I ask a Yes-No game related question.
In a three player game, me, LSJ and Lupus. I have the Monocle on one of
my vampires. I ask LSJ "Does you have any Master Cards in your hand?"
I get a yay or nay.
What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, James Coupe wrote:
> I ask a Yes-No game related question.
>
> In a three player game, me, LSJ and Lupus. I have the Monocle on one of
> my vampires. I ask LSJ "Does you have any Master Cards in your hand?"
> I get a yay or nay.
>
> What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
Well there is no way that LSJ can "answer truthfully" with a yay or nay,
but requiring him to guess seems consistent with the way the card is
currently played. There is no penalty for guessing wrong.
I see two other possible solutions.
One is to require him to "truthfully answer" by saying "I don't know."
LSJ does not like that solution, so maybe I should not beat it much
further.
The second solution was suggested by LSJ's claim that a "yes or no
question" by *definition* requires yes or no as an answer. This does not
agree with my previous understanding of the phrase, according to which it
is not clear that such questions require, by definition, any sort of
answer at all. However, I am willing to work with the notion.
According to this approach, you clearly have failed to ask LSJ a "yes or
no question", as a truthful response clearly seems to require something
other than a simple yes or no.
LSJ points out that he does not have the ability to answer the question,
and cannot be expected to. We all therfore conclude that this is not a
"yes or no question" as it relates to LSJ. Card text of Monocle has
therefore not been fulfilled. LSJ is therefore not required to "answer
truthfully" and you get to ask a new question that will fulfill card text.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
James Coupe wrote:
>
> I ask a Yes-No game related question.
>
> In a three player game, me, LSJ and Lupus. I have the Monocle on one of
> my vampires. I ask LSJ "Does you have any Master Cards in your hand?"
> I get a yay or nay.
>
> What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
He has to guess. Of course there's really no reason to ask this
question in the first place. If you want to know if Lupus hast master
cards, ask Lupus. If you want to know what LSJ thinks, ask him if he
thinks Lupus has master cards in hand.
[ quoted text not captured ]
JCs example does have some relevance nonetheless. I would say that the
point of his example is that one cannot avoid drawing distinctions between
questions that the respondent *can* answer truthfully, and those which he
cannot.
Monocle does not provide penalties for those who fail to answer
truthfully, but that is no different from most cards. One is still
expected to follow the rules of the game, and anyone who does not is a
cheat, and subjected to whatever ostracism the playgroup deems
appropriate.
Suppose LSJ says "no" when asked if he has master cards in his hand. JC
then plays inferior Pulse of the Canaille to reveal his hand, and we
discover that he a hand full of master cards. We would have caught him
cheating, and would of course be shocked that so reputable a person should
behave so dishonorably.
But if LSJ says "no" when asked if I, Lupus, have master cards in my hand,
and then the same verification method is used, no-one is going to blame
LSJ for answering falsely. Clearly, card text has required of him
something he is incablable of doing, as when one is required to burn a
blood on a minion who has no blood.
The same applies to most questions about the future. If JC asks "Will you
attempt to bleed me next turn?", LSJ is forced to guess "Yes", and I then
proceeds to torporize all of LSJ's minions, then LSJ will have been
discovered, once again, to have given a false answer. He is again off the
hook, however, because it is recognized that the requirement to "answer
truthfully" was not reasonable under the circumstances.
The problem in both cases in inherent in the nature of the question asked,
which in both cases forces the respondent to guess when he cannot
guarantee a truthful answer.
My point is, that since one must make such distinctions anyway, why not
make them the basis of rulings that will avoid such situations? This
could be done in one of two ways:
1) Rule that the respondent does not have to "guess" when he is not in a
position to answer truthfully. He does not have to answer at all, just
he does not have to burn a blood on a vampire that has no blood. Let us
let him off the hook ahead of time, rather than after he guesses wrong.
2) Rule that such questions are not valid questions for use with the
Monocle (ie, are not proper "yes or no questions" as they relate to the
respondent). In such cases, the respondent is also not required to
answer, but the Monoclist will get to formulate a new question if he
wishes.
