So, at the beginning of my turn, I control a Monocle of Clarity. I ask
my prey the following question:
"If one of my minions and one of your minions get into combat, will
combat end with one of them going into torpor?"
My prey, playing a combat-heavy deck, replies "Yes."
I then bleed him with a Outcast Mage. Now come the questions:
- If he blocks and we enter combat, must necessarily he choose a vampire
to block with instead of an ally? By his monocle answer, he *must* try
to send at least one minion of ours to torpor, and since only vampire
minions can go to torpor, does that mean he must block with a vampire
(or not at all?)
- If he blocks with a vampire and we enter comabt, must he do everything
he possibly can to send his *own* minion into torpor, since mine cannot
possibly go there? For instance, say the mage has 1 life left, and
moves to long range after playing a trap. At short range, he'll get
creamed by mere hand damage and combat will end with no one going to
torpor, so it seems like my prey must leave things at long range. Then
the mage strikes with 1R for a few round, while my prey's vamp goes
"wiff, ow." Furthermore, it would seem that my prey would be obligated
to play a non-destructive combat card in order to keep the trap going
(for instance, Wolf Claws or Undead Strength at long range) since he is
obligated to do all he can to send one of our minions to torpor.
- Suppose instead I had bled my prey with Rufina Soledad. He blocks
with a vampire. In the first round of combat, Rufina is pummeled by an
8 point strike! But then she plays basic Undead Persistence. She now
has no blood, and will not go into torpor until *after* combat, as long
as I keep playing cards. Is my prey obligated by the Monocle to send
his own vampire into torpor?
Are there any other suggestions of how to use the Monocle in a way that
makes it worth putting in a deck?
-davey!
Davey Hathorn <davey@!spam.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> So, at the beginning of my turn, I control a Monocle of Clarity. I ask
> my prey the following question:
>
> "If one of my minions and one of your minions get into combat, will
> combat end with one of them going into torpor?"
>
> My prey, playing a combat-heavy deck, replies "Yes."
>
> I then bleed him with a Outcast Mage. Now come the questions:
> - If he blocks and we enter combat, must necessarily he choose a vampire
> to block with instead of an ally? By his monocle answer, he *must* try
> to send at least one minion of ours to torpor, and since only vampire
> minions can go to torpor, does that mean he must block with a vampire
> (or not at all?)
No - he must have one of the combatants to go to torpor "if [the two]
get into combat". He is not obliged to block, nor if he blocks is he
obliges to block with a vampire, nor if a vampire is he obliged to use
one that will go to torpor. He is only obliged to do anthing once combat
occurs between two of your minions (the "if" part of the question).
"If", at that time, neither of the combatants is capable of going to
torpor, then he's off the hook.
> - If he blocks with a vampire and we enter comabt, must he do everything
> he possibly can to send his *own* minion into torpor, since mine cannot
> possibly go there? For instance, say the mage has 1 life left, and
> moves to long range after playing a trap. At short range, he'll get
> creamed by mere hand damage and combat will end with no one going to
> torpor, so it seems like my prey must leave things at long range. Then
> the mage strikes with 1R for a few round, while my prey's vamp goes
> "wiff, ow." Furthermore, it would seem that my prey would be obligated
> to play a non-destructive combat card in order to keep the trap going
> (for instance, Wolf Claws or Undead Strength at long range) since he is
> obligated to do all he can to send one of our minions to torpor.
This would be up to your play group (to decide how far the victim must go
out of his way to fulfill the answer before is it deemed "out of his
control"). You would be better off asking more direct questions, or
spelling out all of the terms in the question.
> - Suppose instead I had bled my prey with Rufina Soledad. He blocks
> with a vampire. In the first round of combat, Rufina is pummeled by an
> 8 point strike! But then she plays basic Undead Persistence. She now
> has no blood, and will not go into torpor until *after* combat, as long
> as I keep playing cards. Is my prey obligated by the Monocle to send
> his own vampire into torpor?
Again, up to your play group to decide when he has fulfilled his answer
to a rather odd question.
> Are there any other suggestions of how to use the Monocle in a way that
> makes it worth putting in a deck?
--
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
In article <F2JyE...@midway.uchicago.edu>, Davey Hathorn
<davey@!spam.uchicago.edu> writes
>Are there any other suggestions of how to use the Monocle in a way that
>makes it worth putting in a deck?
The only good suggestion for monocle is to, erm, not put it in a deck.
It causes hideous numbers of arguments about what they are compelled to
do and what they must attempt doing.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net
Greetings. Please be warned that my answers to your questions represent
only my highly unofficial opinion about how this rarely played card should
be handled.
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Davey Hathorn wrote:
> So, at the beginning of my turn, I control a Monocle of Clarity. I ask
> my prey the following question:
>
> "If one of my minions and one of your minions get into combat, will
> combat end with one of them going into torpor?"
>
> My prey, playing a combat-heavy deck, replies "Yes."
OK. So far, I would say that we have a problem already. Card text
dictates that one must answer truthfully. "I don't know," seems to me to
be the only possible truthful answer here.
In fact, I would argue that "I don't know" is the only possible truthful
answer to any question about the future. It also resolves alot of the
headaches associated with the card.
If asked about one's current intentions, then I suppose one could legally
answer "yes". One would not be able to verify truthfulness in such a
case. There has never been a necessary connection between current
intentions and future actions. A person asked about future intentions
could well change his mind, and this would not prove that he lied. This
is the fault of the questioner for asking a question for which
truthfulness can never be enforced or verified.
The answerer would not be bound by his answer, as the question was not
framed as a question about the future. Thus, the relevant card text about
"abiding by the answer" in such cases would not apply.
Indeed, I feel it should never apply, as "I don't know" is not something
you can be forced to abide by, and I feel that should be the only possible
answer to genuine questions about the future.
[snip]
> Are there any other suggestions of how to use the Monocle in a way that
> makes it worth putting in a deck?
Yes.
Don't ask questions about the future.
Don't ask questions about intentions.
Ask verifiable questions about:
- Contents of Hand
- Contents of Uncontrolled Region.
Such as "Do you have a Majesty in your hand?"
or "Do you have any bleed actions or bleed modifiers in your hand?"
or "Is this (uncontrolled) vampire larger than 4 capacity?"
or "Do you have an Archon Investigation in your hand? ('cause I was
thinking of bleeding you for 6)"
Only ask questions where he cannot plausibly claim that he does not know
the answer.
As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
is that it must be truthful.
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Lupus Australis wrote:
> As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> is that it must be truthful.
It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer. "I don't know" isn't an
answer to such a question - just an assertion that one doesn't know
the answer.
Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"), and
the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
> > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > is that it must be truthful.
>
> It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
> requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
Not necessarily. There is no errata to that effect.
> "I don't know" isn't an answer to such a question - just an assertion that one
> doesn't know the answer.
An assertion that one doesn't know the answer _is_ an answer. For example,
if I ask you, "Is my coffee mug at work a blue mug?" you must answer "I don't
know" because you don't. The question is certainly a "yes or no" question.
Besides, grammatical subtleties should be well outside the scope of the
rules team...unless, of course, they teach English for a living. And since
there is no errata to the contrary, "I don't know" should be a perfectly
acceptable answer when one doesn't know.
> Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"), and
> the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
A question about the future does not have to be answered "yes" or
"no" if one doesn't know. I would argue that a question about future
intent is valid, but a question about future results is not.
I think that we all can see why the Monocle of Clarity is banned from
tournament play.
Noal McDonald
Anarch Troublemaker of Westland, MI
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3652C6...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
> > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > is that it must be truthful.
>
> It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,> requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer. "I don't know" isn't an> answer to such a question - just an assertion that one doesn't know
> the answer.
While I agree that a yes or no question implies a yes or no answer, what
does a Monocle-queried player say when asked "Will your prey attempt to
call a vote on his next turn?" Or any other question that the person
doesn't know the answer to? You can say that they have to answer 'Yes'
or 'No', but they are then being forced to answer non-truthfully.
> Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"), and
> the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
It says you only have to abide by the answer if possible, yes, but it
doesn't say that you don't have to answer truthfully, or that you can
answer something other than 'yes' or 'no'. It seems to me that allowing
"I don't know" answers would be a reasonable solution to the problem of
questions that you in fact do not know the answer to - which could include
all questions about the future, potentially.
Josh
you'd think WotC could learn from the sticky Magic card wordings they'd
previously written... ^_^
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Lupus Australis wrote:
> > > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > > is that it must be truthful.
> >
> > It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
> > requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
>> Not necessarily. There is no errata to that effect.
Ho Ho.
<BEGIN PREAMBLE>
Hopefully you've simply forgotten the smiley at the end of
that sentence and you aren't serious. But the rest of your
post leads me to believe otherwise. If I have misunderstood
your tone, then I appologize for belaboring some obvious
points below.
<END PREAMBLE>
Quite wrong. There is no errata to the concept of a "yes or no question",
as you say, so the standard definition applies. Such questions have only
two possible answers, as can be clearly derived from the description of
the question.
> > "I don't know" isn't an answer to such a question - just an assertion that
one
> > doesn't know the answer.
>> An assertion that one doesn't know the answer _is_ an answer. For example,
> if I ask you, "Is my coffee mug at work a blue mug?" you must answer "I don't
> know" because you don't. The question is certainly a "yes or no" question.
The answer is either "Yes" or "No". Either your mug is blue or it isn't.
To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
The fact that I don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no" doesn't
change the answer.
If I was forced to answer by the Monocle, and since I don't know,
I'd say "yes". I'd have to abide by that answer "if possible".
If your mug is blue, I would be correct. If not, then there's
little I can do to abide by my answer, so I'm off the hook.
> Besides, grammatical subtleties should be well outside the scope of the
> rules team...unless, of course, they teach English for a living.
Since the cards and rules rely on the English language to convey the
use and application of the cards and rules, it is obvious to the most
casual observer that the rules and definitions of the English language
are to be applied to turn the sequence of letters, spaces, and punctuation
on the cards and in the rules into concepts for game play. Where the
game creates new definitions for "standard" English terms (e.g., "bleed"),
those new definitions are to be used. Where it does not (e.g., "yes or
no question"), the standard definition is to be used.
Application of grammar, sometimes even subtleties of grammar, is required
to make rulings, and is well within the duties of the Rules Team.
> And since
> there is no errata to the contrary, "I don't know" should be a perfectly
> acceptable answer when one doesn't know.
It is a statement of one's ignorance of the answer.
It doesn't change the answer.
> > Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"), and
> > the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
>> A question about the future does not have to be answered "yes" or
> "no" if one doesn't know. I would argue that a question about future
> intent is valid, but a question about future results is not.
Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".
If you don't know, you still must answer (card text).
And then you "must abide by the answer if possible" (card text),
nicely handling the case when your answer turns out not to have been
correct (because you didn't know the answer and, having had to answer
anyhow, chose an option that subsequently proved to be incorrect).
> I think that we all can see why the Monocle of Clarity is banned from
> tournament play.
Moreso now than ever.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> Ho Ho.
I didn't know that LSJ moonlighted as a mall Santa. *grin*
> The fact that I don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no" doesn't
> change the answer.
It may not change the correct choice between yes or no, but the fact
that you do not know allows you to answer truthfully, "I do not know."
> If I was forced to answer by the Monocle, and since I don't know,
> I'd say "yes". I'd have to abide by that answer "if possible".
> If your mug is blue, I would be correct. If not, then there's
> little I can do to abide by my answer, so I'm off the hook.
Actually, my mug is white. *grin* Let me bring it back to Jyhad here.
Joe asks Bob,"Will one of your vampires end up in torpor before
your next turn?" at the beginning of his turn. Bob has some
weenie with no blood on it that he intends to block with and a
Burst of Sunlight in his hand.
If he answers "yes" and Joe Decapitates the weenie, Bob's other
vampires now have a death wish of sorts since he is now obligated
to use the Burst to send a vampire to torpor.
If he answers "no", Bob may be prevented from using the weenie
to block since under normal circumstances it would go to torpor
or if he did block, he would be forced to use the Burst to burn
his weenie...er...his little vampire...er...never mind, no matter how
I phrase it at this point, I'm going to sound like Beavis.
Anyway...since Joe very well may do nothing, Bob really doesn't
know the answer, bringing me to my next point.
> > A question about the future does not have to be answered "yes" or
> > "no" if one doesn't know. I would argue that a question about future
> > intent is valid, but a question about future results is not.
>
> Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
> future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".
Notice that I differentiated between "future intent" and "future results"
I think that forcing a vampire into a death wish is a bit silly.
Since Bob really has no idea what the results of blocking he should
be held to questions regarding future intent rather than future results.
While the two may have more or less the same results, the semantics
are much different. And since you have drastically changed card text
in the past, limiting this card to questions regarding the future to intent
only may make the card more playable.
Noal McDonald
The Great Googily Moogily of Westland, MI
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:>> LSJ wrote:
>> > Lupus Australis wrote:
>> > > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
>> > > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
>> > > is that it must be truthful.
>> >
>> > It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
>> > requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
>>
>> Not necessarily. There is no errata to that effect.
(snip)
> Quite wrong. There is no errata to the concept of a "yes or no question",
> as you say, so the standard definition applies. Such questions have only
> two possible answers, as can be clearly derived from the description of
> the question.
I'd first like to say that I am not anything like an expert on Jyhad
rules, but as someone who just graduated with a BA in English, I'd like to
comment on the English portion of this, since much of this turns on the
English language and standard definitions of words and phrases.
A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
answers. A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
For example:
"How old are you?" is not a yes or no question.
"Are you 50 years old?" is.
However, a person asked this could respond in many ways:
"yes," "no," "that's none of your business," or "Didn't your mother
teach you never to ask a lady her age or her weight?" :)
An example from real life: a British reporter was interviewing the
remaining members of the sex pistols about a new tour they were planning a
year or two ago. He asked several "yes or no" questions.
"Isn't it true that there won't be anybody under 40 at your concerts?"
"You talk about originality. Have you written any new songs for this
tour?"
"Isn't this a nostalgia tour?"
He was answered not with "yes" or "no" but with a chorus of obscenities
and several offers to kick his @$$. :)
For the record, a yes or no question doesn't put any "by definition"
restrictions on the answer a person gives. "I don't know" is an
acceptable answer (in real life - I'm not really talking about Jyhad
here), and the only truthful answer possible if one doesn't know.
I don't know that this means anything wrt the Monacle of Clarity, though.
(snip)
>> Besides, grammatical subtleties should be well outside the scope of the
>> rules team...unless, of course, they teach English for a living.> Since the cards and rules rely on the English language to convey the
> use and application of the cards and rules, it is obvious to the most
> casual observer that the rules and definitions of the English language
> are to be applied to turn the sequence of letters, spaces, and punctuation
> on the cards and in the rules into concepts for game play. Where the
> game creates new definitions for "standard" English terms (e.g., "bleed"),
> those new definitions are to be used. Where it does not (e.g., "yes or
> no question"), the standard definition is to be used.
The standard definition of a yes or no question is not "a question that
restricts the answerer to only two possible answers, regardless of
knowledge, accuracy, truth, or whatever," but rather "a question that can
be answered with 'yes' or 'no.'" There is a difference.
