Jump to content
ACP

Road of the King by Patrick Hoban

Recommended Posts

+Gemstone Mine    2596

literally as much evidence to suggest that chapin had a witness killed as hoban killing 3 hookers before every winning ycs

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mmf    23487
yea that's why i said probably... make your own observations still, but yo he did dat

Reddit says it was ecstacy

tldr u fuck with drugs ur not allowed in japan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gemstone Mine    2596

yeah, it was. ecstasy is a schedule 1 drug. And the japanese are assholes about all drugs in general. There aren't a whole lot of drugs that don't carry a 5 year jail term in japan that aren't perscription.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mmf    23487
we aren't disagreeing about anything
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aerisfanboy    22
I feel like any time I'm reading a non-deck/card-related Yu-Gi-Oh! article by Hoban it's always about trying to bypass a UC. Is it that hard to just... play by the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the rules?

"In order to be a competitive player you gotta exploit every single single loophole in the rules." Yeah... No.
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlMacuby    96

You don't get bonus points for being an honorable, moral, "true" duelist who believes in the heart of the cards. Going to the edge of the possible is in the nature of competition.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33406

You don't get bonus points for being an honorable, moral, "true" duelist who believes in the heart of the cards. Going to the edge of the possible is in the nature of competition.

Actually, you do get bonus points. It's called your reputation. If you don't understand how your reputation is relevant to your success as a TCG player, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Between scumming people on stupid deals and paying people for wins at events, Hoban's reputation is just never going to be as good as someone like Lazaro Bellido or Kris Perovic, and he has no one to blame but himself for that.

  • Upvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33406

People also have to realize that the danger in treading so close to the line is that you might accidentally step over it. Hoban's advice is actually pretty shitty in that particular regard. Not only do I not cheat, but I also never do anything that could be misconstrued as cheating. Why would you want to take your chances, when the consequences of fucking up are not getting to play for 2 years?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105
You say it hurts Hoban's reputation, but I disagree. He wants to play as perfect as possible/have the highest winrate, and not exploiting the rules would decrease his winrate. So that would go against his own goals. It's probably best when you're in doubt to ask your head judge if what you do is legal, before an event starts. Every time people call stuff like the Side out djinn thing scummy etc, it makes me think of the scrub mentality from 'playing to win'. Especially when you consider the other party could simply say no to any of these agreements
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TonySK    618

To quote Sirlin, "A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about."

Avoiding cheating or situations that fall into a morally gray area that could be construed as cheating does not make you a scrub as the rules inform you of what breaks them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

cheating should be avoided, of course. when something's a grey area, that's why I said ask a head judge or julia or whoever decides that first. if you do not know if something is legal you should find out first before you try it, but that's not the argument i'm trying to make. i'm talking about situations that are actually legal, but a lot of people consider scummy or morally low. but when you think about it, is it really a bad thing morally to make an offer that your opponent can choose to accept or refuse? to me, whenever you accept any kind of gentleman's agreement which then backfires on you, it just sounds like you took a chance, but you didn't expect your opponent would benefit from it more than you. you gambled and you lost. I wish people could just for once say 'how stupid of me to accept this kind of deal, how stupid of me to not expect my opponent to trick me', instead of blaming the opponent for doing what he does: 'making the right play'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Virtuoso    104

obviously if you can clear some procedure you intend to use with the HJ at the start, you are in the all clear. it should be a good sign that the biggest/er issue found with the book thus is an arbitrary but understandable and somewhat justifiable translation of the rules

 

as iron sharpens iron, man sharpens man. im not a proponent of the march of progress in society, but i recognize the necessity of competition. people pushing the envelope and living on the frontier are overall better for the game (the practice of normal summoning twice every turn and pretending it was an accident is not pushing the envelope). when a new paradigm is introduced, it forces others to compete or die. looking for the laxity in rules and dynamics forces both players and konami to compensate. i did though really like dans analysis concerning the paradox of both advocating people to push the envelope, but in turn practicing secrecy yourself. i think there is a large burden when it comes to introducing new players to yugioh because of its convoluted nature, and there isnt nearly enough dialogue from good players directed to newer players, leaving the burden on konami (which is obviously correct), who tries to solve it by making new cards proprietary, powerful, and simple (which always existed in some form, but i would argue its on a linear growth. JD obviously being the alpha and omega)

 

i like hoban. he puts in the time, and thats not apparent because he says it(often), but because of his product

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blacklisted    1329

cheating should be avoided, of course. when something's a grey area, that's why I said ask a head judge or julia or whoever decides that first. if you do not know if something is legal you should find out first before you try it, but that's not the argument i'm trying to make. i'm talking about situations that are actually legal, but a lot of people consider scummy or morally low. but when you think about it, is it really a bad thing morally to make an offer that your opponent can choose to accept or refuse? to me, whenever you accept any kind of gentleman's agreement which then backfires on you, it just sounds like you took a chance, but you didn't expect your opponent would benefit from it more than you. you gambled and you lost. I wish people could just for once say 'how stupid of me to accept this kind of deal, how stupid of me to not expect my opponent to trick me', instead of blaming the opponent for doing what he does: 'making the right play'. 

 

 

You live through your life assuming that everybody around you isnt there to get you in one way or another. Similarly you play the game assuming your opponent isnt trying to scum you in one way or another.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

of course. i bet if your opponent says 'my backrows are just bluffs' you believe them as well? it's stupid to assume people are telling the truth when bluffing and tricking is part of the game you're playing. and no, i do no trust someone i just met which is basically the case of most people you're playing against, and i'd say it's pretty naive if you do 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blacklisted    1329

of course. i bet if your opponent says 'my backrows are just bluffs' you believe them as well? it's stupid to assume people are telling the truth when bluffing and tricking is part of the game you're playing. and no, i do no trust someone i just met which is basically the case of most people you're playing against, and i'd say it's pretty naive if you do 

 

theres a huge difference between telling them your backrow are bluffs and scumming them on a gentlemans agreement. I wouldnt agree to the gentlemans agreement unless it was something that we could verify (limited cards such as Vanity's) but the average person is going to give other people the benefit of the doubt due to that mean how we are as humans (treating others the way we want to be treated). Like someone stated earlier people should be playing to the spirit of the rules and not to the word.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knives1990    262
Are we talking about djinn again...it's real simple mark/everyone else advocating, you can do whatever you want within the technical rules of the game. But you will lose the respect you may have once had by pushing these boundaries. Maybe that's worth it to you to have a chance at winning a match, maybe it's not.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThatOneGuy    2005

For what it's worth, I will treat people the same way I want to be treated. And I would expect most people to not be stupid enough to completely trust a stranger (me), so I will not do the same thing in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blacklisted    1329

Are we talking about djinn again...it's real simple mark/everyone else advocating, you can do whatever you want within the technical rules of the game. But you will lose the respect you may have once had by pushing these boundaries. Maybe that's worth it to you to have a chance at winning a match, maybe it's not.

 

basically this

 

if you're going to be angle shooting like that you may as well put the effort into something more worthwhile than ygo to be honest

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    59

To quote Sirlin, "A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about."

Avoiding cheating or situations that fall into a morally gray area that could be construed as cheating does not make you a scrub as the rules inform you of what breaks them.

 

 

Not offering a gentlemen's agreements, like the djinn thing, due to morals is being a scrub by that definition, so yes mark used the term scrub correctly here:

 

 

You say it hurts Hoban's reputation, but I disagree. He wants to play as perfect as possible/have the highest winrate, and not exploiting the rules would decrease his winrate. So that would go against his own goals. It's probably best when you're in doubt to ask your head judge if what you do is legal, before an event starts. Every time people call stuff like the Side out djinn thing scummy etc, it makes me think of the scrub mentality from 'playing to win'. Especially when you consider the other party could simply say no to any of these agreements

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10208

There's no such thing as a morally gray area that can be construed as cheating.  

 

Either a) it's cheating, b) it isn't cheating, or c) a judge is misapplying the rules and you should appeal.  You should have figured out if something is cheating with your HJ before you actually do it, preferably by messaging him while he's off his face drunk and asking him if he's okay with this.  You should know to the letter whatever interpretation of Konami's vague documents he is applying.  The fact tournament policy can vary heavily from venue to venue, beyond just the usual "one person's tolerable dickhead is another person's auto-eject from venue," is a pretty shitty fact of life with Konami's policy guidelines.  But you should have accounted for it before doing whatever you were doing.  

 

If you get dq'd for anything except the really shady and not very transparent policies around marked cards, it's pretty much your own fault.  

 

If you do get DQ'd for marked cards, and lets face it the majority of people who are DQ'd for marked cards weren't stacking, because anyone who is actually stacking uses a much better method than heavily bending a playset of the 3 best cards in their deck,  then you got screwed and that's pretty unfortunate.  

 

Konami uses really shitty cardboard for the TCG, go find a guy with OCG cards and pick up one of them and realise how much we've gotten screwed over in the west when you feel the print quality on those things, and the judge policies as they stand hook a lot of kids via that, whilst rarely if ever catching actual cheaters.  Except ofc by deck checking the shit outta suspected cheaters in the community until they find something to ban them over.  .  

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5845

 theres a huge difference between telling them your backrow are bluffs and scumming them on a gentlemans agreement.

 

No there isn't, what a bunch of cognitively dissonant nonsense. They are both lies, one simply has a higher chance of working than another, there is no intrinsic difference. 

 

The only real difference would be if the rules forbade one and forgave the other, and I honestly don't even remember the verdict on the bluff thing. But, that isn't what you're arguing in the first place so it doesn't matter. Just because most people decide to give their opponent the benefit of the doubt in one case and not in the other on completely inconsistent grounds, doesn't mean they should do it, and doesn't mean it isn't fair game to exploit them for doing so. 

 

Allow me to expand a bit on what Knives said though, so that if this comes up again in the future I at least have a piece to reference to:

 

Would I do either? Probably not, but I would acknowledge the blockades in my mind stopping me, and not care if others do it. To me, social considerations being a constant, this all comes down to personal blockades, what we are and aren't willing to do to win. For cheaters, group 1, their blockade is "the rules - x." For people like Patrick, group 2, their blockade is "the rules." For others, group 3, their blockade is "the rules + x." The last group and the middle group both are against the first group (cheaters) for different reasons. The last group for morally crusading reasons, and the middle group for understanding that those same people could end up cheating against them thus artificially lowering group 2's chances of winning.

 

What we see in situations like this, however (not the "Patrick writing cheating into his book" situation, obviously, but rather stuff like the Djinn thing,) is nothing more than people in group 3 being upset with those in group 2 for nothing more than BEING in group 2. Group 2 doesn't care as much about all these deontological concepts that group 3 builds themselves upon, and group 3 hates it. I think that for their own purposes, they both should keep to their own side and stop attacking each other. Group 2 should put down the arguments about how little group 3 cares about winning compared to them, and group 3 should acknowledge that some people just care more about winning than them, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that when legal. 

 

Then you can get into other stuff like what Allen mentioned about your reputation having actual consequences, even regarding your chances of winning later like with your "circle" or whatever, or arguments like what Urthor brought up pragmatically about judges not ruling right, or the head judge having a disagreement with your interpretation of the rules. These are, however, all things that group 2 can factor in while remaining internally consistent. More importantly though, they're actual theoretical arguments and not just this nonsense that gets brought up time and time again.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gojira    1706

Legit question. Is this "treading the line" behaviour prevalent in other TCGs?


Yes. Any game will have its rules tested/stretched regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Paraliel+    8030

Legit question. Is this "treading the line" behaviour prevalent in other TCGs?

There are people who always try to push the limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×