An objection that has been raised to both approaches is that they would
violate card intent by completely eliminating any applicability of the
future clause. But this is not true. I can think of two types of
future-related questions that could still be considered answerable: 1)
"Do you intend to do x" type questions, in which a "yes" answer is
binding, but a "no" answer is not, and 2) "Would you do x if..."
questions based on a fully described hypothetical near-future, in which
both a "yes" and a "no" would be binding.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis wrote:
> JCs example does have some relevance nonetheless. I would say that the
> point of his example is that one cannot avoid drawing distinctions between
> questions that the respondent *can* answer truthfully, and those which he
> cannot.
But every Monocle question [satisfying the rulings] *can* be answered
truthfully. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you
can't answer truthfully.
> The same applies to most questions about the future. If JC asks "Will you
> attempt to bleed me next turn?", LSJ is forced to guess "Yes", and I then
> proceeds to torporize all of LSJ's minions, then LSJ will have been
> discovered, once again, to have given a false answer. He is again off the
> hook, however, because it is recognized that the requirement to "answer
> truthfully" was not reasonable under the circumstances.
Um, I think most people would disagree, observing that he is off the
hook because of the Monocle's text which says "must abide by the answer
if possible." I mean, by your line of reasoning, if LSJ had said 'yes'
and then if he had ready minions on his turn, he could just choose not
to bleed and say "Oh, how could I possibly have answered truthfully
anyway?"
> An objection that has been raised to both approaches is that they would
> violate card intent by completely eliminating any applicability of the
> future clause. But this is not true. I can think of two types of
> future-related questions that could still be considered answerable: 1)
> "Do you intend to do x" type questions, in which a "yes" answer is
> binding, but a "no" answer is not,
"Do you intend <foo>?" is not really a question about the future though;
it's a question about the present (it's the same as asking "Do you
currently intend <foo>?") Intentions can change, so even if I say 'yes'
on your turn, the answer may be 'no' by my turn.
and 2) "Would you do x if..."
> "Would you do x if..."
> questions based on a fully described hypothetical near-future, in which
> both a "yes" and a "no" would be binding.
This is a pretty hefty requirement, probably impossible. It seems like
you just want to shift the responsibility of knowing the future from the
answerer to the asker. But no one needs to know the future for the
Monocle to work properly.
James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I ask a Yes-No game related question.
>
> In a three player game, me, LSJ and Lupus. I have the Monocle on one of
> my vampires. I ask LSJ "Does you have any Master Cards in your hand?"
> I get a yay or nay.
>
> What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
This has already been covered in the previous incarnation of this thread.
LSJ answers "yay". That is a truthful answer (unless, of course, he has had
access to Lupus's hand and knows otherwise). It may be an incorrect guess,
but it is still a truthful answer. All truthful answers have an implied
"to the best of my knowledge" in them.
To understand this, one has to get into the nature of truth and perception
as they relate to reality.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I ask a Yes-No game related question.
> >
> > In a three player game, me, LSJ and Lupus. I have the Monocle on one of
> > my vampires. I ask LSJ "Does you have any Master Cards in your hand?"
> > I get a yay or nay.
> >
> > What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> > his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
>
> This has already been covered in the previous incarnation of this thread.
>
> LSJ answers "yay". That is a truthful answer (unless, of course, he has had
> access to Lupus's hand and knows otherwise). It may be an incorrect guess,
> but it is still a truthful answer. All truthful answers have an implied
> "to the best of my knowledge" in them.
One minor observation.
To the extent that the requirement of truthfulness is a meaningful and
enforceable rule of the game, it *is* a requirement of accuracy. One can
call certain types of inaccurate answers "truthful", but the requirement
of accuracy is still being waived for certain types of questions:
questions for which it is clear that the respondent lacks adequate
knowledge to guarantee truthfulness in a yes/no answer.
Since this distinction must be made anyway, why not make the distinction
in advance? Why not either disallow such questions, or waive the
requirement to answer them?
The only objection raised is that this would invalidate the future clause,
which, as I have already pointed out, is not true.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 2 Dec 1998, Bob Ellison wrote:
> > > What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> > > his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
>> > He has to guess. Of course there's really no reason to ask this
> > question in the first place. If you want to know if Lupus hast master
> > cards, ask Lupus. If you want to know what LSJ thinks, ask him if he
> > thinks Lupus has master cards in hand.