No, if I understand things, you're on the rules clarification team
(whatever the official title is), so I'm not trying to overrule you in
your area - if the official ruling is that you must guess and then try to
abide by that guess, then I'd not presume to challenge you there.
I still think you're wrong about this definition though (wrt English, not
Jyhad).
> Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
> future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".> If you don't know, you still must answer (card text).> And then you "must abide by the answer if possible" (card text),
> nicely handling the case when your answer turns out not to have been
> correct (because you didn't know the answer and, having had to answer
> anyhow, chose an option that subsequently proved to be incorrect).
One question: how does this apply to the "vampires with a death wish"
question that started this thread? Does the player asked about whether a
vampire will go into torpor have to try to send one of his own if the
other can't?
>> I think that we all can see why the Monocle of Clarity is banned from
>> tournament play.> Moreso now than ever.
Tim Dedeaux inet: tded...@mc.edu
Mississippi College Student
Clinton, MS 39058
In article <72vjuu$rqr$1...@ox.mc.edu>, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> wrote:
[monocle blah blah]
>I'd first like to say that I am not anything like an expert on Jyhad
>rules, but as someone who just graduated with a BA in English, I'd like to
>comment on the English portion of this, since much of this turns on the
>English language and standard definitions of words and phrases.>A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
>answers. A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
A yes or no question *has* only two possible answers, by definition.
Yes. or No.
Saying 'blue' is certainly a *response*, but it's definitely not an
*answer*. Dig?
The answer to the question "Does foo have the quality bar?"
can only be meaningfully answered with yes or no.
gomi
yer not the only english ba on the froup, y'ken
--
you say they taught you how to read and write
yeah, they taught you how to count
i say they taught you how to buy and sell
your own body by the pound
You know, if you actually limited the card to questions about current
conditions and intentions it would be a usable card. Just because the card
text says one thing doesn't mean that it has to be that way- or are RtI and
TB better as texted?
LSJ wrote in message <72v62b$hre$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:>> LSJ wrote:
>> > Lupus Australis wrote:
>> > > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer
"Yes"
>> > > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's
answer
>> > > is that it must be truthful.
>> >
>> > It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
>> > requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
>>
>> Not necessarily. There is no errata to that effect.>>Ho Ho.
>
><BEGIN PREAMBLE>
>Hopefully you've simply forgotten the smiley at the end of
>that sentence and you aren't serious. But the rest of your
>post leads me to believe otherwise. If I have misunderstood
>your tone, then I appologize for belaboring some obvious
>points below.
><END PREAMBLE>
>>Quite wrong. There is no errata to the concept of a "yes or no question",
>as you say, so the standard definition applies. Such questions have only
>two possible answers, as can be clearly derived from the description of
>the question.
>>> > "I don't know" isn't an answer to such a question - just an assertion
that
>one>> > doesn't know the answer.
>>
>> An assertion that one doesn't know the answer _is_ an answer. For
example,
>> if I ask you, "Is my coffee mug at work a blue mug?" you must answer "I
don't
>> know" because you don't. The question is certainly a "yes or no"
question.
>>The answer is either "Yes" or "No". Either your mug is blue or it isn't.
>To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
>>The fact that I don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no" doesn't
>change the answer.
>>If I was forced to answer by the Monocle, and since I don't know,
>I'd say "yes". I'd have to abide by that answer "if possible".
>If your mug is blue, I would be correct. If not, then there's
>little I can do to abide by my answer, so I'm off the hook.
>>> Besides, grammatical subtleties should be well outside the scope of the
>> rules team...unless, of course, they teach English for a living.>
>Since the cards and rules rely on the English language to convey the
>use and application of the cards and rules, it is obvious to the most
>casual observer that the rules and definitions of the English language
>are to be applied to turn the sequence of letters, spaces, and punctuation
>on the cards and in the rules into concepts for game play. Where the
>game creates new definitions for "standard" English terms (e.g., "bleed"),
>those new definitions are to be used. Where it does not (e.g., "yes or
>no question"), the standard definition is to be used.
>>Application of grammar, sometimes even subtleties of grammar, is required
>to make rulings, and is well within the duties of the Rules Team.
>>> And since
>> there is no errata to the contrary, "I don't know" should be a perfectly
>> acceptable answer when one doesn't know.>
>It is a statement of one's ignorance of the answer.
>It doesn't change the answer.
>>> > Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"), and
>> > the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
>>>> A question about the future does not have to be answered "yes" or
>> "no" if one doesn't know. I would argue that a question about future
>> intent is valid, but a question about future results is not.>>Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
>future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".
>
>If you don't know, you still must answer (card text).
>
>And then you "must abide by the answer if possible" (card text),
>nicely handling the case when your answer turns out not to have been
>correct (because you didn't know the answer and, having had to answer
>anyhow, chose an option that subsequently proved to be incorrect).
>>> I think that we all can see why the Monocle of Clarity is banned from
>> tournament play.>
>Moreso now than ever.
>>--
>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
>[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
> > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > is that it must be truthful.
>
> It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
> requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
OK, but that is not the phrase normally means. A "yes-or-no question" is
a type of question for which the answers "yes" or "no" would be meaningful
(though not necessarily accurate) answers.
For instance, "What color is her hair?" is not a yes/no question because
"yes" would not be a meaningful answer. If I ask "Is her hair brown?"
that *is* a yes/no question. But this does not mean the respondent must
answer yes or no. "Usually", "Sometimes", "Sort of", "Partially", and
"When she wants it to be" are all perfectly acceptable answers, and may in
fact be more accurate and informative than a plain "yes" or a plain "no".
The phrase is used in a number of games to limit the types of questions
that a questioner may ask, and not to limit the responses of the answerer.
For instance, if you have ever played with a "magic 8-ball" you know that
you are supposed to ask the 8-ball yes or no type questions. You also
know that the 8-ball almost never gives a simple "yes" or "no" as an
answer.
Similarly, in the game "20 questions", one person thinks of a person,
place or thing, and the second person asks a series of questions in order
to try to determine what the person is thinking of. The questioner is
limitted to "yes or no" type questions, because without this restriction,
he could simply ask "What are you thinking of?" and the game would
instantly be over. But the respondent is not limited to "yes" or "no" as
an answer. He is merely obliged to answer truthfully and without undue
evasion. Usually he will answer simply "yes" or "no" in order to give
away as little information as possible, but sometimes it might be more
honorable to say, for instace, "Sometimes" or "Partially", if either a
"yes" or a "no" would be too misleading.
> "I don't know" isn't an
> answer to such a question - just an assertion that one doesn't know
> the answer.
Techically, you may be right. "I don't know", is not phrased as an
answer. To phrase it as an answer, one should say something like "maybe"
or "possibly". But people usually say "I don't know," in order to clarify
that they are not being evasive, but are being as accurate as their
knowledge allows.
In "20 questions" it would be misleading and unsportsmanlike to answer
"yes" or "no" if you did not know the answer. In a court of law it might
be perjury.
> Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"),
OK, but that is not apparent from card text, and appears to be
contradicted by the requirement that one answer "truthfully".
I would argue that further errata is required to make this clear.
> and
> the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
It is apparent from this clause that the card designers intended players
to be bound by answers about their intentions.
But this would only apply only if they chose to give any definite answers
about intentions. It is not clear from card text that they are obliged to
do this.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <730gam$5qm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:
> In article <72vjuu$rqr$1...@ox.mc.edu>, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> wrote:> >A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
> >answers. A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
>
> A yes or no question *has* only two possible answers, by definition.
>
> Yes. or No.
>
> Saying 'blue' is certainly a *response*, but it's definitely not an
> *answer*. Dig?
>
> The answer to the question "Does foo have the quality bar?"
> can only be meaningfully answered with yes or no.
You did read his post though, right? The question (dFhtqB) can only be
'successfully' answered with 'yes' or 'no', sure, but if the respondent
does not know whether Foo has the quality Bar, then it cannot be
*truthfully* answered with 'yes' or 'no'. The accurate answer in that
case, as far as I can see, is 'I don't know' or 'Maybe'. If someone asks
me, "Does Denver have any good coffee shops?", in what way is it meaningful
for me to tell them "Yes" or "No" when in fact I don't know the answer?
> gomi
> yer not the only english ba on the froup, y'ken
You know, I wasn't an English major, but I did take a few English classes,
and in my experience grammar is something pretty completely not taught in
college courses. ^_-
Josh
not that you should let that stop you; I never do
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> > The fact that I don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no" doesn't
> > change the answer.
>> It may not change the correct choice between yes or no, but the fact
> that you do not know allows you to answer truthfully, "I do not know."
That is a truthful reply. So is "I don't want to answer" to most of
the questions asked via Monocle. Neither reply is allowed by Monocle.
The answer is either "yes" or "no", and Monocle requires that you
answer (usage here meaning something different than just "reply")
truthfully.
> [...]> Joe asks Bob,"Will one of your vampires end up in torpor before
> your next turn?" at the beginning of his turn. Bob has some
> weenie with no blood on it that he intends to block with and a
> Burst of Sunlight in his hand.
>
> If he answers "yes" and Joe Decapitates the weenie, Bob's other
> vampires now have a death wish of sorts since he is now obligated
> to use the Burst to send a vampire to torpor.
>
> If he answers "no", Bob may be prevented from using the weenie
> to block since under normal circumstances it would go to torpor
> or if he did block, he would be forced to use the Burst to burn
> his weenie...er...his little vampire...er...never mind, no matter how
> I phrase it at this point, I'm going to sound like Beavis.
Right. This is the type of result the card designers intended, I'd say.
> Anyway...since Joe very well may do nothing, Bob really doesn't
> know the answer, bringing me to my next point.
Right. So he must choose one of the two answers and, since it pertains
to the future, must abide by that answer "if possible". If Bob answers
"yes" and Joe does nothing, then Bob is off the hook, since it is not
possble for him to abide by his answer.
> > > A question about the future does not have to be answered "yes" or
> > > "no" if one doesn't know. I would argue that a question about future
> > > intent is valid, but a question about future results is not.
> >
> > Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
> > future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".
>> Notice that I differentiated between "future intent" and "future results"
OK. You must answer. You can base your answer on future intent if you
wish (Monocle doesn't address that point). Once you answer, though,
you must abide by your answer if possible, regardles of future results
(card text).
> I think that forcing a vampire into a death wish is a bit silly.
Could be. Certainly a subjective issue, though, and not really ground
for a Rules Team ruling. :-)
> Since Bob really has no idea what the results of blocking he should
> be held to questions regarding future intent rather than future results.
If the questioner wishes to ask about future intent, she is free to do
so. If she wishes to ask about future results, she is also free to do so.
> While the two may have more or less the same results, the semantics
> are much different. And since you have drastically changed card text
> in the past, limiting this card to questions regarding the future to intent
> only may make the card more playable.
As the card is banned from tournament play, I seriously doubt that it
would be worthwhile to issue further errata. And I don't see how your
proposed erratum would make the card more playable.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> > Lupus Australis wrote:
> > > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > > is that it must be truthful.
> >
> > It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
> > requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
>
> OK, but that is not the phrase normally means. A "yes-or-no question" is
> a type of question for which the answers "yes" or "no" would be meaningful
> (though not necessarily accurate) answers.
Right. The "truthfully" condition on Monocle handles the "accurate" part.
> For instance, "What color is her hair?" is not a yes/no question because
> "yes" would not be a meaningful answer. If I ask "Is her hair brown?"
> that *is* a yes/no question. But this does not mean the respondent must
> answer yes or no.
Right. Because the Monocle is not involved. If the question is asked
via the Monocle, then the respondent must answer "yes" or "no" (actually,
the question is not legal, since it doesn't pertain to the game).
> "Usually", "Sometimes",
The "is" in the question restricts the topic to the present.
If "now" is part of the "usually" or "sometimes" that her hair
is brown, then the answer is "yes". Otherwise, the answer is "no".
> "Sort of", "Partially", and
Both of these are either "yes" or "no" depending on the answerer's
perception of what constitutes "hair being brown".
> "When she wants it to be"
Again either "yes" or "no" depending on what it "is" now.
> are all perfectly acceptable answers, and may in
> fact be more accurate and informative than a plain "yes" or a plain "no".
Providing information as your reply doesn't change the fact
that the answer to the question is either "yes" or "no".
> The phrase is used in a number of games to limit the types of questions
> that a questioner may ask, and not to limit the responses of the answerer.
Right.
But in this case, the card limits the responses of the answerer.
"I don't want to answer", no matter how truthful a response, is not
allowed by Monocle (nor by most of these "number of games").
> For instance, if you have ever played with a "magic 8-ball" you know that
> you are supposed to ask the 8-ball yes or no type questions. You also
> know that the 8-ball almost never gives a simple "yes" or "no" as an
> answer.
<groan>
The 8-ball responds.
And that response isn't restricted to being "truthful".
The response-answer of the 8-ball is not the same as the correct-answer
required by Monocle.
> Similarly, in the game "20 questions", one person thinks of a person,
> place or thing, and the second person asks a series of questions in order
> to try to determine what the person is thinking of. The questioner is
> limitted to "yes or no" type questions, because without this restriction,
> he could simply ask "What are you thinking of?" and the game would
> instantly be over. But the respondent is not limited to "yes" or "no" as
> an answer.
<groan>
Maybe not where you play, but here the "thinker" must always respond
with "yes" or "no".
> He is merely obliged to answer truthfully and without undue> evasion. Usually he will answer simply "yes" or "no" in order to give
> away as little information as possible, but sometimes it might be more
> honorable to say, for instace, "Sometimes" or "Partially", if either a
> "yes" or a "no" would be too misleading.
<irrelevant> - Here (20 questions) as with Monocle, it is up to the
asker to make sure that his question, when answered truthfully with
a "yes" or a "no" provides useful information. If a truthful answer
of "yes" or "no" is misleading, then that is the questioner's
fault/problem.
> > "I don't know" isn't an
> > answer to such a question - just an assertion that one doesn't know
> > the answer.
>
> Techically, you may be right. "I don't know", is not phrased as an
> answer. To phrase it as an answer, one should say something like "maybe"
> or "possibly". But people usually say "I don't know," in order to clarify
> that they are not being evasive, but are being as accurate as their
> knowledge allows.
Both these are also not the answer.
"Maybe the answer is 'yes'"
"Possbly the answer is 'yes'"
"I don't know if the answer is 'yes'"
are all responses that may well be accurate - but they are not the
answer, by virtue of the fact that the answer is either "yes" or
"no" and none of the responses in question are either.
> In "20 questions" it would be misleading and unsportsmanlike to answer
> "yes" or "no" if you did not know the answer. In a court of law it might
> be perjury.
Fortunately, we're talking about the Monocle, where it is required
by card text.
> > Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"),
>
> OK, but that is not apparent from card text, and appears to be
> contradicted by the requirement that one answer "truthfully".
You must answer questions about the future. You must abide by your
answer (to arrive at its "truthfullness") if possible - meaning
you must strive to have answered truthfully.
> I would argue that further errata is required to make this clear.
I would argue that clarification of card text is all that is required
to make this clear (since card text is explicit in this regard).
It is not ambiguous (so doesn't require a ruling) and
it is played as it is written (so doesn't require errata).
