The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Is losing a strategy? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8933 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Kirra [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Is losing a strategy? |
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/ ... h-16920577 Has losing always been a strategy in the Olympics? Spoiler: |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:44 am ] |
Post subject: | |
While it's still a bit shady, crashing on purpose to restart the race isn't quite the same thing as intentionally losing. As i said in the other thread. I don't really blame the athletes themselves for this. I blame the asshats that put a system in place where losing can give you an advantage. |
Author: | shuyung [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:52 am ] |
Post subject: | |
In general, rules exist to delineate what you may not do. Thus, anything not forbidden is allowed. A competitor playing to win should take any actions necessary to do so. If that includes gaming the system, that is a problem with the system, not the competitor. |
Author: | Foamy [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
shuyung wrote: In general, rules exist to delineate what you may not do. Thus, anything not forbidden is allowed. A competitor playing to win should take any actions necessary to do so. If that includes gaming the system, that is a problem with the system, not the competitor. Don't think I could have said it any better myself. If the system is such that a loss can set up an easier match in later rounds, then the system is flawed. Using that flaw to win becomes a viable strategy, unfortunately. |
Author: | Kirra [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:46 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Is a win like this worth it? What about ethics? |
Author: | shuyung [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes, that's the whole point of it. As the man said, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And "most sportsmanlike" is not a victory condition in any competition. |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
10 years from now, when he's showing those medals to his friends and family, no one is going to be talking about the aborted start... The fault lies in the event organizers who need to come up with a system where losing (or intentionally crashing) isn't beneficial. |
Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Still, it's cheap, because some other cyclist got a better start on the first attempt than he did on the second. It's stupid, and counter to the "spirit" of the competition, but yes - I blame the organizers for setting the sport up poorly. |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Gaming the system is mental competition. You can appeal to spirits as much as you like, but people will do their best to win. I fault the rules. |
Author: | Aizle [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
shuyung wrote: In general, rules exist to delineate what you may not do. Thus, anything not forbidden is allowed. A competitor playing to win should take any actions necessary to do so. If that includes gaming the system, that is a problem with the system, not the competitor. Bullshit. **** players who game the system, when the very obvious intent is not what they are doing. It's asshats like that which require rulebooks that are hundreds of pages long. There was a time when good sportsmanship meant something. |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Set up the system that rewards winning, problem solved. Well this problem, drug use and other cheating will remain. |
Author: | shuyung [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Aizle wrote: Bullshit. **** players who game the system, when the very obvious intent is not what they are doing. It's asshats like that which require rulebooks that are hundreds of pages long. There was a time when good sportsmanship meant something. You can say "**** 'em" and call them asshats all you want, but I'm willing to bet you've never been near this level of competition. These are athletes whose only legitimate competition are the other "best in the world". They are not here to give you a good show, or give you your money's worth. They have all come to win, or die trying. In your bush league of whatever it is you compete at, you can afford to add rules that the game itself doesn't recognize. Things like "you can't crash the plate" or "you can't throw elbows to clear the lane" or "take a free drop if you hit yourself behind a tree". But the best athletes can't afford that. There is only winning and losing, and the margin between the two is so thin that it comes down to who found the right edges. Citius, altius, fortius. There's nothing in there about "nicer". Good sportsmanship is a concept invented by the losers. |
Author: | NephyrS [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
For those of you who don't track race, or follow the sport, this is common at all levels. |
Author: | Noggel [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Is losing a strategy? |
