line.  In the old joke about commentating chess endgames, you just say that the loser moved the wrong rook to the open file, and leave it at that.  Contrary to the joke, I would like to contend that the Challenge result should stand, whichever rook you move.
 
Central to Omar's case for invalidating the Challenge result was his contention that browni3141 played worse in his first game when he had money on the line, and better in his second two games when he did not stand to lose money and could relax.  It follows that Omar could only object to lightvector's action on the grounds that it was unethical, but not that it had adversely affected browni3141's play.
 
I would argue that an unethical act that doesn't adversely affect the course of the Challenge match can't be grounds for invalidating the Challenge.  For example, if lightvector had robbed a bank after browni3141's first game, we could agree that lightvector behaved unethically, but the Challenge result would be just as valid as if he hadn't robbed a bank.  Omar's argument about how browni3141's play was affected by lightvector's action doesn't let lightvector off the hook ethically, but it does mean that what lightvector did can't be grounds for invalidating the Challenge result.
 
Omar's case then rests entirely on the fact that browni3141 played worse in the first game due to pressure from his bet with me.  I submit that this fact is impossible to establish.  How do we know that he didn't play worse because he was up against an unfamiliar opponent and better later as he learned?  How do we know it wasn't because of what browni3141 ate for breakfast?  For that matter, how do we know that the difference from later games wasn't random variation in sharp's play?  An Arimaa game is such a complicated affair that depends on so many variables, it is absurd to think we can precisely untangle the causes.
 
The only way to make a case in such a situation is via probabilities that can be substantiated by a great quantity of evidence.  It would be impossible to establish in this single game that being in danger of losing money from losing the game made browni3141 play worse, but one could argue that in general people who play Arimaa (or chess, or tennis, or whatever) play worse when they stand to lose money from losing.
 
When it comes right down to it, I am not sure what the broad evidence says on this score.  I would be curious if anyone can point to studies of the effects of monetary incentives in sports and games.  Most of my personal experience has come from poker.  Most people, when playing poker only for chips (i.e. when they won't lose any money for losing the game), play far worse than when they are playing for money.  They call all-in on ridiculously weak hands, and make complete bluffs with suicidal frequency.  Only when they stand to lose something do they reign in their loose bets and begin to play somewhat sanely.
 
There are, of course, exceptions.  For example, my wife plays poker just as fiercely over chips as she does over quarters.  She tries to make the highest-expectancy play according to her understanding of the game no matter what the expectancy is denominated in.  She is always trying to win.  In her case, adding money to a game of poker could well be expected to make her play worse, because she might play too tightly in order to avoid a big loss.
 
So I admit that there may be some uncertainty and/or variation in the way a financial disincentive to lose affects game players, but I believe that in general they make people less likely to lose.  Before the match took place, I thought that I was increasing browni's chances to win by encouraging him to prepare seriously instead of underestimating his opponent.  If browni3141 had another upcoming match against sharp, and I was on the hook for another $1000 if he lost, I would make another bet with browni3141 in the same direction as last time, because I would still think I was increasing his chances to win.
 
In my experience, it is only such predictions that carry useful information about cause and effect, because after something has happened, people can explain it in any way that is convenient.  I think a judge or a jury would make the same prediction as I do for a future match.  I reject the idea that my bet with browni3141 would be expected to reduce his chances of winning.  Therefore I reject the notion that my bet with browni3141 is grounds for invalidating the Challenge.
 
It has been pointed out that in other sports, participants are not allowed to place any bets on their games, even betting on themselves to win.  Yet it is quite common to have bonuses for achievements such as rushing 1000 yards or hitting 30 home runs.  It is routine for a player to take the field knowing he will be thousands of dollars better off for performing well than for performing poorly, and indeed sports contracts are written to heighten rather than diminish this dynamic.  Therefore financial incentives per se can't be the reason for the gambling ban.  I am not sure what the reason is, but I think the reason needs to be elucidated before it can be clear that it applies to Arimaa as well, and in particular to the Challenge.  
 