>> But what happens if LSJ is capable of knowing? Hypothesize the
> existence of a Master-out-of-turn card that allows a Methesulah to
> look at any other Methesulah's hand, and further contrive that LSJ
> holds the card.
I don't think he would be allowed to play it. Unless there are rules or
card text that indicate otherwise, all effects are fully resolved before
the next card or effect can be played. No cards or effects can be played
between the time the Monocle is used to ask the question and the time the
answer is given.
I do not believe, for instance, that it would be legal to tap the Barrens
after a question is asked, but before the question is answered.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> > his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.> He has to guess. Of course there's really no reason to ask this
> question in the first place. If you want to know if Lupus hast master
> cards, ask Lupus. If you want to know what LSJ thinks, ask him if he
> thinks Lupus has master cards in hand.
But what happens if LSJ is capable of knowing? Hypothesize the
existence of a Master-out-of-turn card that allows a Methesulah to
look at any other Methesulah's hand, and further contrive that LSJ
holds the card.
If asked under the conditions of the Monocle whether Lupus has a
master card, would LSJ be bound to play this made-up MOOT card?
(This could, for example, prevent LSJ from playing a different MOOT
card, such as Sudden Reversal...)
papillo the hypothetical
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> > JCs example does have some relevance nonetheless. I would say that the
> > point of his example is that one cannot avoid drawing distinctions between
> > questions that the respondent *can* answer truthfully, and those which he
> > cannot.> But every Monocle question [satisfying the rulings] *can* be answered
> truthfully. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you
> can't answer truthfully.
To the extent that the truthfulness requirement is a meaningful and
enforceable game rule, it is a requirement of accuracy. If an answer to a
question is found to be inaccurate, this either means that the respondent
has been caught cheating, or that he is off the hook because the nature of
the question makes it unreasonable to demand an accurate response..
My point that a distinction must be drawn remains valid, regardless of
semantics.
> > The same applies to most questions about the future. If JC asks "Will you
> > attempt to bleed me next turn?", LSJ is forced to guess "Yes", and I then
> > proceeds to torporize all of LSJ's minions, then LSJ will have been
> > discovered, once again, to have given a false answer. He is again off the
> > hook, however, because it is recognized that the requirement to "answer
> > truthfully" was not reasonable under the circumstances.
>
> Um, I think most people would disagree, observing that he is off the
> hook because of the Monocle's text which says "must abide by the answer
> if possible." I mean, by your line of reasoning, if LSJ had said 'yes'
> and then if he had ready minions on his turn, he could just choose not
> to bleed and say "Oh, how could I possibly have answered truthfully
> anyway?"
The requirement to be truthful, and the requirement to "abide by" one's
answer, are separate (if related) requirements. Just because I was
focussing on the first requirement does not mean I was denying the
existence of the second. Besides which, you are deliberately
misrepresenting my position and setting up a straw man. As you well know,
I have never advocated falsely giving an answer of "yes". I have
advocated truthfully answering "I don't know", or else disallowing
questions that the respondent cannot answer accurately, so that all
yes/no answers will always be accurate answers if you are not cheating.
The requirement to be truthful is a requirement in itself. It exists
regardless of whether the future clause enforces it. One *must* provide
accurate answers if one *can* give accurate answers.
In both examples above, LSJs answer has proved inaccurate. He is off the
hook because of the nature of the question, for which it is not reasonable
to demand accurate yes/no answers.
On a related note: I do not see the "if possible" phrase as necessarily
being proof of intent that inaccurate answers should sometimes be
permissable. If you say "yes" when asked "Do you intend to do x", and
you, in the end, do not do x because you cannot, then you have indeed
found it impossible to "abide by" your answer, but the answer remains
accurate.
> > An objection that has been raised to both approaches is that they would
> > violate card intent by completely eliminating any applicability of the
> > future clause. But this is not true. I can think of two types of
> > future-related questions that could still be considered answerable: 1)
> > "Do you intend to do x" type questions, in which a "yes" answer is
> > binding, but a "no" answer is not,
>
> "Do you intend <foo>?" is not really a question about the future though;
> it's a question about the present (it's the same as asking "Do you
> currently intend <foo>?") Intentions can change, so even if I say 'yes'
> on your turn, the answer may be 'no' by my turn.
> and 2) "Would you do x if..."
You are right. But it is a question about intentions, and intentions do
indeed "relate to the future".
In fact, if a question does not relate to current intentions, then I do
not see how one can meaningfully "abide" by them. One abides by ones
intentions by carrying them out.
In the case of "real" questions about the future, such as "Will X
happen?", it seems far less appropriate to speak of "abiding" by ones
answer. If you predict that a politician will win an election, this does
not imply an obligation to vote for him. If you pessimistically predict
that your car will break down this month this in no way implies an
obligation to sabotage the engine yourself. If a scientist predicts that
an asteroid will strike the Earth, no-one will think him inconsistent if
he then does what he can to prevent this. If you predict that a
particular horse will win a race, no-one will think that hobbling the
other contestants is an appropriate way to demonstrate the integrity of
your beliefs. The only meaningful way in which one can "abide by" a
prediction is to continue to insist that the prediction is accurate until
events prove you wrong.
> > "Would you do x if..."
> > questions based on a fully described hypothetical near-future, in which
> > both a "yes" and a "no" would be binding.
>
> This is a pretty hefty requirement, probably impossible.
I have already provided two perfectly workable examples of such questions.
I will provide them again, if you really don't remember them.
> It seems like
> you just want to shift the responsibility of knowing the future from the
> answerer to the asker. But no one needs to know the future for the
> Monocle to work properly.
If you want to genuinely use the Monocle to gain information, (rather than
to abuse it to manipulate events), then the Monocle will work just as well
as it has always worked. If you want unambiguous answers, you must ask
unambiguous questions.
However far you can see into the future (probably not much further than
the first couple of cards of your turn) the Monocle will allow you to see
one step further, by asking a question related to how the will react to
what you plan to do.
You won't be able to ask "Will you bleed me next turn?" because that is
too far ahead for you or him to predict the complete game state.
But you could ask him "Do you fully intend to bleed me next turn?" or "Do
you fully intend *not* to bleed me next turn?" In both cases, a "yes"
answer would be binding, but a "no" answer would not.
Which is as it should be. The current official way is that, when
answering "Will you bleed me next turn?" the respondent is forced to
choose between an answer that means "I intend to bleed you, no matter
what," and an answer that means "I intend to not bleed you, no matter
what". A "yes/no" question is thereby warped and twisted into an
"either/or" question in which one must choose between two extreme
positions, rather than choose what would normally be the truth. A
"yes/no" answer that was meant as a predictive guess is twisted into
a statement of intent, that one is then forced to "abide by".
It seems to me only fair that, if the answer is to be interpreted as a
statement of intent, then the question should be unambiguously phrased as
such. If this is done, then a "no" answer will not be binding, and the
answerer will never be forced into impossible situations.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > LSJ answers "yay". That is a truthful answer (unless, of course, he has had
> > access to Lupus's hand and knows otherwise). It may be an incorrect guess,
> > but it is still a truthful answer. All truthful answers have an implied
> > "to the best of my knowledge" in them.
>
> One minor observation.
>
> To the extent that the requirement of truthfulness is a meaningful and
> enforceable rule of the game, it *is* a requirement of accuracy.
Of accuracy to the best of the answerer's knowledge, yes.
> One can
> call certain types of inaccurate answers "truthful", but the requirement
> of accuracy is still being waived for certain types of questions:
> questions for which it is clear that the respondent lacks adequate
> knowledge to guarantee truthfulness in a yes/no answer.
The answer is as accurate as possible. The requirement of answering
as accurately as one's knowledge allows is not waived for any case.
> Since this distinction must be made anyway,
It need not be.
> why not make the distinction
> in advance? Why not either disallow such questions, or waive the
> requirement to answer them?
That would be a ludicrous waiver. And disallowing questions about the
future goes clearly against card text.
> The only objection raised is that this would invalidate the future clause,
> which, as I have already pointed out, is not true.
By your waiver, all questions about the future become meaningless (since
the answer cannot be "known" at the present). A weak case can even be made
for questions about the past. And a pathological case can even be made for
questions about the present (getting into how one's senses can deceive oneself
about reality). Similarly, your proposed prohibition could be used to prohibit
these types of questions.
As a whole, your proposed waiver/prohibition is either too much of a
headache to enforce or is too restrictive.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> Bob Ellison wrote:
> > > > What happens if I ask LSJ "Does Lupus currently have a master card in
> > > > his hand?" LSJ is required to answer yay/nay.
> > > He has to guess.> > But what happens if LSJ is capable of knowing? Hypothesize the
> > existence of a Master-out-of-turn card that allows a Methesulah to
> > look at any other Methesulah's hand, and further contrive that LSJ
> > holds the card.
>> I don't think he would be allowed to play it. Unless there are rules or
> card text that indicate otherwise, all effects are fully resolved before
> the next card or effect can be played. No cards or effects can be played
> between the time the Monocle is used to ask the question and the time the
> answer is given.
>
> I do not believe, for instance, that it would be legal to tap the Barrens
> after a question is asked, but before the question is answered.
Right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 ill...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> > It seems to me only fair that, if the answer is to be interpreted as a
> > statement of intent, then the question should be unambiguously phrased as
> > such. If this is done, then a "no" answer will not be binding, and the
> > answerer will never be forced into impossible situations.
>> Thanks!I can now; after reading this rename the card:Monocle of Muddied Thoughts.
>
> Or how's about Monocle of Misapprehension?
> Or maybe even Monocle of the Attorneys.
Perhaps your thoughts are muddied, or perhaps you have misapprehended me.
What I advocate is allowing truthful "I don't know" answers when questions
are not fully answerable. One cannot reasonably expect someone to tell the
future, but questions of intent can be answered.
My arguments as to why this position avoids arguments may be involved, but
the basic position is fairly simple.
That does not seem to me to be too complicated a position, and it solves
many arguments associated with the card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis wrote:
> What I advocate is allowing truthful "I don't know" answers when questions
> are not fully answerable. One cannot reasonably expect someone to tell the
> future, but questions of intent can be answered.
>
> My arguments as to why this position avoids arguments may be involved, but
> the basic position is fairly simple.
>
> That does not seem to me to be too complicated a position, and it solves
> many arguments associated with the card.
Your proposed errata banning questions about the future (or turning
them into null questions) doesn't meet the current criteria for
issuing errata, and unecessarily weakens the card.
No further errata on this card is warranted.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, LSJ wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
> > What I advocate is allowing truthful "I don't know" answers when questions
> > are not fully answerable. One cannot reasonably expect someone to tell the
> > future, but questions of intent can be answered.
> >
> > My arguments as to why this position avoids arguments may be involved, but
> > the basic position is fairly simple.
> >
> > That does not seem to me to be too complicated a position, and it solves
> > many arguments associated with the card.
>
> Your proposed errata banning questions about the future (or turning
> them into null questions) doesn't meet the current criteria for
> issuing errata, and unecessarily weakens the card.
>
> No further errata on this card is warranted.
I won't expect any then.
I hope you don't think my intent has been to hound and harass you into
issuing errata on this card. I have merely been suggesting (as a house
rule if you will) an alternate approach to the card, that I thought might
work better. I had the idea that some people might be interested, as
there seem to at least some who don't like the current version.
I have argued with you only to the extent that you seemed to indicate that
the official interpretation of the card is the only one consistent with
reason and common sense. I have the audacity to suspect that my alternate
take might also be consistent with reason and common sense, if from a
slightly different POV.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis wrote:
> It seems to me only fair that, if the answer is to be interpreted as a
> statement of intent, then the question should be unambiguously phrased as
> such. If this is done, then a "no" answer will not be binding, and the
> answerer will never be forced into impossible situations.
Thanks!I can now; after reading this rename the card:Monocle of Muddied Thoughts.
Or how's about Monocle of Misapprehension?
Or maybe even Monocle of the Attorneys.
Jack: The Truly Demented
ill...@swbell.net