Rock Block Etiquette

Aaron Shurtleff | December 5, 2008
I had a question that I've been stewing on for a while, and I won't be naming any names, so don't ask.

Semi-recently, I was in a Rock Block match using the Switch rule (among others). Although I don't believe that there was any acrimony or hard feelings, there was a question about card choice in these matches. So, let me ask the whole group: If you are in a match where you know the cards you are picking are going to your opponent, is it expected that you will be picking the worst combination of cards you can? I had always assumed that was part of the fun of Switch: giving your opponent the stinkiest 5 cards you have, and getting their top five clunkers, and seeing who can make chicken soup from chicken...poop. However, I got the impression at the time that my opponent picked cards as normal, in which case I would have been at an advantage, because I gave bad cards (I think Decades was also a rule, and all the cards were in one decade, if I recall correctly).

Is this the kind of thing that should be discussed pre-choice? Should there be an assumption? What does everyone else think? I don't want to obsess about what is probably a very minor point in a game that is really just for fun, but I don't want to be known as the guy who is a jerk in Switch matches either!

And if my opponent did take offense, I apologize. I think I apologized at the time, and explained my point, but it can't hurt to apologize again. I am truly sorry if you felt I took advantage.

Lori Lancaster | December 5, 2008
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | December 5, 2008
Honestly, there was no beef, Aaron... my choices were limited to only six cards anyway -- I had to decide between two cards and thought for a moment I should just stick you with a duplicate decade, but then thought WWSD ("what would Scott do? ;-D) and decided to give you the better of the two. I don't even think it would have made a difference in the outcome (at least, I don't remember), and I never even gave it another thought. I wasn't even sure it was me that you're talking about playing, but as I read I did vaguely recall the exchange... and I kind of chuckle to think that you would "obsess" about it -- but then I also understand how RB "etiquette" has come into question on several occasions, too.

Yes, it's probably the most courteous thing to have a mutual understanding up front, but then I don't really expect anyone's "best picks" in a Switch, either. I was grateful by being limited to the six cards -- and therefore only one deliberate choice -- and it's also why I don't really initiate Switch concerts... I really want Random (and I feel like I'm going to grow old waiting for it) for both the lazy factor and for Switch... then you really have no idea what you're getting, which I love/hate about theme concerts. And I don't mean to point any fingers -- certainly not in any maligning way! -- but I guess I really do feel the need to apply Scott's sense of ethics to playing the game, too. Not sure if this is "right" or "wrong", per se, but it's just a side effect of certain things transpiring that seem to color opinions of people's gaming styles and such. Something akin to the whole "what is cheating?" question, when not every little thing is spelled out -- sometimes people really don't see anything wrong with behavior that is doable but hasn't been specifically defined as "against the rules" or otherwise restricted. I guess my own parallel example of self-questioning over RB was over the use of Undo, which is no longer an issue because of specific programming changes that were implemented specifically *because* of it.

Undo used to be something that could catch you unaware -- even if you refreshed before submitting a move -- and so used to possible strategic advantage. In the beginning of the game, I was really bothered by not being able to change an accidental play (which *still* happens on occasion, despite having the opportunity to confirm -- mostly when I'm sleepy, I find), and I thought/commented that there ought to be a way to "undo"... which was soon met with Scott's informing me that it was already being implemented as an Achievement, which I was happy about. But I was even happier with the measures later installed to prevent the accidental plays that annoyed me to bits. Because, the way I saw it, this turned Undo into a rule/tool of strategy that could be used by either player... not necessarily as a corrective measure in the original sense that I had desired it. So now... you could have the freedom of playing as you intended, but realizing a better play after the fact -- thereby allowing one to basically "try out" moves and visually evaluate them in action, as opposed to having to mentally figure all the changes that would be enacted by your play. The other player wouldn't even notice if there were long periods of time between turns. The "problem" only arose for players in short matches, whereby a play could be made by one player and then changed as the other player was contemplating their next move. If the first player made a subsequent move before the second player ever realized what had happened, then that play was locked, and there was obvious potential for gain on the part of the first player.

I never saw it as manipulative, though, and I quickly learned to refresh before making a play in such matches. I don't think I was alone in using Undo in this fashion, but I did also quickly learn that it was sort of frowned upon... by Scott and by other players, too... and thought to be a bit dirty/underhanded. I saw, in some matches, plays made and then a direct request to "wait" because the player wanted to use Undo after seeing the folly of a bad move and didn't want to lose their chance to change a play already made. Although it kind of annoyed me, I would never have deliberately ignored such a request, and I would wait for someone in that instance -- but I would have had no problem with that realization coming too late to do anything about it... especially in matches with longer turns... because then (and especially then) I simply saw it as the price paid of a bad play (different from trying to "beat" the player to the next play and locking in a mislead move, which I also saw as a legitimate cutthroat strategy). But now I suddenly felt guilty about using Undo as a strategy in that manner... especially after annoyance with it became a commonly expressed sentiment. So I stopped. I mean... I continued to use Undo in matches, but only in the commonly accepted "legitimate" sense.