In any case, this would be an argument about what the rules for Arimaa events should be, not about what the rules were.  The Arimaa Challenge was not held under the rules of football.  I was deemed a perfectly acceptable Challenge Defender in multiple years when I stood to lose money for losing, the same situation browni3141 was in after his bet with me.  He effectively became an additional sponsor of the Challenge Prize.  There was never an Arimaa event in which it had been against the rules to bet on yourself, and there was, on the contrary, a tradition that it was acceptable.  Yes, if a rule (of Arimaa, not football) had been violated, that would in itself be grounds for invalidating the Challenge result in the absence of any other harm, but invoking an "unwritten rule" when there has been no harm is completely insufficient grounds for invalidating a challenge.  
 
It is now time for me to turn to the "other rook", and address the people who think that my bet with browni3141 is no grounds for invalidating the Challenge, and lightvector's offer to browni3141 is the whole problem.  These people are indeed contradicting what Omar said, but they are not contradicting themselves.  They merely offer the stronger line of reasoning that would have a better chance in court if it were pursued from the start.
 
In this line of reasoning, lightvector's offer to browni3141 could be expected to increase the chances that browni3141 would lose.  This can only be because my bet with browni3141 increased the chances that browni3141 would win (You are welcome, Omar), but lightvector cancelled out the effect of my bet.
 
A couple of posters have drawn analogies to influencing legislation.  These are inapplicable because is against the rules (the law) to pay a legislator to vote in either direction.  It's not OK to incentivize a "yes" vote and wrong to incentivize a "no" vote: each promised payment causes harm.  This is unlike the Challenge, where influencing browni3141 to play better is a good thing.  Also legislation is unlike the Challenge in that even if the two incentives cancel out so that there is arguably no harm, they are still both against the rules.
 
No, the strongest argument that I see is that lightvector's action could be expected to decrease browni3141's level of play, which would in turn benefit lightvector financially by increasing his chances of winning the Arimaa Challenge.  This wasn't against the rules, but it is a tangible harm.
 
I buy into this line of reasoning.  Yes, russ, it looks "ethically strange".  The only way I give lightvector a pass ethically is that I completely believe he didn't realize he was doing harm.  In my opinion, lightvector thought that he was acting to help browni3141 play his best, ala Omar's argument.  I truly believe that lightvector is such a generous human being that he was willing to both reduce his chances of winning the Challenge prize and reduce the amount of the prize he would win, merely to alleviate browni3141's psychological suffering.
 
That said, one can give lightvector a pass ethically and still insist that his behavior ought to be against the rules in future years, and that in the present year he (accidentally) invalidated the Challenge.  Clearly it undermines the result of any Challenge game if someone has done something that prevents the players from playing their best, no matter what was intended.
 
But my final argument is that the degree of harm is also relevant.  Suppose that, instead what actually happened, there had been no financial arrangements on the side, and lightvector had tried to make browni3141 play worse by calling him a hamster.  We could agree that this is unethical behavior.  We could agree to change the rules such that for future years anyone who engages in taunting is ineligible to win any prize.  We could agree that taunting is likely to adversely affect browni3141's play, so lightvector's chances of winning the Challenge were increased by his nefarious behaviour.  But would we therefore say the games didn't count, and the Challenge hadn't been won, because of the hamster taunt?  I think not.
 
Returning to what actually happened, my opinion is that the harm was real, but insufficient to invalidate the Challenge.  After lightvector took away the monetary incentive that I had given browni3141, browni3141 still had all the incentives he had before my bet, all the incentives that Omar expected when he chose browni3141 as a Challenge Defender, all the incentives that most Challenge Defenders have ever had.  Clearly these incentives are sufficient for a valid Challenge.
 
Lightvector (or I, depending on "which rook") may have tarnished the Challenge, but it is still plenty shiny in my book.  Sharp won, sharp deserved to win, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who is going to be paying out the promised prize.
IP Logged

CraggyCornmeal
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #10296

   


Gender: male
Posts: 27
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #76 on: May 12th, 2015, 3:09am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 11th, 2015, 6:28pm, Fritzlein wrote:
It has been pointed out that in other sports, participants are not allowed to place any bets on their games, even betting on themselves to win.  Yet it is quite common to have bonuses for achievements such as rushing 1000 yards or hitting 30 home runs.  It is routine for a player to take the field knowing he will be thousands of dollars better off for performing well than for performing poorly, and indeed sports contracts are written to heighten rather than diminish this dynamic.  Therefore financial incentives per se can't be the reason for the gambling ban.  I am not sure what the reason is, but I think the reason needs to be elucidated before it can be clear that it applies to Arimaa as well, and in particular to the Challenge.

 
Betting on yourself can pollute the market for other bettors, giving an unfair advantage to those who know how you're betting.
 
Suppose last September I discovered that Ben Roethlisberger bet $5000 that his Steelers would beat the Panthers, but the next week was only betting $50 that they'd beat the Bucs. I would have naturally inferred that, despite the Bucs looking like an easier opponent than the Panthers and the Steelers being 9 point favourites, Roethlisberger was not so confident. I would have capitalized on my insider information by betting on the Bucs to upset the Steelers, and I would've made a boatload of money.
 
I can see a few salient differences between betting and performance bonuses:
 
1) Performance bonuses don't vary by opponent. If Roethlisberger negotiates into his contract a bonus for passing for 300+ yards against the Panthers, but not against the Bucs, this could be a problem. If he gets a bonus for passing for 300+ yards against any opponent, that's fine.
 
2) Unlike bets, performance bonuses are negotiated far in advance of any games being played. Thus, they may reflect a player's general level of confidence, but they won't reflect a player's level of confidence for any particular game.
 
3) Information about performance bonuses is publicly available. All bettors know what players are incentivised to do. There is no insider information.
 
So I think it makes sense for any sport with a betting market to prohibit its players from betting on themselves or their teams.
 
One question remains: is Arimaa's betting market substantial enough for us to worry about people with insider knowledge having an unfair advantage?
 
If we answer yes, I see two obvious courses of action (though I'd be happy to hear about others):
 
1) Prohibit players from betting on games they're playing in.
 
2) Let players bet on themselves, but post all bets publicly. If this rule were instituted in my Roethlisberger example, everyone would have known he wasn't confident the Steelers would beat the Bucs. I would not have had information other bettors weren't privy to and the betting lines would have been adjusted to account for the increased probability of a Bucs victory, making my bet once again a tossup. This could, however, have the unfortunate and ironic side effect of driving betting underground, so I'm not convinced it's our best option.
 
Of course, if we adopt one of these rules, it could only apply to future bets.
 
Other than this, I think your judgement is quite convincing, Fritz. I'm sure you would make quite a good lawyer. But thank you for not becoming one. We have plenty as it is.
« Last Edit: May 12th, 2015, 3:38am by CraggyCornmeal » IP Logged
PotatoeTheCat
Forum Full Member
***



Arimaa player #9869

   


Gender: male
Posts: 22
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #77 on: May 12th, 2015, 7:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If the Arimaa community wants to move on from this unfortunate incident, the first step must be to clarify its policy on side-betting. (Especially for the WC, CC and other high-profile events, with prize money at stake.)
 
Craggy's principle 1 "Prohibit players from betting on games they're playing in" is a good place to start from.
 
For reference, the Olympic Committee tightened up its ethics code in preparation for the London Olympics:
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Ethics/code-ethiqu e-interactif_en_2013.pdf
 
Side-betting is specifically covered (and prohibited) - please see pp.80-84.  Especially note Article 5 (pp.83-84) which specifies the outcome of the competition and performance/effort of the player concerned is not material to whether a breach has been committed.
 
I'll leave it to Fritz to write to the Olympic Committee to demand a rationale for their side-betting ban.  Smiley
 
Seriously though, the Arimaa community could spend a lot of time debating  & drafting its own policy on side-betting.  But it certainly could do a whole lot worse than following the lead of (arguably) the most senior sporting body in the world.
 
Surely if a code of conduct is good enough for the Olympic Games, it's good enough for the Arimaa world.
IP Logged
browni3141
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #7014

   


Gender: male
Posts: 380
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #78 on: May 12th, 2015, 2:44pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 12th, 2015, 7:36am, PotatoeTheCat wrote:
If the Arimaa community wants to move on from this unfortunate incident, the first step must be to clarify its policy on side-betting. (Especially for the WC, CC and other high-profile events, with prize money at stake.)
 
Craggy's principle 1 "Prohibit players from betting on games they're playing in" is a good place to start from.
 
For reference, the Olympic Committee tightened up its ethics code in preparation for the London Olympics:
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Ethics/code-ethiqu e-interactif_en_2013.pdf
 
Side-betting is specifically covered (and prohibited) - please see pp.80-84.  Especially note Article 5 (pp.83-84) which specifies the outcome of the competition and performance/effort of the player concerned is not material to whether a breach has been committed.
 
I'll leave it to Fritz to write to the Olympic Committee to demand a rationale for their side-betting ban.  Smiley
 
Seriously though, the Arimaa community could spend a lot of time debating  & drafting its own policy on side-betting.  But it certainly could do a whole lot worse than following the lead of (arguably) the most senior sporting body in the world.
 
Surely if a code of conduct is good enough for the Olympic Games, it's good enough for the Arimaa world.

 
As far as I remember Craggy in his last post is the only one to give a good reason for prohibiting betting, and prohibiting betting is not the only course of action as he mentioned in his post.
 
Appealing to outside authorities is not valid reasoning to ban side-betting.
 
I still see no good reason to ban betting without conflict of interest instead of making bets mandatorily public, for example, and no one has provided a good reason. Personal morals alone is not a good reason if the large majority of other people don't share your morals and "other organizations do it" is not a good reason.
 
So I would like to know your rationale for wanting a side-betting ban. We need reasons to change the rules rather than leave them as they are.
IP Logged

PotatoeTheCat
Forum Full Member
***



Arimaa player #9869

   


Gender: male
Posts: 22
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #79 on: May 13th, 2015, 9:47am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Both my argument for a ban on Side-Betting (highest level sporting authorities support the ban) and the counter-argument ("we need reasons to change the rules") are appeals to convention.  It isn't any more logical (or less logical) to migrate the Arimaa code of conduct to that of wider sporting/gaming bodies than it is to continue with existing practice in Arimaa.  Logic does not help us out here.
 
However, I am not convinced that Arimaa has a "convention" allowing Side-Betting.  As a number of contributors have noted, there is no written rule on Side-Betting.  The most that can be said is that Side-Betting has actually taken place, and no one has strongly objected (previously).  This is not the same thing as a rule or convention, which would require consensus that the practice is acceptable.  A 6-page, and (at times) emotive forum thread, should be enough to convince anyone that no consensus currently exists on this topic.
 
The introduction of the OC code of ethics would not "change" the rules on Side-Betting.  The heart of the problem is that Arimaa has no rule on Side-Betting.  That is what needs to change.
 
Regarding the rationale for the ban on Side-Betting, I am sure that I have nothing original to add on top of what a number of authorities have written and concluded on this matter.
 
These include:  
 
- the Olympic Committee,  
- the EU Athletes Association,
- the European Gaming and Betting Association,  
- the Remote Gambling Association,
- the European Sports Security Association  
 
Anyone who feels that the rationale for the ban needs to be spelt out further is most welcome to do some further research.
 
 
 
IP Logged
browni3141
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #7014

   


Gender: male
Posts: 380
Re:  2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results inva
« Reply #80 on: May 13th, 2015, 5:19pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 13th, 2015, 9:47am, PotatoeTheCat wrote:
Both my argument for a ban on Side-Betting (highest level sporting authorities support the ban) and the counter-argument ("we need reasons to change the rules") are appeals to convention.  It isn't any more logical (or less logical) to migrate the Arimaa code of conduct to that of wider sporting/gaming bodies than it is to continue with existing practice in Arimaa.  Logic does not help us out here.
 
However, I am not convinced that Arimaa has a "convention" allowing Side-Betting.  As a number of contributors have noted, there is no written rule on Side-Betting.  The most that can be said is that Side-Betting has actually taken place, and no one has strongly objected (previously).  This is not the same thing as a rule or convention, which would require consensus that the practice is acceptable.  A 6-page, and (at times) emotive forum thread, should be enough to convince anyone that no consensus currently exists on this topic.
 
The introduction of the OC code of ethics would not "change" the rules on Side-Betting.  The heart of the problem is that Arimaa has no rule on Side-Betting.  That is what needs to change.
 
Regarding the rationale for the ban on Side-Betting, I am sure that I have nothing original to add on top of what a number of authorities have written and concluded on this matter.
 
These include:  
 
- the Olympic Committee,  
- the EU Athletes Association,
- the European Gaming and Betting Association,  
- the Remote Gambling Association,
- the European Sports Security Association  
 
Anyone who feels that the rationale for the ban needs to be spelt out further is most welcome to do some further research.
 
 
 

 
I am not arguing for any new rules to be put in place to explicitly allow side betting. I am just asking for some logical reasoning for a new rule to be put in place which is going to restrict people's freedoms. Why is that so much to ask for?
 
Your argument is fallacious, unless you're not trying to make a logical argument at all, but who here is going to respect an argument without any logical reasoning whatsoever? "Some well-known organizations do this, so we should to."
If you can find sources explaining the reasoning behind the rules of these organizations or if you can supply your own reasoning for these rules then your argument can have value, but you seem to be either lazy, apathetic or unable.
Don't expect others to support your argument for you or maybe just don't make it in the first place if you don't care about following through.
 
I will be happy to continue if you or anyone else is willing to present a stronger logical argument to introduce rules regarding side bets, but right now I'm just getting frustrated with these barely supported propositions to introduce new rules (with the exception of Craggy)
IP Logged

CraggyCornmeal
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #10296

   


Gender: male
Posts: 27
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #81 on: May 13th, 2015, 10:23pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I thought of a counter to my argument that betting* on yourself should be regulated or prohibited because it pollutes the betting market.
 
Betting on yourself can be a problem when it tips off some but not all other bettors about your confidence level. But this is not the only thing that can tip off people about a player's confidence level.
 
Heading into the finals of this year's World Championship, Fritz said several times in chat that he believed his chances of beating Browni were low. Suppose I capitalized on this information by betting on Browni with someone who wasn't present in chat at the time and had no idea about Fritz's low confidence. Would that have been ethical?
 
There are two actions to scrutinize:
 
1) Fritz divulging his confidence level.
 
2) Me capitalizing on my insider information by betting with someone who didn't have access to this information.
 
Let's first address Fritz's action. Should we really have censured him simply for talking about an upcoming game? Should we have said, "Shut up, Fritz. You're polluting the betting market"?
 
I think it's unreasonable to restrict players' speech this way. No one should bite their tongue out of fear they'll slightly compromise the integrity of the betting market.
 
Yet if we refuse to prohibit players from talking about their confidence levels, on what grounds can we prohibit them from tipping people off about their confidence levels via their bets? My insider information would have been just as valuable in either case, and the betting market would have been just as polluted.
 
Perhaps instead of prohibiting players from talking about their confidence levels, we should allow it only if they post about it in the forum. This would negate the advantage of my "insider" information by making it available to all bettors.
 
Unfortunately, this also restricts freedom of expression, though indirectly. Players are far less likely to chat about their feelings about upcoming games if they have a burden to also post about it in the forum.
 
So if we refuse to make public all information about players' confidence levels, how can we justify making public a subset of this information, bets?
 
I've shown we can't have a pure betting market without imposing excessive restrictions on our freedom of expression. But I believe there are two reasons we should continue to let players talk about whatever they like, yet single out betting for regulation:
 
1) Freedom of expression is more important than the freedom to bet. I would like the betting market to be as pure as possible, but not at any cost. Regulating speech is too high a cost. Regulating bets is a reasonable cost.
 
2) When players talk about how they feel about upcoming games, the risk of corruption is much lower than when they place bets. An increased ability to dissuade and catch corruption is, I believe, the biggest virtue of making bets public. LightVector's agreement with Browni wasn't corrupt, but it looked odd enough to warrant a few questions. If and when an actual case of corruption arises, I want us to have the tools we need to discover it quickly so we can prevent it from inflicting any damage on Arimaa.
 
Now let's consider the ethics of me capitalizing on my insider information about Fritz's low confidence. I think we need to recognize that, unlike in pro sports, in Arimaa players and bettors are in very close contact. In fact, all of the bettors are also players.
 
In pro sports, there's a natural barrier between players and bettors. In Arimaa, people are unlikely to bet on a game between players they don't know. If we choose to prohibit betting on games when a bettor has a piece of insider information about one of the players, we'll have to prohibit most of our bets. In any community as small and cozy as Arimaa, people are going to know stuff about each other, and that information won't be distributed evenly.
 
Perhaps the close relationship between players and bettors generates so much insider information that my desire for a pure-ish betting market is laughable. I'm beginning to think that my initial argument only applies when the betting community is so separated from the players that information about how a player bets is a rare insight into their confidence level. In Arimaa, these insights are not rare at all.
 
So unless someone can resuscitate my argument for maximizing the integrity of the betting market, the only reason I can think of for regulating bets is that it will dissuade corruption and make it easier to catch. In particular, I think making all bets public would help catch unintended corruption, which could occur in an agreement similar to LightVector and Browni's.
 
 
*By "betting," I mean any proposed exchange of money or goods conditional on a future event. By some definitions, LightVector's agreement with Browni wasn't a bet since there was no scenario where Browni would have had to pay out. But I think it's clear that if we decide to regulate bets, we should regulate these kinds of agreements in the same way.
IP Logged
SilverMitt
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #8388

   


Gender: male
Posts: 71
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #82 on: May 14th, 2015, 12:12am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The last post seems entirely a non sequitur to me.  Do we have a betting market I don't know about?
IP Logged
99of9
Forum Guru
*****




Gnobby's creator (player #314)

  toby_hudson  


Gender: male
Posts: 1413
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #83 on: May 14th, 2015, 1:25am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

One reason that sporting bodies do well to prohibit betting on oneself is to prevent sharking (sandbagging your apparent ability in previous rounds and then cashing in with a big bet on yourself).
IP Logged
PotatoeTheCat
Forum Full Member
***



Arimaa player #9869

   


Gender: male
Posts: 22
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #84 on: May 14th, 2015, 2:27am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

An argument from convention is not a fallacious argument: it is not a logical argument at all.  But that does not mean that we can discount convention.
 
There is a strong argument that the practice of attempting to settle questions by reason is itself a social construct (originating from 5th century BC Athens).
 
[ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/
 
The seminal work on this subject is by David Lewis (no relation): "Convention" (1969)]
 
Why is it "better" to try to decide matter by reason, rather than say, trial by combat, or just voting on the matter without discussion?  (Don't say "its more logical", because that's a circular argument.)
 
Honestly, does anyone think this forum thread (engaging though it is) is more likely to yield a satisfactory answer to the issue of Side-Betting, than say an Arimaa Blitz tournament to decide the matter?
 
@Browni
 
You stated above that "You seem to be either lazy, apathetic or unable [to explain the reasoning behind the rules of these organizations]"
 
Actually, I believe I am none of these.  The rationale is on the websites I have provided links for.  Anyone can read these and comment on them, just as they wish.
 
However, there is a convention (actually a written rule) which prohibits discourtesy to forum participants:
 
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;nu m=1284316699
 
I believe your comments above breach that rule, so I decline to contribute further until normal standards of civility are resumed.
 
Signing off - PTC
IP Logged
mattj256
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #8519

   


Gender: male
Posts: 138
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #85 on: May 14th, 2015, 9:01am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 14th, 2015, 12:12am, SilverMitt wrote:
The last post seems entirely a non sequitur to me.  Do we have a betting market I don't know about?
I agree with SilverMitt.  The recent part of this discussion is talking about the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
 
For what it's worth, MY main concern is that Arimaa events don't get canceled or invalidated, and the Tournament Director of an Arimaa event isn't placed in an awkward position.  Therefore I suggest the following rules:
 
1. For non-event games, all betting is legal and unregulated.  The only exception is that a player may not bet against himself or herself.  (Each bet is considered in isolation, and this would make Browni's behavior illegal going forward.)
 