> > and
> > the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
>
> It is apparent from this clause that the card designers intended players
> to be bound by answers about their intentions.
Right.
> But this would only apply only if they chose to give any definite answers
> about intentions. It is not clear from card text that they are obliged to
> do this.
Yes, it is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Tim Dedeaux wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> > Quite wrong. There is no errata to the concept of a "yes or no question",
> > as you say, so the standard definition applies. Such questions have only
> > two possible answers, as can be clearly derived from the description of
> > the question.
>> I'd first like to say that I am not anything like an expert on Jyhad
> rules, but as someone who just graduated with a BA in English, I'd like to
> comment on the English portion of this, since much of this turns on the
> English language and standard definitions of words and phrases.
>> A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
> answers.
You're using "answer" as "reply".
Here "answer" means "answer correctly" (or "correct answer").
The "answer" to "what is 2+2?" is "4", regardless of how the
person to whom the question is asked chooses to reply.
I realize that "answer" can mean "reply" or "respond", but that
is clearly not the usage on Monocle.
> A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
Right. And the Monocle requires that the question be answered
truthfully.
The answer to the question is either positive ("yes") or
negative ("no"), so to "answer truthfully", the person to
whom the question is asked must reply with one of these
answers.
"I don't know the answer" is a valid reply to a "yes or no question"
in practice, but it is not the answer. It is a declaration of one's
ignorance of the answer. As such, it is not allowed by Monocle's
requirement that the question be answered.
> For example:
>
> "How old are you?" is not a yes or no question.
>
> "Are you 50 years old?" is.
>
> However, a person asked this could respond in many ways:
> "yes," "no," "that's none of your business," or "Didn't your mother
> teach you never to ask a lady her age or her weight?" :)
But "That's none of your business" is not the answer. The answer,
whether or not the person asked the question provides it, is
still either "yes" or "no".
Clearly "none of your business" is not valid for a question
asked via the Monocle.
> An example from real life: a British reporter was interviewing the
> remaining members of the sex pistols about a new tour they were planning a
> year or two ago. He asked several "yes or no" questions.
>
> "Isn't it true that there won't be anybody under 40 at your concerts?"
> "You talk about originality. Have you written any new songs for this
> tour?"
That is a reply. The answer to the original question is still either
"yes" or "no". As is often the case (by necessity, even) public
figures almost always reply to questions with redirective, tangental,
or even irrelevant information (or questions) in an effort to protect
themselves.
> "Isn't this a nostalgia tour?"
>
> He was answered not with "yes" or "no" but with a chorus of obscenities
> and several offers to kick his @$$. :)
Again, this would be the reply, not the "answer" as required by
Monocle.
> For the record, a yes or no question doesn't put any "by definition"
> restrictions on the answer a person gives.
It describes the possible answers ("yes" or "no") inherent in
the question. It doesn't (by itself) place any restrictions on
the person to whom the question is asked - not even that he or
she reply to the question at all. However, other text on Monocle
does require that the person being asked give a truthful answer.
An offer to kick the questioner's %!$@ is not one of the
allowable answers. :-)
> "I don't know" is an
> acceptable answer (in real life - I'm not really talking about Jyhad> here), and the only truthful answer possible if one doesn't know.
It is a truthful reply for one who doesn't know the answer, yes.
It doesn't change the fact that the answer is ultimately
either "yes" or "no".
> I don't know that this means anything wrt the Mon[o]cle of Clarity, though.
Hopefully I've cleared up this relationship.
> >> Besides, grammatical subtleties should be well outside the scope of the
> >> rules team...unless, of course, they teach English for a living.
>
> > Since the cards and rules rely on the English language to convey the
> > use and application of the cards and rules, it is obvious to the most
> > casual observer that the rules and definitions of the English language
> > are to be applied to turn the sequence of letters, spaces, and punctuation
> > on the cards and in the rules into concepts for game play. Where the
> > game creates new definitions for "standard" English terms (e.g., "bleed"),
> > those new definitions are to be used. Where it does not (e.g., "yes or
> > no question"), the standard definition is to be used.
>> The standard definition of a yes or no question is not "a question that
> restricts the answerer to only two possible answers, regardless of
> knowledge, accuracy, truth, or whatever," but rather "a question that can> be answered with 'yes' or 'no.'" There is a difference.
Right, which is what I said.
Monocle goes the extra step in putting restrictions on the answerer
(including that she be the answerer).
> No, if I understand things, you're on the rules clarification team
> (whatever the official title is), so I'm not trying to overrule you in
> your area - if the official ruling is that you must guess and then try to
> abide by that guess, then I'd not presume to challenge you there.
It's not even a ruling - it's a re-statement of explicit card text.
> I still think you're wrong about this definition though (wrt English, not
> Jyhad).
I gathered. But you're assigning a false definition to me.
That false definition is not mine, and I agree that it is
wrong.
> > Sorry, but the card's text clearly shows that questions about the
> > future are valid: "If the question pertains to the future,...".
>> > If you don't know, you still must answer (card text).
>
> > And then you "must abide by the answer if possible" (card text),
> > nicely handling the case when your answer turns out not to have been
> > correct (because you didn't know the answer and, having had to answer
> > anyhow, chose an option that subsequently proved to be incorrect).
>> One question: how does this apply to the "vampires with a death wish"
> question that started this thread? Does the player asked about whether a
> vampire will go into torpor have to try to send one of his own if the
> other can't?
That's the idea.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <36541A...@wizards.com>,
LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote:
> The "answer" to "what is 2+2?" is "4", regardless of how the
> person to whom the question is asked chooses to reply.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you here, LSJ. 2+2 = 5.
Problems? Take it up with the Ministry of Truth
Xian, posting pointless fluff...
"You can just ignore it...and let hand jam sort them out."
--Jasper Phillips
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Tim Dedeaux wrote:
> > A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
> > answers.
>
> You're using "answer" as "reply".
> Here "answer" means "answer correctly" (or "correct answer").
*shakes head* A correct definition of a word may not contain
the word being defined. While I'm not a BA in English, I was
sufficiently advanced in my English comprehension skills to be
placed in a 6th grade reading class in 2nd grade and put into
an advanced class in 8th grade where we were asked to write
term papers. (I got an A+)
Having established that I am quite competent at my English skills,
let me first state the card does state that one must answer
"correctly," but rather "truthfully". Therefore, the correct definition
is of answer in this case is "reply truthfully." There is a significant
difference between the two. In fact, the difference is sufficient
enough to warrant limiting questions to intent rather than results
since nobody "truthfully" knows the results of any future action.
If the person does not truthfully know the answer to a question
posed, they must answer truthfully, "I don't know." Nowhere
in card text or existing errata is there any statement stating or
implying that the reply is limited to "yes" or "no"...just that the
reply must be an honest one.
> > A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
>
> Right. And the Monocle requires that the question be answered
> truthfully.
If one doesn't know the answer, one cannot truthfully answer "yes"
or "no". A truthful answer would be, "I don't know."
> "I don't know the answer" is a valid reply to a "yes or no question"
> in practice, but it is not the answer. It is a declaration of one's
> ignorance of the answer. As such, it is not allowed by Monocle's
> requirement that the question be answered.
How is a valid reply not a valid answer? You're trying to apply
mathematic principles to a language issue. In language, a double
negative does not a mean a positive. Mathematic rules have no
bearing on the rules of language.
It appears to me, LSJ, that you are using circular logic to justify
your interpretation of card text. While you may not feel that
the card needs errata issued for it, others may feel differently.
The excuse that the card is banned from tournament play is a
cop-out. You have established the difference between
tournament rules and WotC rules in the past. The no repeat
actions rule is one example. If you are going to twist the
wording of a card to justify your viewpoint in the face of
intelligent disagreement, perhaps you should put the issue
before the rules team to justify it.
Limiting the questions to be used with the Monocle to queries
of future intent rather than future results would go along way
towards making this entire thread a moot point and make the
card more playable to boot. Hell, it may even make the card
acceptable in tournament play.
Noal McDonald
Archbishop of Westland, MI
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Tim Dedeaux wrote:> > > A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
> > > answers.
> >
> > You're using "answer" as "reply".
> > Here "answer" means "answer correctly" (or "correct answer").
>> *shakes head* A correct definition of a word may not contain
> the word being defined.
Sorry. Too much typing (or I was just using the previous definition
in the "correct" definition - yeah, sure).
> Having established that I am quite competent at my English skills,
> let me first state the card does state that one must answer
> "correctly," but rather "truthfully". Therefore, the correct definition
> is of answer in this case is "reply truthfully."
Or, more precisely: "reply with a truthful answer".
A truthful reply that I could give to any question is "My name is Scott".
But obviously that is not sufficient for the Monocle.
> There is a significant
> difference between the two. In fact, the difference is sufficient
> enough to warrant limiting questions to intent rather than results
> since nobody "truthfully" knows the results of any future action.
The clause handling questions about the future is sufficient.
> If the person does not truthfully know the answer to a question
> posed, they must answer truthfully, "I don't know."
That is not an acceptable answer.
It is a declaration that one doesn't know the answer.
Such a case is handled by card text - the answerer must actually
give an answer ("yes" or "no") and then must abide by that answer
"if possible".
> Nowhere
> in card text or existing errata is there any statement stating or
> implying that the reply is limited to "yes" or "no"...just that the
> reply must be an honest one.
So you argue that card text allows for me to respond "My name is Scott"
to any question asked by the Monocle? Clearly, that is not the case.
The only other alternative is the obvious one: the answer must be "yes"
or "no".
> > > A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
> >
> > Right. And the Monocle requires that the question be answered
> > truthfully.
>> If one doesn't know the answer, one cannot truthfully answer "yes"
> or "no". A truthful answer would be, "I don't know."
Again, that is a truthful reply.
Card text requires an answer and requires the answerer to abide by
that answer if possible. This is so simple I can't explain it any
other way.
> > "I don't know the answer" is a valid reply to a "yes or no question"
> > in practice, but it is not the answer. It is a declaration of one's
> > ignorance of the answer. As such, it is not allowed by Monocle's
> > requirement that the question be answered.
>> How is a valid reply not a valid answer? You're trying to apply
> mathematic principles to a language issue.
No. I'm trying to apply common sense. I may occasionally use
mathematical concepts to get the point across. For instance:
the set of answers to a "yes or no question" is {"yes","no"}.
The set of correct answers is a subset of the set of answers.
> In language, a double
> negative does not a mean a positive. Mathematic rules have no
> bearing on the rules of language.
Inconsequential tangent. (Or I simply missed your point.)
> It appears to me, LSJ, that you are using circular logic to justify
> your interpretation of card text. While you may not feel that
What circular logic? Common sense is all that is required.
> the card needs errata issued for it, others may feel differently.
Right. That's the case with many things. I'm up for the task, however.
> The excuse that the card is banned from tournament play is a
> cop-out. You have established the difference between
> tournament rules and WotC rules in the past. The no repeat
> actions rule is one example. If you are going to twist the
> wording of a card to justify your viewpoint in the face of
> intelligent disagreement, perhaps you should put the issue
> before the rules team to justify it.
And since I'm not twisting the wording...
> Limiting the questions to be used with the Monocle to queries
> of future intent rather than future results would go along way
> towards making this entire thread a moot point and make the
> card more playable to boot.
It would open up many more problems. Like "where's the line between
intent and results?" The current operation of the card is much
less subjective (and therefore better).
> Hell, it may even make the card
> acceptable in tournament play.
By increasing the need for subjective rulings from the Judge?
I don't see how that helps.
I am done with this thread - all the information I can provide I have
provided (several times, in most cases).
If (miraculously) something new comes up regarding this card, I'll
be happy to reply, as always.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Tim Dedeaux wrote:> > > A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible
> > > answers.
> >
> > You're using "answer" as "reply".
> > Here "answer" means "answer correctly" (or "correct answer").
>> *shakes head* A correct definition of a word may not contain
> the word being defined.
He's not defining it, he's clarifying it's usage in this case.
> let me first state the card does state that one must answer
> "correctly," but rather "truthfully". Therefore, the correct definition
> is of answer in this case is "reply truthfully."
This does not follow. The question is a yes or no question. Therefore
the only possible *answers* to the question itself are 'yes' and 'no',
one of which is true, the other of which is false. Though there are
many *responses*, the one required by the monocle is the response which
is the truthful answer.
> There is a significant
> difference between the two. In fact, the difference is sufficient
> enough to warrant limiting questions to intent rather than results
> since nobody "truthfully" knows the results of any future action.
LSJ has already addressed this. Though you may not know the truthful
results of any future action, you still must answer and you must abide
by your answer by card text.
Remember that we are talking about Jyhad here. In Jyhad, when
something requires you to do some effect you can't fully do, you don't
ignore it (like saying "I don't know" or in response to the Monocle);
rather you do the effect as best you can. If my vampire has 1 blood and
is hit with Blood to Water, I don't think anyone would let me get away
with saying "Sorry, not enough blood. I guess nothing happens."
Instead I must burn what blood I have.
Similarly with the Monocle, if I don't have a fully truthful answer, I
should not get away with giving no answer at all. I must give what I
believe is the "most" truthful answer.
> If the person does not truthfully know the answer to a question
> posed, they must answer truthfully, "I don't know."
"I don't know" is the same as saying "I don't know if the answer is
yes," which means that they aren't giving an answer, they are merely
talking about one.
> Nowhere
> in card text or existing errata is there any statement stating or
> implying that the reply is limited to "yes" or "no"...just that the
> reply must be an honest one.
The reply need not be "yes" or "no", but the *answer* must be, and the
card says you must give the answer.
> > > A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.
> >
> > Right. And the Monocle requires that the question be answered
> > truthfully.
>> If one doesn't know the answer, one cannot truthfully answer "yes"
> or "no". A truthful answer would be, "I don't know."
Actually, "I don't know" could *never* be a truthful answer to the
Monocle. Asking a monocle question is equivalent to saying "Is <foo>
true? Answer truthfully." Suppose you reply "I don't know." If this
statement were a truthful answer, then you would know a truthful answer
because you'd know what your statement is. But your statement states
that you don't know any truthful answer. Logically therefore "I don't
know" can never be a truthful answer to the Monocle, because if it were
you would be giving an answer that says you have no answer to give,
which is clearly false since you are giving an answer :P
> > "I don't know the answer" is a valid reply to a "yes or no question"
> > in practice, but it is not the answer. It is a declaration of one's
> > ignorance of the answer. As such, it is not allowed by Monocle's
> > requirement that the question be answered.
>> How is a valid reply not a valid answer? You're trying to apply> mathematic principles to a language issue. In language, a double> negative does not a mean a positive. Mathematic rules have no
> bearing on the rules of language.
Actually, we *are* dealing with a mathematical issue, or at least a
logical one, thus we should be careful what linguistic rules we try to
impose on our problem.
As I stated above, asking a Monocle question is equivalent to saying:
"Is <foo> true? Answer truthfully."
Logically, such a question has only 2 answers, 'yes' or 'no', only one
of which is truthful (assuming we're not asking questions about
questions.) We can even phrase it in such a way that does not involve
language:
let <foo> = "x=2"
answer = {"yes", x = 2
"no", x != 2}
> Limiting the questions to be used with the Monocle to queries
> of future intent rather than future results would go along way
> towards making this entire thread a moot point and make the> card more playable to boot. Hell, it may even make the card
> acceptable in tournament play.
This is not necessary at all. If you are asked about future results,
and you don't know what they will be, you still must answer truthfully
[as best you can.] Since the Monocle says that you must abide by your
answer if possible, your answer then becomes your intention (you will
presumably answer in such a way as to make this as minor a
transformation as possible.) Thus the Monocle already does essentially
pertain to future intentions, but also works in those rare times when
someone *does* know the future results.
-davey!
Here's the sum of the matter.
Relevant Card Text:
During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any
Methuselah a yes or no question. He or she must answer truthfully.
If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by
the answer if possible.
Here are a couple of Webster's definitions for "answer":
1. To speak or write in return to, as in return to a call or
question, or to a speech, declaration, argument, or the like.
2. To respond to satisfactorily; to meet successfully by way of
explanation, argument, or justification, and the like.
The first definition is similar to "reply." The second definition
would indicate that you have to answer "yes" or "no" to the
quesiton. To me, it indicates that a clarification of the card is
necessary. There is nothing needed as far as a ruling or errata goes.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7318an$9cr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <730gam$5qm$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,> go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:>> A yes or no question *has* only two possible answers, by definition.>> Yes. or No.>> Saying 'blue' is certainly a *response*, but it's definitely not an
>> *answer*. Dig?>> The answer to the question "Does foo have the quality bar?"
>> can only be meaningfully answered with yes or no.>You did read his post though, right? The question (dFhtqB) can only be
>'successfully' answered with 'yes' or 'no', sure, but if the respondent
>does not know whether Foo has the quality Bar, then it cannot be
>*truthfully* answered with 'yes' or 'no'. The accurate answer in that
>case, as far as I can see, is 'I don't know' or 'Maybe'. If someone asks
>me, "Does Denver have any good coffee shops?", in what way is it meaningful>for me to tell them "Yes" or "No" when in fact I don't know the answer?
Right. I think we're differing on our definitions -- I take 'answer'
to mean what you mean by 'successful answer,' I think. That is, an
answer to the question 'does foo have the quality bar' should increase
the information i had before asking the question. If you answer 'yes'
or 'no' (and, since the Monocle's answer is binding, I must take your
answer as truthful and reliable), I now have more information than I did
before -- I *know* whether or not foo has the quality bar, by virtue of
your binding answer.
If, leaving logic and semantics aside for the moment, the reality is that
you *don't know* one way or the other, you still have to 'pretend' to know --
a non yes/no answer doesn't increase my information and is as such no
answer at all. By 'pretending' to know and picking an answer at random,
you satisfy the constraints of the Monocle and, should future events
prove the answer you gave false by events beyond your control, well,
I'm out of luck and you're off the hook.
But you must answer yes or no *even if you don't know*. The Monocle
compels you to do so when asked a yes or no question.
>You know, I wasn't an English major, but I did take a few English classes,
>and in my experience grammar is something pretty completely not taught in
>college courses. ^_-
Heh. But this ain't grammar, but logic and semantics, more intrinsically
interesting, I find.
gomi
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7332g3$m3u$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote:
[snip]
> Right. I think we're differing on our definitions -- I take 'answer'
> to mean what you mean by 'successful answer,' I think. That is, an
> answer to the question 'does foo have the quality bar' should increase
> the information i had before asking the question. If you answer 'yes'
> or 'no' (and, since the Monocle's answer is binding, I must take your
> answer as truthful and reliable), I now have more information than I did
> before -- I *know* whether or not foo has the quality bar, by virtue of
> your binding answer.
Yah. In some cases, though, using Monocle will only increase the information
you think you have, as it can give you wrong information.
> If, leaving logic and semantics aside for the moment, the reality is that
> you *don't know* one way or the other, you still have to 'pretend' to know --
> a non yes/no answer doesn't increase my information and is as such no
> answer at all. By 'pretending' to know and picking an answer at random,
> you satisfy the constraints of the Monocle and, should future events
> prove the answer you gave false by events beyond your control, well,
> I'm out of luck and you're off the hook.
>
> But you must answer yes or no *even if you don't know*. The Monocle
> compels you to do so when asked a yes or no question.
See, the problem I have is that hidden information is clearly a factor,
and Monocle ignores that possibility. Monocle also says you have to
answer 'truthfully', and saying 'yes' or 'no' when you do not actually
know the answer is obviously not a 'truthful' answer. If the Monoclist
asks, "Does Peter have an Immortal Grapple in his hand?" - there is
a correct answer, but unless I've looked at Peter's hand recently, I don't
know whether that answer is 'yes' or 'no'. LSJ's take on Monocle is
apparently that there is subtext saying 'If you don't know, guess' right
after 'answer truthfully'. Which is one way to interpret the card, but
I don't like picking that interpretation without an explicit ruling that
that is the intent.
Ah well, can't win 'em all.
Josh
persona non sequitur
[ quoted text not captured ]
jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> See, the problem I have is that hidden information is clearly a factor,
> and Monocle ignores that possibility. Monocle also says you have to
> answer 'truthfully', and saying 'yes' or 'no' when you do not actually
> know the answer is obviously not a 'truthful' answer. If the Monoclist
> asks, "Does Peter have an Immortal Grapple in his hand?" - there is
> a correct answer, but unless I've looked at Peter's hand recently, I don't
> know whether that answer is 'yes' or 'no'. LSJ's take on Monocle is
> apparently that there is subtext saying 'If you don't know, guess' right
> after 'answer truthfully'.
No, that is not my take on it (although that has the same result).
With such a pathological case (clearly not a question that would ever
be asked in a "real" game), one has to get into the philosphical
concepts of truth and reality as they relate to perception.
Which is a long road with many points for debate at a level even more
excruciatingly tedious than what this thread has already seen.
I'm sure I'll regret even bringing it up. :-)
Suffice it to say that all "truthful" statements have a "to the best
of my knowledge" implied in them. We normally use that phrase explicitly
when we can reasonably believe that our perceived reality may not
completely agree with the "absolute" reality. But the phrase applies to
all "truthful" statements.
> Which is one way to interpret the card, but
> I don't like picking that interpretation without an explicit ruling that
> that is the intent.
>
> Ah well, can't win 'em all.
There are only two interpretations.
One allows the reply "I don't want to answer" to any question asked.
The other does not.
Only one of these is reasonable, so that is the one that is used.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <7341bj$ndr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> > apparently that there is subtext saying 'If you don't know, guess' right
> > after 'answer truthfully'.
>
> No, that is not my take on it (although that has the same result).
Okay, sorry. I guess it's the result that concerns me, and this is the
kind of formulation that came to mind.
> With such a pathological case (clearly not a question that would ever
> be asked in a "real" game), one has to get into the philosphical
> concepts of truth and reality as they relate to perception.
>
> Which is a long road with many points for debate at a level even more
> excruciatingly tedious than what this thread has already seen.
> I'm sure I'll regret even bringing it up. :-)
Heh. Yes.
To me it seems more logical to simply add another restriction to the Monocle.
It was done before - the 950530 rulings came about explicitly to reduce
the absurd brokenness of the card as printed. Since the card is now banned
for tourney use, it may seem unnecessary to add further errata/rulings, but
I think it would be good to simply eliminate the ability to ask questions
about the future.
> There are only two interpretations.> One allows the reply "I don't want to answer" to any question asked.
> The other does not.
>
> Only one of these is reasonable, so that is the one that is used.
Well, my interpretation would be "You must answer 'yes' or 'no' truthfully
if you know the answer", which requires the respondent to give accurate
answers to questions he knows the answer to, but not to those he doesn't.
It might effectively allow 'I don't want to answer' for questions about
the future/intentions though. I can live with forced guessing, since the
card is not tourney legal; I just don't like it.
Josh
sees no need to get into the thornier perception/truth issues at the moment
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 22:13:32 GMT, mboh...@shout.net wrote:
>
>The first definition is similar to "reply." The second definition
>would indicate that you have to answer "yes" or "no" to the
>quesiton. To me, it indicates that a clarification of the card is
>necessary. There is nothing needed as far as a ruling or errata goes.
I personally can't believe that anyone, judging from how wack the
Monocle of Clarity's card text is, is even attempting to play with the
card OUTSIDE of tournament play. It was banned from tournament play
for obvious reasons, and it is guaranteed to be an argument-causer in
any game it gets played in where people attempt to use it in more than
a very simple way. How is causing arguments good for the stability of
a playgroup? Pfft.
A suitable errata to make it tournament-legal?
"Ask any player a yes or no question dealing with current information
related to his own deck, crypt, hand, pool, or vampire blood. That
player must respond as truthfully as possible."
this gets rid of all those annoying future intent questions. yeah, it
removes the useful ones like "will you bleed me next turn?", but hell,
you could've asked him that without the monocle and gotten an answer
whether or not he made a useful response.
It also lets you ask the questions you should, like "Do you have the
cards in hand to send me to torpor if I bleed you?", or "Do you have
any +bleed actions or modifiers in your hand right now?" (to your
predator, obviously)... both of which get the job done pretty well.
(Although in the first, you didnt mention "draw cards", but he can't
know about that and new-card-text doesnt force him to abide by stuff
he couldnt have known, which is what is wrong with the CURRENT
monocle!)
-- Derek
(replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> > > Lupus Australis wrote:
> > > > As a final note...alot of people seem to assume that one must answer "Yes"
> > > > or "No". Nowhere does it say this. The only restriction on one's answer
> > > > is that it must be truthful.
> > >
> > > It says to ask a "yes or no question". Such a question, by definition,
> > > requires a "yes" or a "no" as an answer.
[snip]
You are consistently using a formula of traditional logic that admits to
only two truth values to any proposition (True and False). Now I agree
that this system is a highly useful one in many circumstances. The flaw
in this traditional logic system is that it assumes access to some sort of
omniscient source which can not only correctly and unambiguously interpret
any proposition, but also answer it with certainty.
In the real world, people do not operate according to this "two truth
value" system. Outside the halls of mathematics and hard science, it is
rather less useful because people are not omniscient and cannot access the
mind of God. In the real world, propositions have many possible truth
values: True, False, and various shades of Maybe (such as "probably",
"probably not", and "almost certainly"). Computer Programmers attempting
to simulate human intelligence have long recognized the limitations of
traditional logic for this purpose, hence the development of "Fuzzy
Logic."
Fuzzy Logic has of course existed long before computers. In a Court of
Law, if you are asked a yes/no question and are directed to "answer
truthfully", it is perfectly acceptable to give an indefinite answer such
as "Maybe", provided this is indeed a truthful answer and you are in fact
uncertain. Indeed, it would be untruthful and perjurous to do anything
else. Obviously the court accepts the existence of other truth values
besides True and False, since both values can be incorrect in some cases.
I recognize your position that "indefinite anwers" are not really
"answers" at all. But this narrow definition applies only within the
framework of traditional logic. It has very little to do with how the
word is generally used, or the "answers" that most people use to run their
lives.
> > For instance, "What color is her hair?" is not a yes/no question because
> > "yes" would not be a meaningful answer. If I ask "Is her hair brown?"
> > that *is* a yes/no question. But this does not mean the respondent must
> > answer yes or no.
>
> Right. Because the Monocle is not involved. If the question is asked
> via the Monocle, then the respondent must answer "yes" or "no" (actually,
> the question is not legal, since it doesn't pertain to the game).> > "Usually", "Sometimes",
>
> The "is" in the question restricts the topic to the present.
> If "now" is part of the "usually" or "sometimes" that her hair
> is brown, then the answer is "yes". Otherwise, the answer is "no".
This is a good example of how the idealized concepts of traditional logic
presume omniscience, and have little relevance to most real-world
situations.
If you were to ask me, of a certain female, "Is she a brunette?", then the
chances are excellent that the female in question is not present, or that
if she is, that her hair is not visible to either of us. You knew that I
was not omniscient when you asked the question, and I know that you knew
this. Therefore, for me to place excessive emphasis on your use of the
present tense, and respond accordingly, would be disingenuous.
If I am honest, I know you know I am not omniscient, and that you are
requesting some sort of more-or-less indefinite answer based on degrees of
probability.
> > "Sort of", "Partially", and
>
> Both of these are either "yes" or "no" depending on the answerer's
> perception of what constitutes "hair being brown".
Right. Again, this is exactly the sort of ambiguity that makes
traditional two-truth-value logic useless in many real-world situations.
> > "When she wants it to be"
>
> Again either "yes" or "no" depending on what it "is" now.
See above.
> > are all perfectly acceptable answers, and may in
> > fact be more accurate and informative than a plain "yes" or a plain "no".
>
> Providing information as your reply doesn't change the fact
> that the answer to the question is either "yes" or "no".
This "fact" is a construct of traditional logic, and applies only within
its framework. Other frameworks exist, and could be applied.
> > The phrase is used in a number of games to limit the types of questions
> > that a questioner may ask, and not to limit the responses of the answerer.
>
> Right.
> But in this case, the card limits the responses of the answerer.
> "I don't want to answer", no matter how truthful a response, is not
> allowed by Monocle (nor by most of these "number of games").
I agree that "I don't want to answer" is not an acceptable answer. It is
not an answer at all, even within everyday or "Fuzzy" logic. A Court of
Law would not accept such as an answer, nor would a player of "20
questions", and it is not even included on most Magic 8-balls.
> > For instance, if you have ever played with a "magic 8-ball" you know that
> > you are supposed to ask the 8-ball yes or no type questions. You also
> > know that the 8-ball almost never gives a simple "yes" or "no" as an
> > answer.
>
> <groan>
> The 8-ball responds.
> And that response isn't restricted to being "truthful".
>
> The response-answer of the 8-ball is not the same as the correct-answer
> required by Monocle.
The point is that the answers given by the 8-ball are indeed "answers"
according to the everyday definition of the word -- according to the
"fuzzy logic" definition.
> > Similarly, in the game "20 questions", one person thinks of a person,
> > place or thing, and the second person asks a series of questions in order
> > to try to determine what the person is thinking of. The questioner is
> > limitted to "yes or no" type questions, because without this restriction,
> > he could simply ask "What are you thinking of?" and the game would
> > instantly be over. But the respondent is not limited to "yes" or "no" as
> > an answer.
>
> <groan>
> Maybe not where you play, but here the "thinker" must always respond
> with "yes" or "no".
Where I live, anyone who did not know the answer, but gave a definite
answer anyway, would be a cheat and a bad sport. I strongly suspect it
is exactly the same where you live.
For instance, suppose I am thinking of a lobster, and am asked "Does it
have an exoskeleton?". Would it be acceptable to say to say "no" and then
later claim that I did not know what an exoskeleton was and therfore had
to guess? Clearly an honest, but indefinite, answer would be far more
appropriate.
> > He is merely obliged to answer truthfully and without undue
> > evasion. Usually he will answer simply "yes" or "no" in order to give
> > away as little information as possible, but sometimes it might be more
> > honorable to say, for instace, "Sometimes" or "Partially", if either a
> > "yes" or a "no" would be too misleading.
>
> <irrelevant> - Here (20 questions) as with Monocle, it is up to the
> asker to make sure that his question, when answered truthfully with
> a "yes" or a "no" provides useful information. If a truthful answer
> of "yes" or "no" is misleading, then that is the questioner's
> fault/problem.
I'm not sure how this rule can be applied to "20 questions". The
questioner does not know what the object is he is asking about and has no
way of knowing if the "thinker" can answer a given question with
certainty, or if the question will be ambiguous with respect to that
object. I could argue this in detail, but would rather we drop the
subject.
Your principle can be applied more appropriately to the Monocle. The
questioner *does* have an idea what questions can be answered definitely,
and which cannot be. He knows that if he asks about the contents of a
person's hand, that person should be able to give a definite answer, and
cannot plausibly say "I don't know". He also should know that if he asks
questions about the future, an indefinite answer is the only kind that can
be truthfully given. It would seem to me that anyone asking questions
about the future deserves the useless response he would gets, if truthful
indefinite answers were allowed, as I feel they should be..
> > > "I don't know" isn't an
> > > answer to such a question - just an assertion that one doesn't know
> > > the answer.
> >
> > Techically, you may be right. "I don't know", is not phrased as an
> > answer. To phrase it as an answer, one should say something like "maybe"
> > or "possibly". But people usually say "I don't know," in order to clarify
> > that they are not being evasive, but are being as accurate as their
> > knowledge allows.
>
> Both these are also not the answer.
>
> "Maybe the answer is 'yes'"
> "Possbly the answer is 'yes'"
> "I don't know if the answer is 'yes'"
>
> are all responses that may well be accurate - but they are not the
> answer, by virtue of the fact that the answer is either "yes" or
> "no" and none of the responses in question are either.
All perfectly correct, but only within the idealized framework of
traditional logic. In the real world, as well as in alternate logic
systems, the word "answer" is not so narrowly defined.
This framework is never applied when real persons, lacking in perfect
omnicience, are required to give truthful answers to questions about which
they may not have adequate knowledge. That is the case in a Court of Law,
where people are required to "answer truthfully", just as they are by the
Monocle.
I have no trouble with your use of traditional logic, except that when
applied to Monocle it causes a host of confusing headaches. Logic Systems
are merely tools, which should only be applied in circumstances where
theyt are effective.
> > In "20 questions" it would be misleading and unsportsmanlike to answer
> > "yes" or "no" if you did not know the answer. In a court of law it might
> > be perjury.
>
> Fortunately, we're talking about the Monocle, where it is required
> by card text.
Card text requires that one "answer truthfully" questions about the
future.
Within the framework of traditional logic, this asks the impossible.
Methuselahs are not omniscient and cannot truthfully "answer" questions
about the future at all. Card text implies (but does not say) that if
they cannot "answer truthfully" they should guess. It is perfectly
reasonable to conclude that this is what the card designers intended. I'm
just not sure that preserving intent should be a paramount consideration
here, since the result has been an unplayable card.
Within the framework of everyday or "fuzzy" logic, such questions, to be
truthfully answered, would require an indefinite answer like "perhaps" or
"I don't know", just as they do in a Court of Law. Within such a
framework, the sentence "If the question pertains to the future, he or she
must abide by the answer if possible" would never apply, as one cannot be
forced to abide by an indefinite answer. Thus, this latter interpretation
clearly violates card intent, but does not actually contradict the text.
What I am advocating is a ruling (or a house rule) similar to that for
"The Sleeping Mind", that goes against card intent without actually
contradicting card text, (but, as with Sleeping Mind, makes part of that
text irrelevant). It is my opinion that without such a ruling (or house
rule) the card should not be used, even in casual play. It just creates
too many arguments.
> > > Questions about the future must be answered ("yes" or "no"),
> >
> > OK, but that is not apparent from card text, and appears to be
> > contradicted by the requirement that one answer "truthfully".
>
> You must answer questions about the future. You must abide by your
> answer (to arrive at its "truthfullness") if possible - meaning
> you must strive to have answered truthfully.
I understand your position. I just don't want to play with the resulting
card, or let others play with it.
> > I would argue that further errata is required to make this clear.
>
> I would argue that clarification of card text is all that is required
> to make this clear (since card text is explicit in this regard).
>
> It is not ambiguous (so doesn't require a ruling) and
> it is played as it is written (so doesn't require errata).
I agree that intent is not ambiguous. Actual text is sufficiently
ambiguous to allow a rulings fix similar to that for Sleeping Mind.
> > > and
> > > the answerer must abide by that answer *if possible*. (card text)
> >
> > It is apparent from this clause that the card designers intended players
> > to be bound by answers about their intentions.
>
> Right.
>
> > But this would only apply only if they chose to give any definite answers
> > about intentions. It is not clear from card text that they are obliged to
> > do this.
>
> Yes, it is.
The intent is clear, I agree. I just don't want the card to be played as
intended. Neither, it seems, do most players.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 18 Nov 1998, Gomi no Sensei wrote:
> In article <72vjuu$rqr$1...@ox.mc.edu>, Tim Dedeaux <tded...@csc.mc.edu> wrote:
>
> >A "yes or no question" is *NOT* a question that can only have two possible> >answers. A "yes or no question" is one that can be answered yes or no.>
> A yes or no question *has* only two possible answers, by definition.
>
> Yes. or No.
You forgot "Maybe". You also forgot "Probably" and "Probably Not".
Outiside of the absolute ideals of traditional 2-value logic, these are
answers. Without such answers, we would in most cases have no answers at
all to a great many very important questions, and would be unable to live
our lives effectively.
> Saying 'blue' is certainly a *response*, but it's definitely not an
> *answer*. Dig?
Right you are! "Blue" is not a meaningful answer to a "yes or no" type
question. No-one has ever claimed otherwise, unless I have missed a post.
> The answer to the question "Does foo have the quality bar?"
> can only be meaningfully answered with yes or no.
"Maybe, I don't know" is the best possible answer I can give to that one.
If I were to answer "yes" or "no", my answer would be worse than
meaningless, since I do not understand the question. That is how things
work in the real world.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
> Actually, "I don't know" could *never* be a truthful answer to the
> Monocle. Asking a monocle question is equivalent to saying "Is <foo>
> true? Answer truthfully." Suppose you reply "I don't know." If this
> statement were a truthful answer, then you would know a truthful answer
> because you'd know what your statement is. But your statement states
> that you don't know any truthful answer. Logically therefore "I don't
> know" can never be a truthful answer to the Monocle, because if it were
> you would be giving an answer that says you have no answer to give,
> which is clearly false since you are giving an answer :P
This logic is more than a bit tortured and irrelevant. If your purist
mind does not like "I don't know", then "Maybe" is the correct formulation
of an indefinite answer.
Unfortunately, "Maybe" is often used by people who are merely being
evasive, even though they do in fact know the answer. Technically, it is
not a truthful response unless you are in fact uncertain, but people *do*
often use it that way.
That is why people say "I don't know" instead. In the real world, this is
universally accepted as an acceptable formulation of an indefinite answer
when the answerer is uncertain.
If you don't like "Maybe" then think of something else. If you are
uncertain, then a definite "yes" and a definite "no" will both be lies.
They both have the wrong truth value.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998 mboh...@shout.net wrote:
> Here's the sum of the matter.
>
> Relevant Card Text:
> During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any
> Methuselah a yes or no question. He or she must answer truthfully.
> If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by
> the answer if possible.
>
> Here are a couple of Webster's definitions for "answer":
> 1. To speak or write in return to, as in return to a call or
> question, or to a speech, declaration, argument, or the like.
>
> 2. To respond to satisfactorily; to meet successfully by way of
> explanation, argument, or justification, and the like.
>> The first definition is similar to "reply."
Right. And no-one, least of all me, is advocating that such a definition
be applied to Monocle of Clarity.
> The second definition
> would indicate that you have to answer "yes" or "no" to the
> quesiton.
This is where we disagree. This conclusion only applies if you apply the
absolutist standards of traditional logic to definition #2.
In the real world, definite certainty is rarely required for a response to
be satisfactory or successful. An relatively indefinite response may well
be satisfactory or successful depending on circumstances. The vast
majority of the decisions we make in our lives are made on the basis of
more or less indefinite answers.
For instance, a great many of the decisions we make are based on guesses
or predictions about the future. As important as it is to get "answers"
to such questions, these answers will never be a definite "yes" or "no" in
any absolute sense. This does not mean that none of these answers can be
considered satisfactory.
In a Court of Law if I am asked a question, and I truthfully say "I don't
know" because I am in fact uncertain, then my response will certainly be
considered "satisfactory" by the standards of the Court. I have also
successfully explained and justified my failure to give a more definite
answer. If I were to falsely give a definite answer under such
circumstances, this would be far less satisfactory.
> To me, it indicates that a clarification of the card is
> necessary. There is nothing needed as far as a ruling or errata goes.
That depends on whether you want the card to be playable, without creating
bitter arguments. The current version should never see play, IMHO.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> There are only two interpretations.
Only two?
> One allows the reply "I don't want to answer" to any question asked.
> The other does not.
What about a third interpretation? You know, the one used in Law Courts,
in Fuzzy Logic, and in everyday life? The one in which "Maybe" or "I
don't know" is an acceptable answer, but "I don't want to answer" is not?
> Only one of these is reasonable, so that is the one that is used.
It's not that reasonable. That is why it is banned in tournaments.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, Derek S. Ray wrote:
> I personally can't believe that anyone, judging from how wack the
> Monocle of Clarity's card text is, is even attempting to play with the
> card OUTSIDE of tournament play. It was banned from tournament play
> for obvious reasons, and it is guaranteed to be an argument-causer in
> any game it gets played in where people attempt to use it in more than
> a very simple way. How is causing arguments good for the stability of
> a playgroup? Pfft.
My sentiments exactly.
> A suitable errata to make it tournament-legal?
I'd be satisfied with making it casual-play friendly.
> "Ask any player a yes or no question dealing with current information
> related to his own deck, crypt, hand, pool, or vampire blood. That
> player must respond as truthfully as possible."
I still don't believe that any sort of errata is necessary, merely a set
of rulings/interpretations that might go as follows.
- Methuselahs are not omniscient. They cannot
truthfully give definite answers to questions about the future.
The only legal answers possible to such questions are "maybe", "I
don't know", or the like. Therefore, the third line of text will
never be applicable.
- Methuselahs cannot claim to not know the contents of their hand,
library, crypt, or uncontrolled region. If they cannot remember
the required information, they must check before answering
(reshuffling afterwards in the case of library or crypt.)
This interpretation is reasonably consistent with card text, while
clearly violating card intent. Rather similar to the "Sleeping Mind"
ruling in this respect.
It would also result in a reasonably useful and playable card for casual
play. It would possibly be playable even in Tournaments, though there
might still be problems as far as enforcing truthfullness from the
dishonorable, or arguments resulting from variable interpretations
of poorly worded questions.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
> >> > > Actually, "I don't know" could *never* be a truthful answer to the
> > > Monocle. Asking a monocle question is equivalent to saying "Is <foo>
> > > true? Answer truthfully." Suppose you reply "I don't know." If this
> > > statement were a truthful answer, then you would know a truthful answer
> > > because you'd know what your statement is. But your statement states
> > > that you don't know any truthful answer. Logically therefore "I don't
> > > know" can never be a truthful answer to the Monocle, because if it were
> > > you would be giving an answer that says you have no answer to give,
> > > which is clearly false since you are giving an answer :P
> >> > This logic is more than a bit tortured and irrelevant.
>> Well, at least there was a little sneering smiley to flag it :P>
> > If your purist
> > mind does not like "I don't know", then "Maybe" is the correct formulation
> > of an indefinite answer.
>> But 'maybe' means "both yes and no are possible answers." Allowing
> 'maybe' as a possible truthful answer is stupid - obviously yes and no
> are possible answers, it's a yes or no question!
Only in traditional logic systems, where all questions are presumed to
have *definite* answers, and all propositions are presumed to be
unambiguous. "Maybe" does mean this, when you try to fit it into these
systems.
In the real world, one does not have the luxury for waiting for definite
answers. That is why, in the real world, yes/no questions have many
possible answers and all are accepted as answers.
> > Unfortunately, "Maybe" is often used by people who are merely being
> > evasive, even though they do in fact know the answer. Technically, it is
> > not a truthful response unless you are in fact uncertain, but people *do*
> > often use it that way.
>> No, 'maybe' is a truthful response even when you are certain. If you
> know the answer to be 'yes,' saying 'maybe' doesn't contradict that.
Boy but you are having trouble with consistency. You just said that
"maybe" means that "both yes and no are possible". Now obviously if I
know "yes" to be true, I therfore know that "no" is not possible, and I
cannot truthfully say "maybe" according to the definition *you* provided.
But this is really begging the issue. I already agreed in the post you
are resoponding to that "maybe" can be ambiguous. That is why people say
"I don't know" instead. That is why "I don't know" is universally
accepted as an acceptable formulation of the indefinite answer.
> It
> also doesn't give the questioner any new information, as she already
> knew the answer was maybe yes and maybe no (otherwise, why ask the
> question?)
It does not work this way in everyday or "Fuzzy" logic. Indefinite
answers *are* considered answers, and important decisions are often made
on their basis.
If you were expecting a definite "no" (or a definite "yes") then an "I
don't know" or a "maybe" can provide you with new information and force
you to reassess a situation.
When you ask, "I am going to live, right doc?", and your doctor looks
worried and says "I don't know", then this answer is likely to be very
meaninful to you. Alot of people would call their lawyers and make out
their wills on the basis of such information.
> > That is why people say "I don't know" instead. In the real world, this is
> > universally accepted as an acceptable formulation of an indefinite answer
> > when the answerer is uncertain.
>> That is not always true. Sometimes people have to commit to their
> answers even without knowing all the facts.
Exactly my point. That is why people must be satisfied with indefinite
answers when trying to operate outside of Math Class, or Logic 101.
> Was he guilty or not
> guilty? You may not know, but there still must be a verdict; saying "I
> don't know," won't cut it.
Yes it does, silly. "I don't know" translates as "Not Guilty" within the
language of the Courts. This is a perfect example of how indefinite
answers are used to make important decisions.
The Courts do not use the traditional logic, with its two truth values,
that you seem so committed to. They recognize that if you ask "Did OJ
murder his Nicole?" there are more than 2 possible answers, not just "Yes"
and "No", but also a thousand shades of "Maybe". What the Courts did, in
effect, was lump "No" and "Maybe" in the same category and call it "Not
Yes". This is why juries choose between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty", rather
than between "Guilty" and "Innocent".
Even the "Guilty" category is defined so as to include a few shades of
"Maybe". Hence the concept of "Reasonable Doubt".
> > If you don't like "Maybe" then think of something else. If you are
> > uncertain, then a definite "yes" and a definite "no" will both be lies.
> > They both have the wrong truth value.
>> Even if you don't know the answer, one of either 'yes' or 'no' will be
> correct (assuming no questions about questions or other paradoxes.)
> They can't both be lies.
Maybe not from God's point of view, but you are not God. In the real
world it is dishonest to pretend to have a definite answer when you do not
in fact have one.
> As long as you never knowingly lie when you
> answer, you can always answer 'yes' or 'no.' And if you do not
> knowingly lie, then you are answering truthfully, to the best of your
> abilities.
Do you really believe this? It will get you into alot of trouble in the
real world.
Sure, it is OK to guess, if you make clear that you are in fact guessing
(otherwise you are not being truthful). Once this is made clear, however,
your "yes" or "no" becomes an indefinite answer in context.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
>> > Actually, "I don't know" could *never* be a truthful answer to the
> > Monocle. Asking a monocle question is equivalent to saying "Is <foo>
> > true? Answer truthfully." Suppose you reply "I don't know." If this
> > statement were a truthful answer, then you would know a truthful answer
> > because you'd know what your statement is. But your statement states
> > that you don't know any truthful answer. Logically therefore "I don't
> > know" can never be a truthful answer to the Monocle, because if it were
> > you would be giving an answer that says you have no answer to give,
> > which is clearly false since you are giving an answer :P
>> This logic is more than a bit tortured and irrelevant.
Well, at least there was a little sneering smiley to flag it :P
> If your purist
> mind does not like "I don't know", then "Maybe" is the correct formulation
> of an indefinite answer.
But 'maybe' means "both yes and no are possible answers." Allowing
'maybe' as a possible truthful answer is stupid - obviously yes and no
are possible answers, it's a yes or no question!
> Unfortunately, "Maybe" is often used by people who are merely being> evasive, even though they do in fact know the answer. Technically, it is
> not a truthful response unless you are in fact uncertain, but people *do*
> often use it that way.
No, 'maybe' is a truthful response even when you are certain. If you
know the answer to be 'yes,' saying 'maybe' doesn't contradict that. It
also doesn't give the questioner any new information, as she already
knew the answer was maybe yes and maybe no (otherwise, why ask the
question?)
> That is why people say "I don't know" instead. In the real world, this is> universally accepted as an acceptable formulation of an indefinite answer
> when the answerer is uncertain.
That is not always true. Sometimes people have to commit to their
answers even without knowing all the facts. Was he guilty or not
guilty? You may not know, but there still must be a verdict; saying "I
don't know," won't cut it.
> If you don't like "Maybe" then think of something else. If you are> uncertain, then a definite "yes" and a definite "no" will both be lies.
> They both have the wrong truth value.
Even if you don't know the answer, one of either 'yes' or 'no' will be
correct (assuming no questions about questions or other paradoxes.)
They can't both be lies. As long as you never knowingly lie when you
answer, you can always answer 'yes' or 'no.' And if you do not
knowingly lie, then you are answering truthfully, to the best of your
abilities.
-davey
Lupus Australis wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:> > But 'maybe' means "both yes and no are possible answers." Allowing
> > 'maybe' as a possible truthful answer is stupid - obviously yes and no
> > are possible answers, it's a yes or no question!> > [snip]> > No, 'maybe' is a truthful response even when you are certain. If you
> > know the answer to be 'yes,' saying 'maybe' doesn't contradict that.
>
> Boy but you are having trouble with consistency. You just said that
> "maybe" means that "both yes and no are possible". Now obviously if I
> know "yes" to be true, I therfore know that "no" is not possible, and I
> cannot truthfully say "maybe" according to the definition *you* provided.
I wasn't defining it, I was just pointing out that allowing it as an
answer to the Monocle doesn't make sense, because it says the answer
might be 'yes' and might be 'no.' That's always true of a yes-or-no
question, otherwise we would just call it a "yes question," or a "no
question," or perhaps a "stupid question." You can always truthfully
say 'maybe' to a yes-or-no question, because 'maybe' doesn't rule
anything out.
> Only in traditional logic systems, where all questions are presumed to
> have *definite* answers, and all propositions are presumed to be
> unambiguous. "Maybe" does mean this, when you try to fit it into these
> systems.
>
> In the real world, one does not have the luxury for waiting for definite
> answers. That is why, in the real world, yes/no questions have many
> possible answers and all are accepted as answers.
First of all, your generalizations about the real world are leaving a
lot of situations overlooked or ignored. That aside, we are talking
about the Monocle here, and the Monocle is not the real world. The
Monocle does presume that all questions have definite answers; it
doesn't make any sense otherwise. That's why I'm talking about it using
what you call a "traditional logic system." I'm willing to entertain
another interpretation if you can make a case for it beyond "that's how
the real world is." In the mean time, this *isn't* the real world --
it's Jyhad. The rules of Jyhad are a lot more definite, and
interpretting the Monocle in the context of traditional logic seems to
be a lot more consistent.
> But this is really begging the issue. I already agreed in the post you
> are resoponding to that "maybe" can be ambiguous. That is why people say
> "I don't know" instead. That is why "I don't know" is universally
> accepted as an acceptable formulation of the indefinite answer.
Alright, we can talk about "I don't know," instead of "maybe." If you
look at the Monocle's text, "I don't know" just doesn't seem
acceptable. I ask, "Will you bleed on your next turn?" When your turn
comes around, how can you abide by "I don't know?" At some point (the
end of your minion phase) you have to commit one way or the other. It
seems like the Monocle is supposed to force you into a commitment, thus
giving you something to try to abide by.
> If you were expecting a definite "no" (or a definite "yes") then an "I
> don't know" or a "maybe" can provide you with new information and force
> you to reassess a situation.
>
> When you ask, "I am going to live, right doc?", and your doctor looks
> worried and says "I don't know", then this answer is likely to be very
> meaninful to you. Alot of people would call their lawyers and make out
> their wills on the basis of such information.
Nobody enquires "Am I going to live?" unless they aren't certain about
the answer. If you already expect a particular definite answer, why are
you even asking the question, especially with the Monocle?
> > As long as you never knowingly lie when you
> > answer, you can always answer 'yes' or 'no.' And if you do not
> > knowingly lie, then you are answering truthfully, to the best of your
> > abilities.
>
> Do you really believe this? It will get you into alot of trouble in the
> real world.
Hello? I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about the
Monocle. The Monocle expects you to do 2 things: 1) answer and 2) be
truthful. Answering is saying either 'yes' or 'no.' Being truthful is
saying something which doesn't contradict what you know to be true. As
far as the Monocle is concerned, this is the only way it makes sense.
-davey!
On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
>
> > > But 'maybe' means "both yes and no are possible answers." Allowing
> > > 'maybe' as a possible truthful answer is stupid - obviously yes and no
> > > are possible answers, it's a yes or no question!> > > [snip]> > > No, 'maybe' is a truthful response even when you are certain. If you
> > > know the answer to be 'yes,' saying 'maybe' doesn't contradict that.
> >
> > Boy but you are having trouble with consistency. You just said that
> > "maybe" means that "both yes and no are possible". Now obviously if I
> > know "yes" to be true, I therfore know that "no" is not possible, and I
> > cannot truthfully say "maybe" according to the definition *you* provided.
>> I wasn't defining it, I was just pointing out that allowing it as an
> answer to the Monocle doesn't make sense, because it says the answer
> might be 'yes' and might be 'no.' That's always true of a yes-or-no
> question, otherwise we would just call it a "yes question," or a "no
> question," or perhaps a "stupid question." You can always truthfully
> say 'maybe' to a yes-or-no question, because 'maybe' doesn't rule
> anything out.
Not true. If I ask someone "Do you have any Majesties in your hand?" then
he cannot truthfully say "Maybe" according to the definition of the word
you provided. Same with "I don't know".
> > Only in traditional logic systems, where all questions are presumed to
> > have *definite* answers, and all propositions are presumed to be
> > unambiguous. "Maybe" does mean this, when you try to fit it into these
> > systems.
> >
> > In the real world, one does not have the luxury for waiting for definite
> > answers. That is why, in the real world, yes/no questions have many
> > possible answers and all are accepted as answers.
>> First of all, your generalizations about the real world are leaving a
> lot of situations overlooked or ignored.
Like what?
> That aside, we are talking
> about the Monocle here, and the Monocle is not the real world.
It fits the "Real World" logic better than the traditional logic used in
hard science. Hard science never requires propositions to be answered
until they can be answered definitely. Questions that cannot be answered
definitely are left outside the realm of Hard Science and Traditional
Logic. When (as is often true in the "Real World") an imperfect human is
compelled to "answer truthfully" a question to which he does not have the
knowledge to provide a definite answer, traditional logic cannot be
appropriately applied.
> The
> Monocle does presume that all questions have definite answers;
Well, it is nice that the Monocle has so much faith in the existence of
the Almighty, but since he will not be present to provide us with these
definite answers, I don't see how it does us any good.
> it
> doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Please see my previous post where I suggest a workable alternate version
of the Monocle. Explain why it does not make sense or how it does not
work.
> That's why I'm talking about it using
> what you call a "traditional logic system." I'm willing to entertain
> another interpretation if you can make a case for it beyond "that's how
> the real world is."
Again, see my previous post.
> In the mean time, this *isn't* the real world --
> it's Jyhad. The rules of Jyhad are a lot more definite, and
> interpretting the Monocle in the context of traditional logic seems to
> be a lot more consistent.
The rules are not very definite in the case of the Monocle, precisely
because the traditional logic, which presumes the omniscience necessary to
give definite answers to all questions, cannot be applied here without
creating contradictions. That is why it creates so many rules arguments,
and is banned in tournament play.
> > But this is really begging the issue. I already agreed in the post you
> > are resoponding to that "maybe" can be ambiguous. That is why people say
> > "I don't know" instead. That is why "I don't know" is universally
> > accepted as an acceptable formulation of the indefinite answer.
>> Alright, we can talk about "I don't know," instead of "maybe."
Great. "I don't know" it is then.
> If you
> look at the Monocle's text, "I don't know" just doesn't seem
> acceptable. I ask, "Will you bleed on your next turn?" When your turn
> comes around, how can you abide by "I don't know?"
I can't. But that is your fault for asking me a question to which I
cannot possible know the answer at this stage. You should have asked a
better question.
I cannot answer your question truthfully unless you give me a COMPLETE
hypothetical projection of the game state at the time I will be deciding
whether to bleed. You must give me all information that I would normally
posess to make my decision. This will do you no good of course, because
when the time comes, the actual game state will almost certainly differ
from the hypothetical portrait, and my answer will not apply. If you're
wondering what I mean by a "game state", check out the "game states" in
Jyhad on Line.
[These comments are not of course consistent with the official rulings on
Monocle. Only to the alternate approach I have proposed.]
> At some point (the
> end of your minion phase) you have to commit one way or the other. It
> seems like the Monocle is supposed to force you into a commitment, thus
> giving you something to try to abide by.
Well that was the intent. My alternate approach suggests jettisoning this
"future clause" entirely, because of the arguments and contradictions it
creates.
I'm currently have some ideas for a third approach to Monocle that will to
some extent preserve the applicability of the "future clause". The
purpose of this approach is to preserve the information gain function of
Monocle, while eliminating its abuse to manipulate events. Will probably
post it shortly.
> > If you were expecting a definite "no" (or a definite "yes") then an "I
> > don't know" or a "maybe" can provide you with new information and force
> > you to reassess a situation.
> >
> > When you ask, "I am going to live, right doc?", and your doctor looks
> > worried and says "I don't know", then this answer is likely to be very
> > meaninful to you. Alot of people would call their lawyers and make out
> > their wills on the basis of such information.
>> Nobody enquires "Am I going to live?" unless they aren't certain about
> the answer.
Agreed. But they are no doubt expecting and hoping for a definite answer
in the positive, and will be very disturbed by an indefinite one, which
could well increase their fear and doubt, which, while it existed
previously, may have been minor.
> If you already expect a particular definite answer, why are
> you even asking the question, especially with the Monocle?
With the Monocle, I suggest you should only ask questions to which he can
provide definite answers truthfully.
> > > As long as you never knowingly lie when you
> > > answer, you can always answer 'yes' or 'no.' And if you do not
> > > knowingly lie, then you are answering truthfully, to the best of your
> > > abilities.
> >
> > Do you really believe this? It will get you into alot of trouble in the
> > real world.
>> Hello? I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about the
> Monocle.
Glad to hear it. I thought you were going nuts for a moment.
Actually, we were discussing language and logic. We did not return to the
Monocle until the post I am now responding to. You made many
unsupportable statements about language and logic such as "Yes or no
questions require a yes or no answer by definition." I was refuting these
assertions.
> The Monocle expects you to do 2 things: 1) answer and 2) be
> truthful.
Yes. Unfortunately, the official version often forces one to say
untruthful things.
> Answering is saying either 'yes' or 'no.'
A dubious definition, and not the only one possible.
> Being truthful is
> saying something which doesn't contradict what you know to be true.
Another dubious definition. I thought that being truthful was saying
something you believe to be true.
> As
> far as the Monocle is concerned, this is the only way it makes sense.
I have suggested another way, and you have yet to comment or refute.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, David Naseby wrote:
> This is an awfully long thread re a card noone should care too much
> about
T'is that time of year when folks like me get the blues and obsess
endlessly on usenet on pointless matters.
> (so, naturally, I choose to make it even longer with my useless
> and spammy post ;). I only play the monocle in my crazy malkav deck. I
> find it amusing to force people to answer my questions in rhyme
I would think that "Yes, I guess" and "Nay, I say" would get dull after a
while.
> (great
> combo with Madness of the Bard, I must say...).
Especially if "Yes" and "No" are the only answers permitted, in which
case your target is compelled to lose one pool for not rhyming.
> One cannot expect this
> silly little card to be justifiably included in a deck for a serious use
> or environment...
It never is. I think it could be a serious card without the future
clause. But nobody believes me. :(
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is an awfully long thread re a card noone should care too much
about (so, naturally, I choose to make it even longer with my useless
and spammy post ;). I only play the monocle in my crazy malkav deck. I
find it amusing to force people to answer my questions in rhyme (great
combo with Madness of the Bard, I must say...). One cannot expect this
silly little card to be justifiably included in a deck for a serious use
or environment...
David Naseby
> > That is why people say "I don't know" instead. In the real world, this is
> > universally accepted as an acceptable formulation of an indefinite answer
> > when the answerer is uncertain.
>
> That is not always true. Sometimes people have to commit to their
> answers even without knowing all the facts. Was he guilty or not
> guilty? You may not know, but there still must be a verdict; saying "I
> don't know," won't cut it.
Actually, it does "cut it." Remember the "guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt" phrase? If you don't know, you obviously have doubts...so
the choice would be "not guilty."
> > If you don't like "Maybe" then think of something else. If you are
> > uncertain, then a definite "yes" and a definite "no" will both be lies.
> > They both have the wrong truth value.
>
> Even if you don't know the answer, one of either 'yes' or 'no' will be
> correct
Maybe so, but to say "yes" or "no" when one doesn't know the correct
answer is not truthful. Remember, the Monocle's text says that the
answer must be truthful, not correct.
Regardless of what LSJ says, I will always rule that "I don't know" is
an option to someone who doesn't know the correct answer to a
question. And since Monocle is banned from JOL, DCI tournaments,
and MJL tournaments, it's a pretty low impact decision.
Noal McDonald
The Big Nacho Supreme of Westland, MI
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> > There are only two interpretations.
> Only two?
Yes. Either the answerer is restricted to selecting from the actual
set of possible answers (i.e., one of "yes" or "no"), or she allowed
to reply in any manner.
> > One allows the reply "I don't want to answer" to any question asked.
> > The other does not.
>
> What about a third interpretation? You know, the one used in Law Courts,
> in Fuzzy Logic, and in everyday life? The one in which "Maybe" or "I
> don't know" is an acceptable answer, but "I don't want to answer" is not?
For law courts, that is the second interpretation, with an additional
restriction supplied by the Law Courts. "I don't want to answer" is
allowed, but will be followed by a demand that the witness give a "real"
reply (including "I don't know" or "I don't remember") or face legal
consequences (contempt of court in USA, unless the witness can invoke
the 5th ammendment).
For everyday life, "I don't want to answer" is acceptable, as has already
been pointed out in this thread.
For Fuzzy Logic, it would be a parallel of one of the two cases above.
These cases all use the same definition of "answer" and make their own
restrictions (or not) on the reply and the impetus for the answerer to
respond truthfully (if at all).
Monocle makes its own restrictions (compelled to answer truthfully).
The definition that is uses is the one that makes sense, which
happens to be the other definition. If it used the same definition
as the "real life", Law Court, and Fuzzy Logic cases do, then
"I don't want to answer" or even "2+2=4" would be acceptable
responses to any question posed.
> > Only one of these is reasonable, so that is the one that is used.
>
> It's not that reasonable.
Reasonable enough. Certainly more reasonable than the only other
interpretation.
> That is why it is banned in tournaments.
Incorrect.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.981122220029.5332A-100000@amanda>,
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, David Naseby wrote:> > One cannot expect this
> > silly little card to be justifiably included in a deck for a serious use
> > or environment...
>> It never is. I think it could be a serious card without the future
> clause. But nobody believes me. :(
I believe! I believe! Clap your hands if you believe! (But I don't think
LSJ is going to be convinced any time soon.)
Josh
never smile at a crocodile
[ quoted text not captured ]
jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:> > It never is. I think it could be a serious card without the future
> > clause. But nobody believes me. :(
>
> I believe! I believe! Clap your hands if you believe! (But I don't think
> LSJ is going to be convinced any time soon.)
Convinced of what?
That it would be less prone to argument and headaches and that its power
would be slightly reduced if errata were issued to prohibit questions about
the future?
I do not require convincing - such an assertion is obvious.
But there is plenty of errata already. The problems posed by the Monocle
are not sufficient to require any additional errata.
The discussion up to these last few posts had been about the card as
printed and currently errata'ed - not about what new errata could make
the card better.
--
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 ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:08:15 -0500, Lupus Australis
<jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, David Naseby wrote:
>>> This is an awfully long thread re a card noone should care too much
>> about>>T'is that time of year when folks like me get the blues and obsess
>endlessly on usenet on pointless matters.
>>> (so, naturally, I choose to make it even longer with my useless
>> and spammy post ;). I only play the monocle in my crazy malkav deck. I
>> find it amusing to force people to answer my questions in rhyme>>I would think that "Yes, I guess" and "Nay, I say" would get dull after a
>while.
Or even "Yes, you pest" and "No, you schmoe." after the first few. =)
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Naseby wrote:
> I only play the monocle in my crazy malkav deck. I> find it amusing to force people to answer my questions in rhyme (great
> combo with Madness of the Bard, I must say...)
Heh. Imagine the look on someone's face when you play them and
and ask someone, "Could you, would you, in a box? Could you,
would you, with a fox?" *snickers*
I think I may do just that at tonight's game just for the shock value.
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <73cbjj$2qq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote:
> jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote:
> > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > > It never is. I think it could be a serious card without the future
> > > clause. But nobody believes me. :(
> >
> > I believe! I believe! Clap your hands if you believe! (But I don't think
> > LSJ is going to be convinced any time soon.)
>
> Convinced of what?
>
> That it would be less prone to argument and headaches and that its power
> would be slightly reduced if errata were issued to prohibit questions about
> the future?
No, convinced that such a change is useful enough to be implemented. And
from what you've said, I still think you're not about to be convinced of
*that*. ^_- Your position (I think) is that the Monocle sucking is not
enough reason to increase the volume of errata - which is perfectly
defensible. It's just that some of us busybodies wouldn't mind fixing every
sketchy card ever printed.
> The discussion up to these last few posts had been about the card as
> printed and currently errata'ed - not about what new errata could make
> the card better.
Ah. Well, I think most of what I've said on the topic has been
along the lines of "I don't like..." or "I think it would be better if..."
in other words, my arguments were essentially intended as suggestions for more
useful and pleasant ways to deal with the card - although I admit they are
probably not actually *more* logically applicable to the actual card text.
Josh
happy Thanksgiving everyone (well everyone American anyway, the rest of
you probably won't be observing any such holiday this week) - see ya
next week
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Actually, it does "cut it." Remember the "guilty beyond a reasonable
> doubt" phrase? If you don't know, you obviously have doubts...so
> the choice would be "not guilty."
You misunderstand me. The jury can never come out and say "I don't
know" or "Maybe." The question they are answering ("is he guilty?")
requires a definite answer. At some point, say early in the trial, you
could ask a juror this question, and he may say "I don't know." But at
the end of the trial, the exact same question is asked and now "I don't
know." won't cut it anymore. The juror must decide whether or not he
has reasonable doubts. He cannot be allowed to be unsure. If he has
just one doubt, the whole question may boil down to the juror asking
himself "Is this a *reasonable* doubt?" This question in this context
cannot be answered with "I don't know."
> Regardless of what LSJ says, I will always rule that "I don't know" is
> an option to someone who doesn't know the correct answer to a
> question. And since Monocle is banned from JOL, DCI tournaments,
> and MJL tournaments, it's a pretty low impact decision.
The Monocle should definitely be banned from any tournament format
(kinda like Madness of the Bard.) I don't think any amount of erata
could ever fix that and at the same time remotely preserve the intent of
the card. But in an environment like mine where no one plays tourney
decks, it would be ideal to allow every card.
-davey!
Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, davey hathorn wrote:
>> Not true. If I ask someone "Do you have any Majesties in your hand?" then
> he cannot truthfully say "Maybe" according to the definition of the word
> you provided.
Please stop saying that I'm contradicting my own definition of 'maybe.'
I'm not even providing any definition for it, I'm just describing how
pointless it is, dig? Suppose you ask "Got any Majesties?" and I say
"Maybe." Have I said I have Majesties? No. Have I said I don't have
Majesties? No. I have said nothing untrue. You may now conclude that
the answer to your question might be 'yes' and it might be 'no.' But
you don't reach this deduction because it's the definition of 'maybe';
you reach it because you already knew it and I didn't really tell you
anything by saying 'maybe.'
> Same with "I don't know".
Here's another argument why "I don't know." doesn't work as an answer.
"I don't know" seems to violate card intent wrt the future, as you can
always say "I don't know" to questions about the future, unless you're
asking really stupid questions like "Will you play any cards?" Do you
think they would add the future clause if it was meant to be useless?
Here's yet another argument that "I don't know" doesn't work. Consider
the following thought experiment: Suppose I ask a very complicated
question, like some kind of riddle about the current game state, the
answer to which can be deduced as a definite 'yes' or 'no' (after a
nominal process of elimination) by observing game pieces that every
Methuselah can see. Now, when I ask you this question, you don't
currently know the answer, and you don't realize it's a solvable
riddle. So by your Monocle interpretation you could answer "I don't
know" without being a liar; how am I to know whether you think the
riddle is unsolvable?
Now suppose I started making this question easier by giving you hints,
such as deducing or partially deducing things for you or maybe by
removing some elements of the question entirely, but I always leave the
last deduction up to you. Eventually I could whittle it down to a
question so simple that the most cursory examination of the cards in
play will tell you the answer. Perhaps it could be something equivalnet
to "Is Lupo contested?" Until you look at the board, though, you may
very well not know the answer, even though you have all the information
in front of you. So you could even answer this very simple question
with "I don't know" just by being lazy and not looking at the cards in
play. You could even be too lazy to look at the cards in your hand when
I ask if you are holding any Majesties, or if I ask when you are looking
at them, maybe you are too lazy to read their names. When the other
Methuselahs cry foul play, just explain that you are an imperfect human,
and that at the time you answered you couldn't be more definite without
being untruthful because you were unaware of all the necessary facts at
that moment. Clearly this is a violation of the Monocle's original
intent.
> > The Monocle does presume that all questions have definite answers;
>
> Well, it is nice that the Monocle has so much faith in the existence of
> the Almighty, but since he will not be present to provide us with these
> definite answers,
Well, I guess my play group is just smarter than yours :P
Seriously though a Monocle question always has a definite answer if it
pertains to the current game and doesn't ask questions about questions.
> I don't see how it does us any good.
This does us good by insuring that answers other than affirmation or
negation are unnecessary.
> Please see my previous post where I suggest a workable alternate version
> of the Monocle. Explain why it does not make sense or how it does not
> work.
We don't need to change the card b/c it already works.
> The rules are not very definite in the case of the Monocle, precisely
> because the traditional logic, which presumes the omniscience necessary to
> give definite answers to all questions, cannot be applied here without
> creating contradictions. That is why it creates so many rules arguments,
> and is banned in tournament play.
I won't accept that as *the* reason it's banned in tourneys without some
reference. I agree that's it's inappropriate for tourneys, but not
because it causes contradictions or because it doesn't allow people to
say
"I don't know." Even with your re-write, the card would be very
problematic in a tournament setting. For instance, how do you know if
someone is really telling the truth? Or, when you get an answer about
future intentions, how do you know someone is correctly abiding by them?
> > I ask, "Will you bleed on your next turn?" When your turn
> > comes around, how can you abide by "I don't know?"
>
> I can't. But that is your fault for asking me a question to which I
> cannot possible know the answer at this stage. You should have asked a
> better question.
Ah, but you can answer my question without actually knowing the answer
:) I ask, "Will you bleed on your next turn?" Suppose you say 'no;' on
your next turn, don't bleed. Suppose you say 'yes;' on your next turn,
bleed. You will have abided by your answer in either case. There
really isn't any problem with the future clause here.
> > Nobody enquires "Am I going to live?" unless they aren't certain about
> > the answer.
>
> Agreed. But they are no doubt expecting and hoping for a definite answer
> in the positive, and will be very disturbed by an indefinite one, which
> could well increase their fear and doubt, which, while it existed
> previously, may have been minor.
Huh? If they are expecting a definite answer in the positive, why are
they asking? The only time you ask is when you aren't sure, ie you
*aren't* expecting a definite answer in the positive. Same goes for
hope - it doesn't make sense to hope when you expect a particular
definite answer.
> > If you already expect a particular definite answer, why are
> > you even asking the question, especially with the Monocle?
>
> With the Monocle, I suggest you should only ask questions to which he can
> provide definite answers truthfully.
You misunderstood what I was asking. Let me re-emphasize: "If you are
expecting a **particular** definite answer, why are you even asking the
question?"
> > Hello? I'm not talking about the real world, I'm talking about the
> > Monocle.
>> Actually, we were discussing language and logic. We did not return to the
> Monocle until the post I am now responding to.
No, I had the Monocle in mind when I made my statement about being
truthful to the best of your abilities. I'm sorry if I was unclear. It
is quite tempting to disagree with you when you talk about the "Real
World," "Traditional Logic," and "Hard Science," as you tend to
breathlessly generalize these subjects (and why do you feel the need to
capitalize them?)
> You made many
> unsupportable statements about language and logic such as "Yes or no
> questions require a yes or no answer by definition."
Actually, that statement is quite supportable; in fact I believe you
agreed with it, although you qualified it by adding "...Only in the
context of Traditional Logic (TM)," or something like that. That's a
good qualification to add, though, because that's the context that is
used with the Monocle.
> > The Monocle expects you to do 2 things: 1) answer and 2) be
> > truthful.> > Answering is saying either 'yes' or 'no.'
>
> A dubious definition, and not the only one possible.
As far as the Monocle is concerned, it's the only way that makes sense.
> > Being truthful is
> > saying something which doesn't contradict what you know to be true.
>
> Another dubious definition.
As far as the Monocle is concerned, it's the only way that makes sense.
> I have suggested another way, and you have yet to comment or refute.
My comment is that your "other way" requires new rulings that change the
card, when in fact no change is necessary for the Monocle to function.
I will happily point out why these new rulings are the wrong ones when
you actually demonstrate that some new rulings are necessary.
-davey!
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> Yes. Either the answerer is restricted to selecting from the actual
> set of possible answers (i.e., one of "yes" or "no"), or she allowed
> to reply in any manner.
No-one has ever advocated that the respondent be allowed to reply in any
manner. I have suggested that "I don't know" should be included in the
"actual set of possible answers".
> > What about a third interpretation? You know, the one used in Law Courts,
> > in Fuzzy Logic, and in everyday life? The one in which "Maybe" or "I
> > don't know" is an acceptable answer, but "I don't want to answer" is not?
>
> For law courts, that is the second interpretation, with an additional
> restriction supplied by the Law Courts. "I don't want to answer" is
> allowed, but will be followed by a demand that the witness give a "real"
> reply (including "I don't know" or "I don't remember") or face legal
> consequences (contempt of court in USA, unless the witness can invoke
> the 5th ammendment).
Law Courts use the first, except that that they are more flexible about
the exact wording that may be used to denote the options of "Yes", "No"
and the many shades of "Uncertain", and respondents are sometimes allowed
to clarify their base answer with additional information. Anything outside
this, such as "I don't want to answer." or "I hate your guts" or "I'm a
doctor, not a mathematician" are not answers and would not be accepted as
such, even if they are in fact truthful statements.
As an example, if asked in Court, "Is Jenny a brunette", and I say
"Usually", this might be accepted as an answer corresponding to "I don't
know" with an explanation as to why I do not know. (On the other hand,
the court might, and probably would, demand that I clarify my answer.)
> For everyday life, "I don't want to answer" is acceptable, as has already
> been pointed out in this thread.
Depends on circumstances. It would not be considered an "answer", by
almost any definition.
> For Fuzzy Logic, it would be a parallel of one of the two cases above.
>
> These cases all use the same definition of "answer" and make their own
> restrictions (or not) on the reply and the impetus for the answerer to
> respond truthfully (if at all).
>
> Monocle makes its own restrictions (compelled to answer truthfully).
> The definition that is uses is the one that makes sense, which
> happens to be the other definition. If it used the same definition
> as the "real life", Law Court, and Fuzzy Logic cases do, then
> "I don't want to answer" or even "2+2=4" would be acceptable
> responses to any question posed.
Fuzzy Logic does *not* allow any response to be considered an "answer".
Nor does it give the truthful respondent the option of picking and
choosing the answer he wants to give. He must assign *the* correct truth
value if he is "answer truthfully".
Let me summarize again the absolute/traditional vs. the "fuzzy" approach.
I am going to slightly oversimplify the "fuzzy" perspective, but it will
still be adequate as far as it relates to Monocle.
In the absolute/traditional approach, all properly phrases propositions
are presumed to have one absolute correct answer. The proposition is
either True, or it is False, and there are only two possible truth values
to any proposition. These truth values are absolute, not relative, and
will not vary depending on the perspective of the person giving the
answer. Truth is not judged from the perspective of any one individual
but from the infallible perspective of some hypothetical know-it-all.
Under this perspective, a person can answer falsely, even if he is not
lying, because the truth of his statement is not being judged from his
POV.
[All yes/no questions are essentially propositions with question marks at
the end, with "yes" corresponding to True and "no" corresponding to
False.]
The second approach is more relative. Truthfulness is judged from the
perspective of the speaker, and not from that of the Hypothetical
Know-it-all. Once again, the respondent is required to assign a
Truth-Value to a proposition, but from his own perspective. He can assign
three possible Truth Values: He can say that he believes the proposition
to be certainly True (corresponding to "yes"); he can say he believes the
proposition to be certainly False (corresponding to "no"), or he can
indicate that he is somehow uncertain (corresponding to "I don't know").
These are considered to be three different "Truth Values" in this system.
Only one of them can be correct. If a person does not know the answer,
and he says "Yes" anyway, then he is considered to be lying, even if this
answer would be correct from another person's perspective or from that of
the hypothetical know-it-all. In the fuzzy logic system, truth is relative
to the perspective of the speaker and is judged accordingly.
Thus, there is no comparison between "I don't know" and "I don't want to
answer" in the "fuzzy" system. "I don't know" assigns a truth value to a
proposition. This is either THE CORRECT answer (from the answerer's
perspecive), in which case he is being honest, or it is NOT the correct
answer, in which case he is lying. If he is to answer truthfully, the
respondent does not have options as to how he will answer.
[Note that a particular "fuzzy" logic system can have as many categories
of "Truth Values" as you wish. The simple one given above has 3, which
would work fine as far as Monocle is concerned. Actually, one's level of
certainty can be conceived as a point on a continuum, and will fit within
whatever categories you artificially delineate. Many pollsters give you 5
options, such as Certainly, Probably, Can't Decide, Probably Not, and
Certainly Not. As another example, a programmer might design a "fuzzy
logic" system with 99 categories, with a Truth value of "1" corresponding
to "Absolutely certainly no", "99" corresponding to "Absolutely certainly
yes", "50" corresponding to total indecision, and a the rest of the values
corresponding to various levels of probability and uncertainty in between.
Your categories will work as long as a given perspective can be fit into
one and only one mutually exclusive category. But no matter how many
categories you use, the truthful respondent must assign his answer to the
correct category. He cannot choose his answer.]
[One can even have a 2 value "fuzzy" logic system, as when the Courts ask
Jurors to answer a proposition with "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". This works
because, in theory, no matter what you feel about the chances of that the
accused committed the crime, you should be able to fit this into one or
the other category. This is not the same as the 2 value system currently
being used on Monocle, which, in practice, asks one to choose between
"definitely yes" and "definitely no" when ones true feelings do not in
fact fit into either category.]
In any event, using a 3-value "fuzzy" approach that includes "I don't
know" as the middle option, does not, by any logic, force one to also
accept other truthful statements like "I don't want to answer" or "I am
not a walrus".
Limiting the Monocle's answers to "yes" or "no" would be fine if the
questioner were limited to asking questions that can in fact be truthfully
answered by either one or the other answer. This might be taken as part
of the restriction that the questioner is limited to a "yes or no
question". "Will you bleed me next turn?" can not be truthfully answered
by a "yes" or a "no", and might not be considered to be a proper yes/no
question for this reason.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, LSJ wrote:
> > LSJ is going to be convinced any time soon.)
>
> Convinced of what?
>
> That it would be less prone to argument and headaches and that its power
> would be slightly reduced if errata were issued to prohibit questions about
> the future?
>> I do not require convincing - such an assertion is obvious.
>
> But there is plenty of errata already. The problems posed by the Monocle
> are not sufficient to require any additional errata.
Eliminating the future clause would in fact require less errata than than
the errata that currently exists to clarify that future clause.
> The discussion up to these last few posts had been about the card as
> printed and currently errata'ed - not about what new errata could make
> the card better.
Speaking for myself only, I have been speaking about the card as printed,
but not as currently errata'd. I personally like the card, and am
interested in alternate clarifications/rulings/errata/interpretations, as
would make the card more playable.
You may well be right that it is not worth the attention. It just bothers
me to have this cool card that I cannot play with because everyone hates
it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Davey Hathorn wrote:
>
> > You made many
> > unsupportable statements about language and logic such as "Yes or no
> > questions require a yes or no answer by definition."
>
> Actually, that statement is quite supportable; in fact I believe you
> agreed with it, although you qualified it by adding "...Only in the
> context of Traditional Logic (TM)," or something like that. That's a
> good qualification to add, though, because that's the context that is
> used with the Monocle.
Well, I take it back.
As I have already argued, a "yes or no question" is a TYPE OF QUESTION,
and not a type of answer. It is the nature of the question, and not the
nature of the answer, that determine what sort of question it is.
Such questions may indeed require "yes" or "no" as an answer. This
depends on the situation, on the rules of the game you are playing, on the
particular logic system you are using, or on your definition of the word
"answer". So, while it may make sense to say that the Monocle requires
this type of question to be answered with a yes or a no, it is not
required by the *definition* of the phrase.
...at least not by the definition I am familiar with (and have already
given).
Of course you could invent a definition that differ somewhat from mine,
and would require such answers "by definition".
Yes or No Question: A question that is formulated in such a way as
to require either "yes" or "no" as an answer.
Problem is: according to this definition it is very questionable whether
"Will you bleed me next turn?" qualifies as a "yes or no question". I
would think it is more a "how the *&%$ should I know" question or a "it
depends on what cards I draw" question, since those are the answers that
would normally be required by a truthful response.
In the context of Monocle a "yes" answer to such a question translates as
"Yes, I definitely intend to attempt bleed you next turn if I possibly
can, regardless of what happens in the meantime."
A "no" answer corresponds, in practice, to "No, I definitely intend to NOT
bleed you next turn regardless of anything that up until that point."
These are two rather extreme options, and the respondent is forced to
choose between them rather than telling (what would normally be) the
truth, which in most cases is that he intends to base his decision on
cards and effects yet to be played.
Properly framed as a "yes or no question" (in this sense), a question
about intentions might be framed as follows:
"Do you intend to attempt to bleed me next turn [if at all possible
regardless of what happens in the game before you initiate the attempt?]"
Here, either a "yes" or a "no" will be suitable to cover all possible
intentions I may have, and allow me to answer truthfully with either one
or the other. Of course, a "no" answer will not be bind me to any course
of action.
You will probably argue, of course, that this makes no sense because
everyone would say "no", and the future clause would be rendered
completely impotent. Not entirely true. A person might well answer a
question with "yes" if you give him a motive to do so, as when making
deals. The "future clause" of monocle would then enforce those promises.
You could, for instance use it with Succubus Club to guarantee deals made
that same untap phase.
Another possibly appropriate type of future question might be one that
gives the person adequate information to make a definite decision as to
what he will do, by giving a complete hypothetical situation of the near
future. Here's an example:
"Suppose that I were "Effective Management" on my coming Master Phase,
and then, as my first minion action, have Smudge attempt to equip with an
Ivory Bow. Assuming no other effects have been played by any Methuselah,
do you intent to attempt to block with intercept?"
This is a reasonable question of intent. The respondent cannot reasonably
say "I don't know" or "It depends" because he has been given a COMPLETE
hypothetical portrait of the game state. He will be bound by the future
clause only if the hypothetical situation becomes a reality. If the
Effective Management were Sudden Reversed, then a different game state
would result, and the answer would no longer be binding.
Here's another possibility:
"Suppose that, after you answer this question, the next thing I do is play
a Malkavian Prank, and that no other cards or effects are played by any
Methuselah. Do you intend to hold out either 1 counter or 4 counters?"
Again, it might reasonably be argued that he cannot truthfully answer "I
don't know" or "It depends" because he has been given a full portrait of
the game state on which to base his decision.
Either a "yes" or "no" answer would be binding, provided things unfold
precisely in accordance with my hypothetical. This would give me 50%
chance of guessing what he is holding.
I makes sense to me that the "future clause" should apply only to
statements about the future only to the extent that they are statements
about intentions. You cannot "abide" by a prediction in any meaninful
sense. One only abides by intentions, or promises. There is no
contradiction in predicting that Clinton will win the election but that
you intend to vote against him, any more than there is a contradiction in
saying that Reagon won in 1976 but that you voted against him. One's
predictions are either right or wrong, as only time will tell, regardless
of whether you contribute to making the prediction come true.
The Monocle should not ask for predictions anyway, since these cannot be
truthfully answered "yes" or "no", and are therefore argueably not proper
"yes or no questions" in the above sense. The question brought up earlier
that went something like "If I bleed you this turn will one of our minions
enter torpor" is clearly asking for a prediction, and not a statement of
intent. The answer will be determined in part by factors clearly beyond
the respondents control. It is meaningless to require that the respondent
"abide" by such an answer.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Davey Hathorn wrote:
> Here's another argument why "I don't know." doesn't work as an answer.
> "I don't know" seems to violate card intent wrt the future, as you can
> always say "I don't know" to questions about the future, unless you're
> asking really stupid questions like "Will you play any cards?" Do you
> think they would add the future clause if it was meant to be useless?
Your catching on rather slowly if you haven't figured out yet that I don't
care about preserving original card intent or the applicability of the
future clause.
But in any event you are wrong. Allowing "I don't know" as an answer when
truthful, will not make the future clause useless unless one asks stupid
questions. It can still be used, for instance, to enforce promises.
Please see my other post today for some ideas on appropriate questions
designed to make use of the future clause with this in mind.
> Here's yet another argument that "I don't know" doesn't work. Consider
> the following thought experiment: Suppose I ask a very complicated
> question, like some kind of riddle about the current game state, the
> answer to which can be deduced as a definite 'yes' or 'no' (after a
> nominal process of elimination) by observing game pieces that every
> Methuselah can see. Now, when I ask you this question, you don't
> currently know the answer, and you don't realize it's a solvable
> riddle. So by your Monocle interpretation you could answer "I don't
> know" without being a liar; how am I to know whether you think the
> riddle is unsolvable?
If you have been paying attention to my previous posts, then you ought to
know already how I will respond to this.
Obviously I believe the person should make an effort to answer definitely
if possible. This applies even if he has to think about his answer, or
check his facts, before answering. Now obviously the game should not be
stalled for half an hour while he tries to solve some complex riddle, but
apart from that...
If a question relates to the contents of your hand, which are lying face
down on the table, then obviously if you don't remember, you should check
them before answering. "I don't know" should be permitted as an answer
only if you really are not in a position to truthfully provide a definite
one.
> Now suppose I started making this question easier by giving you hints,
> such as deducing or partially deducing things for you or maybe by
> removing some elements of the question entirely, but I always leave the
> last deduction up to you. Eventually I could whittle it down to a
> question so simple that the most cursory examination of the cards in
> play will tell you the answer. Perhaps it could be something equivalnet
> to "Is Lupo contested?" Until you look at the board, though, you may
> very well not know the answer, even though you have all the information
> in front of you. So you could even answer this very simple question
> with "I don't know" just by being lazy and not looking at the cards in
> play. You could even be too lazy to look at the cards in your hand when
> I ask if you are holding any Majesties, or if I ask when you are looking
> at them, maybe you are too lazy to read their names. When the other
> Methuselahs cry foul play, just explain that you are an imperfect human,
> and that at the time you answered you couldn't be more definite without
> being untruthful because you were unaware of all the necessary facts at
> that moment. Clearly this is a violation of the Monocle's original
> intent.
Of course it is, but has nothing to do with situations where you really
cannot truthfully give a definite answer.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Davey Hathorn wrote:
> Lupus Australis wrote:> > > The Monocle does presume that all questions have definite answers;
> >
> > Well, it is nice that the Monocle has so much faith in the existence of
> > the Almighty, but since he will not be present to provide us with these
> > definite answers,
>
> Well, I guess my play group is just smarter than yours :P
> Seriously though a Monocle question always has a definite answer if it
> pertains to the current game and doesn't ask questions about questions.
Seriously, though, you can't be serious.
Questions should indeed pertain to the current game, but this has nothing
to do with whether the respondent can reasonably be expected to "answer
truthfuly" with a "yes" or a "no".
The "questions about questions" is merely a particularly egregious example
of the wide range of nonsense that I feel should be not allowed. This was
a case where you ask your prey "Will your answer to my next question be
yes?" If he says "Yes" then you frame your next Monocle question in such
a manner that an answer of "Yes" will cause him maximum damage. If he
says "no" you alter the phrasing slightly so that a "No" answer will do
the exact same thing."
This was not fair of course. It comes from asking him to answer a
question that he cannot be reasonably be expected to answer with a "yes"
or a "no" based on his current information. The most truthful possible
answer would be "I don't know, it will depend on what question you ask."
He is expected to "truthfully" say yes or no when he has as yet no idea
what these answers will mean.
To properly phrase the question so as to be answerable with "yes" or "no"
by the respondent, you would have to ask: "Do you intend to answer my
next question with a 'yes' (regardless of what happens in the meantime or
what that question is)?" The respondent could then truthfully say "no"
without being bound by the answer. "No" does not mean "I intend to *not*
say yes to your next question", it merely means "I do not *intend* to say
yes to your next question." It is a negation of the proposition rather
than its inverse, and totally true, as his intentions will not be formed
until the next question is asked.
Another example of an abusive and inappropriate question was provided by
you yourself. It went "If one of my minions and one of your minions get
into combat, will combat end with one of them going into torpor?" Though
not as easy to abuse, this is wrong for the exact same reasons that the
"questions about questions" example is wrong.
To summarize your example somewhat, your plan was as follows: If your
prey says "no" then you bleed him with your vampires and not worry about
him blocking, on the grounds that the rules now compel him to do all he
can to keep you from going into torpor in such a case. If he says Yes,
you enter combat with an ally, obliging him to "abide" by his answer by
doing all he can to send himself into torpor, since he is the only minion
in the combat for which this is possible.
Other examples could be devised, but they all use a variation of the same
trick. You ask a question where the full meaning of the question has yet
to be determined (because it lies in the future) Then, once the answer is
obtained, you manipulate the meaning of the question so that the answer
will be damaging to the respondent. In the process, you force him to
prove his truthfullness by "abiding" by intentions he never posessed in
the first place.
> > I don't see how it does us any good.
>
> This does us good by insuring that answers other than affirmation or
> negation are unnecessary.
This can only be done by asking questions that can be truthfully answered
by affirmation or negation...by the person who has to answer, that is.
I'm sure the Passage of Time will prove that questions about the future
will indeed have yes or no answers, but Father Time is not the fellow who
is being asked to answer the question.
I would say that a good rule of thumb would be that a question is
appropriate only when a "no" answer is in fact a negation of a "yes"
answer, and not something else. Otherwise, it is arguably not a proper
"yes or no question" as a truthful answer will not necessarily correspond
to either answer. If "yes" means "I intend to do X," then "no" should
mean "I do not intend to do X", and not "I intend to not do X".
[ quoted text not captured ]