And then I made a froggy move one day to challenge someone much better than myself to a match of fairly high rank... and with the trade rule of All. It was crazy, and I knew it... and I was fully prepared to lose all my cards. Truly. But I held my own well enough, and as a draw became fairly apparently imminent, I breathed a deep sigh of relief and happiness over not having to say goodbye to five of my best cards! However, there was an Undo change of play (I can't remember the specifics of it well enough, but I do know that I was not doing anything to be deliberately misleading and that there was time for a beneficial change on my opponent's part... as well as a request for me to wait for the change), and the realization of a draw came too late and was shattered by Undo, as I attempted to make my play too late. I was pretty pissed, and I haven't been fond of Undo ever since -- even with the modifications made to prevent plays on changes. But I did recently suspect Scott of politely waiting for me to shuffle through every possible move to figure out the one that enabled me to win in a theme concert with him... and was grateful. But guilty. ;-)

So... to sum it up (after babbling on and on) -- no, I didn't have any hard feelings (well maybe one *little* one, but it obviously wasn't memorable for me) about chicken poop Switch. And now that I know you'll expect to get crap... you will! To the extent that I have any bearing on it, anyway... like I said, I don't know if my decision actually made any bearing on the outcome... and I didn't dwell on it. Not like with Undo. ;-)

Tony Peters | December 5, 2008
I play switch as if I were gonna be playing with the cards I've choosen, I often forget what it is I selected which leads to me loosing more switch games than I've won but in general this community is too small to play cut throat and expect anyone to continue to play with you.

Steve West | December 5, 2008
I use the same philosophy as Tony. Give 'em good cards and the challenge is to beat them. Aaron's choice of giving bad cards would still be cool if you knew it beforehand.

Scott Hardie | December 5, 2008
My original intent with Switch was that people would use it fairly and not try to screw each other with bad card selections. But I'm trying to force myself to be comfortable with people using my site in ways that I didn't intend – like 20+ videos for the same artist :-) – and so I don't mind a shift in how people use Switch. But you're right, Aaron, we should talk about it. Being clear in the comments before accepting the challenge is probably best.

Amy is right that this straddles the line that separates cheating from fair play. In all the controversy last weekend, I never specified what I consider cheating, which is taking unfair advantage over the other players. It's tempting to argue that any "trick" one can pull off is legitimate, since computer code prevents true cheating like keeping Elvis up your sleeve. And couldn't that be a broad definition? What if I use all of my game expertise to plow over new player Samir and prevent him from winning? Isn't that "unfair"? Ultimately, most people enter the games on this site with a spirit of fairness, and it's that spirit I'm trying to preserve as long as I can. That's why I say I'll take whatever action is necessary to restore fairness; sometimes that means adjusting the game outcome in the database, but usually it just means mentioning to the player that it's unwelcome.

As for when well-intentioned gameplay crosses an ethical line, I'm sure we all have minor transgressions. Based on what players said to me afterwards, I unwittingly crossed a line by being the first player to sign an exclusive deal with an R10. Steve West is a gentleman and intends to release his exclusives back into the community after his six months are up, but I have no such intentions, at least not yet.

Amy, sorry, I don't know what you mean about letting you use Undo in a theme match. But I'll take whatever credit you want to give me as a kind and decent player. ;-)

Aaron Shurtleff | December 5, 2008
That's the problem with a small close-knit community like this one... it's usually obvious who you're talking about in a given situation, and trying to be evasive on the identity is useless! ;)

But like I said, I didn't do it to be mean at all. I did it because I mistakenly thought that was the idea. I guess I have a slightly more aggressively prickish, competitive mind for these kinds of things. In the future, if I put Switch in a match, I will put a comment in immediately denoting that it is a "fair" Switch or a "Chicken Poop" Switch, and we can go from there. I'll make the default, if there's any question, good cards.

With that said, let's go see what Tony's got for me... :)

Tony Peters | December 5, 2008
At higher play levels the challenger can have a serious advantage if they bring the right hand. like many here I have on occasion brought a R1 and 4 high cards knowing that the R1 was a fill card Decades is a good rule to prevent this from happening. I don't consider this a unethical Lori and Jo-jo beat me more than once even though I had this advantage. I usually try to make my challenges pretty ballanced these days because I want to beat my opponant with my game play and not stacking the deck

Aaron Shurtleff | December 5, 2008
Yeah, that's another one. I think I've had success doing the same thing as the challenged, and using the R1 throwaway card as the opener. It changes hands a lot, and no side can really keep it defended, so it's a wash to me.

The Multiply/Decades 2 trick threw me for a loop the first time I saw it (Steve!), but I didn't think I was cheated. I just figured it was a good strategy, and I wished I thought of it first! (And I did get Steve back with that trick once. Once.) ;)

Scott Hardie | December 5, 2008
Someone did that to me, Tony: Challenged me to a level 41 trade concert, bringing four R10s and one R1, knowing that I had only a single R10 to bring and couldn't win. I don't claim that this player cheated, since I'm responsible for accepting for the challenge, but I still feel duped out of my R10 and I don't play this player any more as a result.

Tony Peters | December 5, 2008
I'm way too paranoid about my playing skills to put anything that large on the trade table even with a stacked dack....maybe come feb when I have to risk REM I will think about Risking big cards but who knows

Aaron Shurtleff | December 5, 2008
Another thing that might be a quibble is personal choice. For example, I like balanced cards, and I try to use cards where all four sides are are close as possible. Or three equal sides and one low side, if I have to. I do recall someone (I'll try not to name names, but it'll come out who, I am sure) saying that he/she believes that bringing balanced cards like that to a match is a bad strategy. Am I obligated in a Switch match to give him/her cards that I like, or cards that I know he/she would like? Given that I know we have a difference of opinion in the merits of balanced cards.

I think my win percentage speaks for how good my opinion is on this, but still! :)

Tony Peters | December 5, 2008
balance (or the lack of it ) for me depends on the rules

Amy Austin | December 5, 2008
Yeah, I definitely think it's going overboard to try to craft a hand based on someone's known playing preferences... just choosing a hand that you would play with is all that I believe is required -- but, of course, nobody can prove that it is or it isn't... so it really is an "honor code" sort of thing. And I understand where Scott is coming from on fairness, too -- who wants to keep playing if the first few times you venture out, you get repeatedly crushed by the experienced/skilled players? Not only is it rather indecent, it's just downright demoralizing, and I believe that's what Scott wants to prevent... which I fully agree with. Given how long it took me for my stats to even out, I know exactly how it feels -- and I have specifically chosen to play harder players just to make myself better at the game. But I do believe that most of my success has been a direct result of new play rules being acquired and implemented, too. So... when it comes to playing "new" players, I feel a little weird about it -- like I am expected to "behave"... but I also feel quite vulnerable without any real choice of rules to help me (like Hidden, at the very least, which is one of the very first rules to be earned), and so that minimizes any guilt I might have about winning. Easiest way to ensure a guiltless win, though, is to just not ask for a trade. I wouldn't turn one down, but I don't think I'd initiate it, either.

Sorry, Scott... didn't know I was overboard on the videos -- I'll try to refrain. I guess I just like having handy access to only the ones I like, instead of all the pages of YouTube to search through... and that way if I want to look at one, I do it through RB -- it's nice. I guess I didn't realize that it wasn't an expected thing to do... I apologize. I have only seen a handful of other videos posted by someone other than yourself, and I just thought I was enjoying a feature that wasn't as often used. It's also a bit frustrating when you can't post *any* videos of an artist because there are hardly any out there that allow embedding for them, and you have to hunt for one (I know you've had some troubles there, too, since some of the videos you post appear to be the only embeddable ones to be found) or settle on a fan compilation just to get a song on there. I guess it probably does take up space, though, and I didn't really think about it in a negative light. Sorry!

I guess I just got lucky on the concert I mentioned, then -- it was the Fashion theme that got me to piracy! ;-) It seemed like you were around for most of the match, and it didn't seem like very long after I finally settled on the right move before you played, and so I thought you must have seen me "trying on all the clothes" (haha) before realizing that Golden Earring downstage really was the way to win (I thought I had messed up and lost any chance of winning, even when I made that play first before going through all the other possibilities). I figured you saw me make the original move and then shuffle through all the others and politely waited for me to stick with the original winning play. Like I said... I figured that because you were online and there wasn't a whole lot of time between moves. But now I just feel lucky! ;-)

Aaron Shurtleff | December 5, 2008
Random weird question for Scott (or someone who has done this and knows for certain):

In an Each match, if you end up taking a card of a certain rank at the end, but do not win the concert, does it count as taking a card of that rank from an opponent for the Achievement, or is it only in a win that it counts for the Achievement? The wording makes it sound like it only counts if it you win the match, but I was curious.

And does it matter if it is a loss or draw? It doesn't matter in any of the matches I've personally been in so far (I rarely use Each, and I've taken cards correctly of the same levels in all the matches I have done), but you know curiosity and all that. :)

Steve Dunn | December 5, 2008
Late to this discussion, I thought the whole purpose of the Switch rule was to give your opponent crappy cards and see who do better with the hand they're dealt.

I'm not crazy about Undo for the reasons Amy described, however an inadvertent "undo trick" allowed me to win my first game ever. Even more satisfying since it was against Steve West. Not sure I've beaten him since.

My general approach in thinking about games is that everything permitted by the rules is, by definition, appropriate, acceptable, and to be expected. If some behavior is permitted by the rules but is deemed unfair or unseemly, I see that as a problem with the rules, not the player.

I love getting my butt kicked with clever and inventive strategies because I can file them away for my own use. Playing against Steve West is like going to college.

Steve West | December 5, 2008
You guys crack me up. I'm good at this game but not so much better than any of you guys. I really sweat with brainwork to have the record I do. I may be viewed as Bobby Fischer but every one of you is Boris Spassky to me! Champions all!

Amy Austin | December 6, 2008
Pffffhahahaha... okay, Bobby! ;-D

And Steve Dunn... I agree that anything done to beat Steve West is a legitimate move. After all "Steve" = "Satan" is the mantra I hear around here... and I'm thinking it's probably true. After all, it would be just like Satan to be so humble and comparing himself to Bobby Fischer... ;-DDD In my favorite words of the late, great Richard Jeni: "I’ve seen this tactic before, you’re being LURED into an ambush!"

Steve West | December 6, 2008
Did that sound egotistical? Sorry if it did. I'm not the Bobby Fischer of this game. I'm just trying to point out that however much better at this I may be, it's not a lot compared to the competition.

As for Steve's comment, "If some behavior is permitted by the rules but is deemed unfair or unseemly, I see that as a problem with the rules, not the player." I agree with it for the most part but offer one example where I disagree. In a football game where one team is on the opponent's 10 yard line with 20 seconds left on the game clock, and leading the game 70-10. How would it be viewed if the leading team attempted to score another touchdown? Within the rules - sure. A bastard thing to do - I think so. I recognize that some, not necessarily Steve, may think it a wise strategy and justify it with that statement, it's within the rules. What? Do we need a rule to say "no being a jerk allowed"? Maybe. But I don't know how that would happen. A certain amount of self-discipline is called for in any competition. No rules required.

Scott Hardie | December 6, 2008
Amy: No problem with many videos per artist. You're one of a few people to do that. It's not what I had intended, so the page isn't really built for that, but it's on my to-do list to build a better page for each band in the game, one that will accommodate more videos like that. I did go through and prune out a few duplicate songs for now.

Aaron: The trade rule Each always gives you the cards that are your color at the end, regardless of who wins and loses, as it mentions. A card claimed with Each does count towards your acquiring cards from other players in concert. Regardless of the cards kept, you have to win Each to unlock the major trade rule at the end of the list. Incidentally, I'm a big fan of Each, and I'm surprised it doesn't get more played more often. It lets you earn the cards you keep, so the victory is sweeter, imo.

Steve Dunn: I have been told that I try to control the user experience too much. I could force people to use Switch only the way that I think is fair, or I could outlaw certain challenges that I thought took advantage of the game structure. But I only rule out cheating, not being a dick. If you want to play that way, it's your prerogative; I just won't play against you. (Open events like block parties and the goo tournament involve all players are demand a firmer hand on my part.)

Amy Austin | December 6, 2008
Steve: No, not at all... wasn't being sarcastic about being "humble" -- Satan would kick Bobby Fischer's ass! Off the top of my head, Johnny and his golden fiddle, lawyer Keanu Reeves, and super-dork Brendan Fraser are three of the only true Devil threats I can think of. And it's *always* satisfying to kick Devil ass. (Unless we're talking about my tough-talking dog, who's really a tender-hearted little chicken, of course...) ;-)

Steve West | December 6, 2008
Oh, in that case, eat my brimstone mortal.

Amy Austin | December 6, 2008
LOL! I knew it...

Steve Dunn | December 6, 2008
Steve West, I agree with you about the example of running up the score. I am glad to qualify my position. I think all conduct within the rules *for the purpose of winning* is acceptable. I agree some permissible conduct can be jerky once the game is in hand. Dunking the ball in the final seconds of a blowout basketball game instead of holding it while the clock runs out is another example.

I think it should be expected that players are trying to win.

Steve West | December 6, 2008
I think we're thinking the same on this, really. If it's within the rules I'm generally for it but manipulating the rules in a disingenuous manner is crossing the line.

Russ Wilhelm | December 6, 2008
Etiquette...That's a tough one.

When my mother-in-law sets a table, everything has it's place, according to some sophisticated system of which I've never bothered to delve into. The first thing I do when I sit down to eat at her table is to move my drinking glass to the other side of my plate. I know this probably makes her skin crawl, but I can't help it. I've tried leaving it in it's space and I just can't do it. Personal quirk, or someones idea to keep those like me out of higher social circles where we don't belong, who knows.

Is there a link between this and Rock Block? Mebe,,, but that's not important..

What are the primary goals in Rock Block? As I see it, they are.
1. Entertainment/Enjoyment.
2. Enhancing you card collection.
3. Unlocking achievements.

In that order.

Each player may have additional goals (RB ranking,,,), but I think these cover every player.

The general question posed: What is acceptable behavior?
If no one, and I mean no one, has a problem with a given match, I'd say that it is acceptable.

It is the other cases, that call attention. If it is a contention between the two opponents, perhaps they can work it out themselves. Otherwise, they may need an arbitrator, which has got to be one of the most difficult task. Scott has done this to the best of his abilities, even when he feels he has been wronged, listening to what others think of a given situation, and making a decision, in part, based on those opinions.

Decades with Switch, giving a bad hand to your opponent. What were the effects?
Was it entertaining/enjoyable for the opponents? I haven't played a game that wasn't, but it has been done. My understanding in the match mentioned above, is that it was, at least to a certain degree.

Were there cards on the line? I don't think there were, so it would not be an issue.

Would an achievement be unlocked by either party? Not in this case, as both parties have won Decades, and winning Switch does not have an achievement associated with it (yet).

So we can assume that this match was played strictly with entertainment as the goal.

The rules are rules, technically controlled or written, and must be followed. Everything else falls under 'acceptable behavior'.

In the beginning, and perhaps with newer players, collecting cards is a primary goal, possibly outweighing the other. Playing the way we did may not seem so noble now, but it was a means to an end. Some behavior is acceptable, albeit grudgingly. My Mother-In-Law could ban me from her table, for my Neanderthalic ways, but lucky for me, she hasn't so far (Closing the circle).

Me, I just ask myself three questions, Would I do that, given the chance? Do I think my opponent would do that, given the chance? Would my conduct unfairly affect other players, in a positive or negative way?

I've seen players get upset, for the simple reason that they had a strategy, that they had used previously, used against them. Hmmm... Acceptable?

When issuing a challenge for a card, I like to state what ranks to bring. This not only protects me, but also protects my opponent from being overpowered unfairly. If challenged, and I think I may be being duped, I'll ask for rankings (hasn't happened yet). If my opponent is unwilling to say, I would have to assume that they are attempting to out-power me, and that I need to either decline, or adjust my cards accordingly. Acceptable?

Most of the time, acceptable is a personal issue, and dealt with as such. Other times it is a group issue, and so should be handled by group consensus.

Starting to ramble and jump. Ta ta for now.

Scott Hardie | December 6, 2008
I'm working on a fourth primary goal in Rock Block, to be unveiled soon. It's not a big deal, nothing that will revolutionize the game, but it will give you more to do if you feel like you've done everything else..

Tony Peters | December 6, 2008
you mean like finish all the active themes?

Scott Hardie | December 20, 2008
Well, yes, there's that.

I mentioned that I was working on something new to go after, and it's ready. All you RB completionists like me who feel like you're running out of objectives to achieve, this one's for you: Turn the whole chart green.

Amy Austin | December 21, 2008
Hi, all... ust popping in momentarily, but had to say something here, since I've been wanting to ask for a while now...

Scott, can you please make it so we can see ourselves on the charts? Not asking out of sheer vanity, just think it would be helpful. Thanks -- this looks cool!

Scott Hardie | December 21, 2008
Thank you! I can add a column for yourself, but what symbols would show there? I don't see what information it could tell you except what themes you still haven't beaten, which is what the far left column is for.

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2009
Some smart RB player is going to guarantee himself or herself a free medium card tomorrow by challenging lots of different opponents tonight. Steve and I are the only ones eligible for it at the moment, and we both got free cards today, so we can't get another one tomorrow, which means it will go to no one if you don't push yourself into eligibility. You could go give that Themed Concerts chart a workout. Just sayin' is all.

Aaron Shurtleff | January 22, 2009
Scott! You blew my subtle plan!!!

Lori Lancaster | January 22, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | January 22, 2009
Does it help that I called you smart?