2. Every new tournament or Arimaa event must have an explicit policy regarding betting.
IP Logged
CraggyCornmeal
Forum Senior Member
****



Arimaa player #10296

   


Gender: male
Posts: 27
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #86 on: May 14th, 2015, 10:59am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 14th, 2015, 12:12am, SilverMitt wrote:
The last post seems entirely a non sequitur to me.  Do we have a betting market I don't know about?

Sometimes people bet on games. Therefore, there's a betting market.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 9:01am, mattj256 wrote:
I agree with SilverMitt.  The recent part of this discussion is talking about the solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Arimaa may not currently have any corruption, but it is a very real danger, and should be the focus of any rule that regulates betting.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 9:01am, mattj256 wrote:
1. For non-event games, all betting is legal and unregulated.

I'm not convinced that non-event games are less susceptible to corruption than event games.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 9:01am, mattj256 wrote:
2. Every new tournament or Arimaa event must have an explicit policy regarding betting.

This would repeatedly reopen the debate, which would be redundant and tiring.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 2:27am, PotatoeTheCat wrote:
An argument from convention is not a fallacious argument

I disagree.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 2:27am, PotatoeTheCat wrote:
Why is it "better" to try to decide matter by reason, rather than say, trial by combat, or just voting on the matter without discussion?  (Don't say "its more logical", because that's a circular argument.)

Because, historically, deciding matters with reason has tended to bring us closer to the truth. Deciding matters with trial by combat has tended to pile up bodies.
 
on May 14th, 2015, 1:25am, 99of9 wrote:
One reason that sporting bodies do well to prohibit betting on oneself is to prevent sharking (sandbagging your apparent ability in previous rounds and then cashing in with a big bet on yourself).

Great point, 99of9.
« Last Edit: May 14th, 2015, 11:09am by CraggyCornmeal » IP Logged
browni3141
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #7014

   


Gender: male
Posts: 380
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #87 on: May 15th, 2015, 1:32am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on May 14th, 2015, 2:27am, PotatoeTheCat wrote:

@Browni
 
You stated above that "You seem to be either lazy, apathetic or unable [to explain the reasoning behind the rules of these organizations]"
 
Actually, I believe I am none of these.  The rationale is on the websites I have provided links for.  Anyone can read these and comment on them, just as they wish.
 
However, there is a convention (actually a written rule) which prohibits discourtesy to forum participants:
 
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;nu m=1284316699
 
I believe your comments above breach that rule, so I decline to contribute further until normal standards of civility are resumed.
 
Signing off - PTC

 
Sorry if I offended you. My phrasing could be seen as antagonistic, perhaps, but I stand by what I said. I would appreciate it if you could post a more direct link or quote which parts of their rationale you think may apply to Arimaa. I see guidelines in your links, but not reasoning behind them which would apply to Arimaa, IMO.
IP Logged

lightvector
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #2543

   


Gender: male
Posts: 197
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #88 on: May 15th, 2015, 10:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Just to chime in briefly - I would support and be happy to see a policy around placing or publicizing of bets or financial arrangements, whatever it may be, for future events.
 
As far as the details of what that policy is - one can obviously run particular analyses of whether and in what situations certain kinds of bets might result in adverse incentives, and argue about the exact form of the rule. But all that aside, it seems to me that one of the most important considerations is simply - what rule would let as many other people as possible be comfortable and able to move on with future events?
 
Taking a step back, I would guess most of us are here really just to play and have fun. I don't know about how other people feel, but I can't imagine that it's fun to keep debating this, or that it feels like a terribly valuable use of time. From that stance, it seems obvious to me that any concessions necessary are worth it to come to agreement and move on. A straightforward restriction against on betting or staking money on future event games, for example, seems reasonable to me in that regard, and if that's what it takes, at least personally I would be happy if that's people decide on.
 
Regardless of what happens here and regardless of any rules that are established, I know that I personally will be considering my actions more carefully in the future. Because while different people have different perceptions of right and wrong, the perceptions themselves are real and can cause an action to have real consequences on other people.
 
« Last Edit: May 15th, 2015, 10:41pm by lightvector » IP Logged
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #2764

   


Gender: male
Posts: 589
Re: 2015 Arimaa Challenge Match results invalid
« Reply #89 on: Jun 19th, 2015, 10:34am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

What's the final word on all that?
IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.