Definitely need to fault the organizers who plan out the competitions in such a way that gaming the system exists. A perfect system is probably hard to do for some/most events, but some of the problems are glaring. Yet... while I can't fault the athletes per se, it still makes the whole affair questionable. Gaming the system comes in all manner of degrees. The cyclist who got a free do-over at least had to put up good numbers at some point, and assuming none of the competition had integrity either (as apparently none of the athletes at this level do, if I understand this thread correctly) then the playing field is still sorta level. Still, that assumes all the athletes are in fact gaming the system at approximately equivalent levels. Is that the case? Are there cyclists who would say "damnit, I could've got a better start, but I'm not going to intentionally get a free do-over"? If so, they're essentially penalized for their integrity. Or even assuming they're all equally unsportsmanlike, what if the level of competition is so close that it often comes down to who figures out how to game the system the best? Do we want to celebrate the gold medalist over the 4th place person when the difference is solely because of gaming the system? I don't know about you folks, but I don't really want any of that. I recognize the reality of the situation, and place the majority of the blame squarely on the organizers' shoulders. They are the ones with the power to really cut down on it considerably. But for myself, shady tactics are not something I like to see. That's fine that they're not out there to provide us with entertainment, then, because I find there to be no entertainment value when the competition is so heavily about abusing rules contrary to the spirit of competition. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
shuyung wrote: Citius, altius, fortius. There's nothing in there about "nicer". Good sportsmanship is a concept invented by the losers. Then why is there a restart in the first place? You go down, whoever avoids the tangle and pile-up, or gets up the fastest, clearly wins. Oh, but that would be too upsetting when an accident happens. Let's restart, opening the way for gaming the system for mulligans (funny you mention free drops in golf when you have a bad hit, when this guy basically gave himself a mulligan). I think the competition would be more genuine with either a 1 second penalty for falling, followed by a restart, or no restarts at all. |
Author: | Aizle [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:01 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
shuyung wrote: Aizle wrote: Bullshit. **** players who game the system, when the very obvious intent is not what they are doing. It's asshats like that which require rulebooks that are hundreds of pages long. There was a time when good sportsmanship meant something. You can say "**** 'em" and call them asshats all you want, but I'm willing to bet you've never been near this level of competition. These are athletes whose only legitimate competition are the other "best in the world". They are not here to give you a good show, or give you your money's worth. They have all come to win, or die trying. In your bush league of whatever it is you compete at, you can afford to add rules that the game itself doesn't recognize. Things like "you can't crash the plate" or "you can't throw elbows to clear the lane" or "take a free drop if you hit yourself behind a tree". But the best athletes can't afford that. There is only winning and losing, and the margin between the two is so thin that it comes down to who found the right edges. Citius, altius, fortius. There's nothing in there about "nicer". Good sportsmanship is a concept invented by the losers. There's a word for people who game the system. They are called cheaters... |
Author: | Midgen [ Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
They aren't cheaters if what they are doing isn't against the rules. Cheaters are people who find ways to break the rules without getting caught (PEDs, etc...) There should definitely be a time penalty for a crash related restart in the cycling. The round-robin issue in baminton is a different story. The Chinese intentionally lost a match so they wouldn't be eliminated by their countrymates in the other bracket. This IS against the rules. The problem is, the penalty for breaking this rule is forfeiting the current match. This is pure idiocy. They need to make penalty for intentionally losing a complete disqualification from the Olympics (including other disciplines of the same sport) for the athletes. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Is losing a strategy? |
There's also a word for the sort of people that try to "ban" things they consider "cheating" when those things aren't against the rules. They're called "scrubs". That said, there is a difference between using the rules in an unintended way in order to win at the competition, and intentionally losing the competition in order to gain an advantage in the meta-competition. In the former, such as in the free restart thing, you're demonstrating skill at the game; rules mastery is part of skill since all games are played by their own rules. In the latter, you're abusing the game in order to gain an advantage in the competition as a whole, which has nothing to do with actual playing skill. That's what makes it far dirtier. Unlike the "free restart" type of thing where you still need to use all your skill to win after the free restart, the manipulation through intentional loss involves you trying to not use skill, and doing so in order to avoid needing to use all your skill in the future. It's making the entire thing into an exercise in medal-winning gamesmanship rather than winning medals through skill at the actual athletics involved. The organizers bear some blame for creating a system where this could happen, but only a small amount. Creating a moral hazard does not somehow excuse those who jump into the moral hazard from their own responsibility. |
Author: | Müs [ Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:57 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Eh, I think of the cycling thing as a false start in swimming, running, whatever. Intentionally losing a match just so your country will go gold silver instead of gold bronze... that's assholery. |
Author: | shuyung [ Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
In order, from Kaffis: Because the people who came up with the rules are bad at it. They are not cheaters. They are operating within the rules. Cheating involves violating the rules. That is not solving the root problem. The root problem is that there are cases that incentivize intentionally losing. There's no moral hazard in either incident. Since you've referenced data that draws heavily from David Sirlin, here you go. It's not assholery, it is maximizing your results. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |