Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round SEVEN Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have THREE shapes to deploy for this round. You each have THREE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round SIX Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have FOUR shapes to deploy for this round. You each have SIX shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Willing to host the challenge in post 11-12?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
before we all realise the secrets/rules-to-not-gamethrow etc do you want to vs me with someone else hosting?
Sure, sounds fun. If we can't find anyone to host I will try to think of some other way to do it.
Do you do this on paint or what?
Yes, I use Paint. Could easily be done with the host just typing the board results each round but using a visual seemed more fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I agree that $11.7 million is a lot. If a family member died and left the family $12.7 million in their will to split up I would have no problem paying a high tax rate on that extra million, but that is coming from me as a person that has worked for a living all my life so I am a bit biased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
That still leaves it at 0% for all estates worth less than 11.7 million dollars, unless they said otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I also believe generational wealth is a good thing that should be encouraged and not discouraged.
According to Investopedia the federal estate tax in the U.S. as it stands now does not apply to any estates worth less than 11.7 million dollars. Even if this was slashed down to half this hardly seems to me like any kind of barrier to the kind of generational wealth that helps working-class people rise in society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have a decent concept for a 1 v 1 v 1 worked out, would you prefer that or a 1 v 1?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round FIVE Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have FIVE shapes to deploy for this round. You each have TEN shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
Round FOUR Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have SIX shapes to deploy for this round. You each have FIFTEEN shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round THREE Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have SEVEN shapes to deploy for this round. You each have TWENTY-ONE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round TWO Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have EIGHT shapes to deploy for this round. You each have TWENTY-EIGHT shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
Round ONE Board:
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have NINE shapes to deploy for this round. You each have THIRTY-SIX shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@ILikePie5
RM has sent in his turn already. Pie, I will assume you fully understand the game from watching the last thread unless you ask me a question in which case I will answer it. You have ten shapes to assign for round one, send me your deployment via PM when ready.
Created:
Posted in:
The game begins:
We will make RM blue again for this one. Pie, you will be red.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
i'm fine either way. 2 way RM & Pie or 3-way
I am going to run a pie vs RM game in a new thread but the idea of a 3-way game intrigues me. I will think about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Tag me if you accept RM's challenge and I will set it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If this counts as a loss one my record here, I want a rematch vs him.
I won't be keeping track of wins and losses unless we have some sort of tournament.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Oromagi wins, gg to both.
I actually enjoyed this. Both took slightly different approaches to the opening than I would have taken. Started out very even so the idea that it was heading towards a tie is not implausible.
Are either of you interested in a game vs. Pie? Same general idea though I may make some adjustments to the numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have THREE shapes to deploy for round eight. You each have THREE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have FOUR shapes to deploy for round seven. You each have SIX shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have FIVE shapes to deploy for round six. You each have TEN shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The idea is still a work in progress and this first game is mostly a proof of concept since to my knowledge no kind of iterative Blotto's game like this has been rigorously tested before.
Different variations exist that we may or may not be able to try, for example giving one player more resources but giving some other advantage to the other player such as giving them some limited info on the first guys movements or giving them triple or quadruple points for winning a zone etc. If more people express interest I am happy to hear suggestions on how to possibly make future games more fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have SIX shapes to deploy for round five. You each have FIFTEEN shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nice to have you! If a fourth shows up I will start a new thread with you vs them, if nobody shows up by tomorrow night we will see if one of these two are willing to face you. Feel free to tag anyone you think might be interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have SEVEN shapes to deploy for round four. You each have TWENTY-ONE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have EIGHT shapes to deploy for round three. You each have TWENTY-EIGHT shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
Wow, didn't hear anything about this until I read this thread. Very clear that there was gross negligence at multiple levels. Looking around the net a bit there seems to be a lot of trying to pass blame on to Hall for saying the weapon was clear when it was not. If that is what happened then he is just as much at fault as Baldwin but not double checking that a weapon handed to you is clear is also unacceptable. Assuming this was an accident and not some sort of elaborate conspiracy (which seems like a reasonable assumption) Alec, Hall, and anyone else in the chain of custody are all absolutely at fault. Disgusting violation of basic weapon safety principles and terrible avoidable tragedy. If using CGI and replicas is the only alternative to expecting someone that makes my yearly salary as their weekly salary to take a few seconds out of their day every once in a while to literally save a life then by all means do that but that won't unpull this trigger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Both players have submitted actions. The new board:
Lighter shades are new deployments, I have also added score tracking for each separate zone.
Let me know if you think I made any mistake.
You each have NINE shapes to deploy for round two. You each have THIRTY-SIX shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
The starting board is as follows:
Oromagi is RED CIRCLES and RM is BLUE RECTANGLES. 15 armies are already deployed for each of you, you will each deploy 55 more over the course of the game.
If you cannot access this pic for any reason please tell me.
Deployment rules are:
1) You can place armies on any of the ten zones.
2) It IS permitted to place zero armies on a certain zone for a round.
2) Once placed, no armies can be moved between zones
3) Both players are allowed to see the new board after each round
4) Ten armies are placed by each player during round one. Nine are places during round two, eight during round three and so on.
5) IMPORTANT - Final winner is determined ONLY by number of zones controlled after final round. Zones controlled between any other rounds are IRRELEVANT for final victory score.
You each have TEN shapes to deploy for round one. You each have FOURTY-FIVE shapes that can't be deployed this round but can be deployed in subsequent rounds. Please submit actions via PM now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also I didn't know 0 was a possibility, the Wikipedia page definitely didn't support 0 being a possibility.
Ah, makes sense that you wouldn't think of that then. Yes, abandoning a zone is possible.
There are definitely some strats that are better than others, that is undeniable, but none are unbeatable.
If you think there is an unbeatable strategy even in the multi-round setup I describe in post 7 feel free to test it against oromagi if you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
The multi-round approach also discourages the even deployment strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
but isn't 222222222... just the consistent broken strategy here? Are you going to set some kind of rule to stop that?
Well, that pic was just an example but I see your point. In response:
1) 2,2,2,2,2 is potentially strong but not unbeatable (3,3,2,2,0 would beat it 2-1 for example).
2) I am in fact planning on possibly discouraging that strategy by starting round one with a few armies assigned already by me (in a fair and symmetrical way of course)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
Imgur explaination:
Assuming you both understand and agree to face each other I will draw a picture for a new game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I got no clue how the positions work, I only understood when the wikipedia gave an example of 2,2,2 for the 6 total.
Let me set up a visual aid that may help. Will post when done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
so we all PM you our combo of numbers that add up to the total?
Basically yes, but I have an idea for making it a bit more interesting assuming you both agree. I would like to make a sort of round-based system. The specific steps would be as follows:
1) Start with ten "zones" that resources can be added to and allow each of you to allocate ten "armies" as per the standard game in secret via PM to me.
2) Once armies are allocated I announce how each player allocated armies and show via some visual aid (likely paint/imgur combo or something like that) BUT the game does NOT immediately end.
3) After reviewing the new position each of you can allocate nine additional armies in secret to the same ten zones, again all via PM.
4) I reveal the new position (now with 19 armies from each player on the board). Each are allowed to review the new position then allocate eight armies for the next round, then review and add 7 then review and add 6 etc.
5) Scoring could be based on controlled zones in last round or points could be given every round.
I think an iterative Blotto game like this would be more interesting because it would be less luck based, involve more strategy, and games would last longer than standard one-round variation. Please tell me what you each think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Mharman
@Speedrace
[Repeat catchy slogan here]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That being said, I'll go out on a limb a say Democrats will hold both houses because it doesn't seem GOP has much, if any, advantage
Good opportunity to enrich yourself if you are confident on that:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@RationalMadman
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@Intelligence_06
[Insert catchy advertisement slogan here]
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone interested in playing some variation of this against another person moderated by myself? Less people required than mafia makes it less viable during site slowdown periods but smaller player count requirements of alternate games fill a kind of niche that is opened.
A minimum of two would be needed but I have some interesting ideas I could pursue if there are at least four interested.
Created:
Posted in:
- Says that nature can't be determined and predicted because blue moons happen sometimes
- Goes on to describe how blue moons can be predicted centuries in advance with basic grade school math
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
As such, using statistics of 'outcomes' to determine policy (when attempting to make a fair equality of opportunity) is flawed if you do not account for the nature elements.
As you are suggesting a philosophy specifically for the purpose of policy determination, can you provide an example of a race-realism motivated policy that you may recommend?
Created:
Posted in:
I catch myself unconsciously doing this myself (minus the "without knowing" part I guess since I do catch myself). Have not really noticed this in other people too often but I do have a bit less than average hearing.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If someone says "Hunger is a serious problem. Everyone should have food so that hunger becomes less of a problem!" I am left forced to respond "that's cool, dude" because such is the only kind of answer a dead-end proclamation like that allows. Frankly it's just lame and unhelpful.There is nothing we can do under the current system. The very fact that the bank would foreclose on you and the family would lose their home regardless of what you want IS the problem.
That's cool, dude.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
What would you do if the they could not or refused to pay?
If I was unable to secure a rental income then I would be unable to pay the mortgage and the property would go into foreclosure, transferring ownership of the property to the company that helped me finance the purchase. I would think that would be rather obvious.
You still haven't really answeredy question about what kind of policy you are suggesting. You are saying you would abolish the practice of renting properties, that indirectly implies encouraging universal ownership of residences among other things, but you don't say a word as to how that would or should be done.
Imagine...
Scenario A: someone says "Hunger is a serious problem. Everyone should have food so that hunger becomes less of a problem!" I am left forced to respond "that's cool, dude" because such is the only kind of answer a dead-end proclamation like that allows. Frankly it's just lame and unhelpful.
Scenario B: someone says "Hunger is a serious problem and we can help relieve that problem with various programs such as food drives or food stamps" then I could respond with support of their ideas or by proposing something else such as farming subsidies to reduce the price of food production. Much more interesting and useful than sitting around sniffing our own farts at least.
The society in scenario A will tend to be much more stagnant and boring.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter then is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money? Would removing the threat of police action for robbing of grocery stores solve the problem of hunger?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
You would stop owning it because we agree no one should be homeless.
I am not living in it but someone else is, a whole family of three in fact.
That isn't the point though. How would I stop owning it? You are being clear on your intended end result but very fuzzy on your method of implementation. Am I being legally required to sell it to the government? Legally required to sell it to the resident? Having it confiscated outright? Details are important and you are being evasive when I ask for them.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am suggesting we abolish the land lord class...
I understand that. I am asking how you would go about that. For example you say you would make it illegal for me to own a rental property. That would obviously preclude me from buying a second one but does not answer what I would have to do with the one I already have.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
As for housing perhaps if we abolish the land lord class and don't allow people to own homes they don't personally use.
What is the suggestion here? Use eminent domain to purchase all investment properties nationwide then sell to the renters?
Created: