8 ms·

> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the

> In the 2017 judgment, Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain found that rock paper scissors is not simply a game of luck. > the sense of observation or the putting in place of a strategic sequence The court can ask him to defeat 10 other people in that game consistently to prove that ? But then he could argue the others were also skilled ?

tapland 6y ago
A nontrivial fraction of people form their selection when _starting to_ move their hand down the final time. It's very much possible to counter that.
- gruez 6y ago
  Isn't that cheating?
  - paulcole 6y ago
    If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.
    - IggleSniggle 6y ago
      Hard disagree. Better games make affordances for players of differing skill level (like Go for example), but in games where this is not possible, the ethical calculation is more complex (although I would argue the ethical calculation isn't really relevant in a game, as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems). Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.
      - paulcole 6y ago
        > as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems What? Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”
        jakear 6y ago
        I found it apt. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum assumes there's an injective mapping from activities to points-of-activity. This is clearly not true.
        paulcole 6y ago
        Attempted? I thought I pulled it off. Would love to get feedback on how to do better next time.
        icebraining 6y ago
        Attempting is a prerequisite to pulling it off.
        paulcole 6y ago
        Cool — all clear now.
        IggleSniggle 6y ago
        I've given this a little more thought after reading your comment. And I was wrong. The point of games is drama. Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system. Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis. Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is." In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense). I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides. I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."
    - alehul 6y ago
      I’d agree with “it’s fine to take advantage,” but “unethical not to”? Would that line apply when playing your young child in a game?
      - paulcole 6y ago
        Yeah, I assumed we were talking about crushing a toddler in Rock Paper Scissors. Glad you picked up on that.
    - nogabebop23 6y ago
      The argument isn't against good/poor play; it's if this is cheating. You're essentially saying it's unethical not to cheat if you can get away with it, which is obviously untrue
      - paulcole 6y ago
        It’s not cheating. Your opponent knows they’re supposed to keep their throw a secret as long as possible. Otherwise why not just say, “here comes rock” before they start? It’s the same as a pitcher tipping their pitches in baseball.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - tapland 6y ago
    I don't think it would be considered cheating. It's more like a poker player with a way too obvious tell that is used (abused) by the other player to gain an advantage in the game that should be random.
luckylion 6y ago
"not simply a game of luck". Of course there's luck involved. There's luck involved in tennis as well. Would you consider tennis a coin flip?
- codegladiator 6y ago
  I can insist that there is skill in coin toss too. I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion. So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    You can't influence the result of a coin toss, unless you're using a manipulated coin. I'd put rock paper scissors more into the poker category, but actually there's less of a luck-component in rps, because there's no drawing of random cards. You're only playing your opponent, and unless your opponent hast figured out a way to be completely random, you can "read" them if you're good enough. But that's very hard and impossible to do perfectly, so we call it luck. Tennis is mostly a matter of the body, rps or poker are games of the mind.
    - codegladiator 6y ago
      That's a nice explanation. Tennis would also have some part of mind games right ? The more I think about it, obviously it definitely is a matter of body excellence, but if you can always predict where your opponent going to hit, wouldn't that be a sure win (considering the players equal in matter of body)? I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent). Poker also gives you some amount of time to "react" to what others did. So I am still seeing RPS heavily biased towards luck.
      - 6y ago
Invictus0 6y ago
Some players consistently make it to the final rounds in RPS tournaments [0]. [0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper-scissors/ https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...
- codegladiator 6y ago
  Oh wow that's news to me, I had no idea there was a world competition for this ! Guess i'll have to edit my other comment now :-/ edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?
  - klenwell 6y ago
    It's also apparently a college sport. From one of my favorite Metafilter comments: One chilly night in the fall of 2004, I chanced to find myself upon the streets of Toronto. I represented one half of the august top-rated debate team from a small upstate NY liberal arts school ([cough] named after a man shot by Aaron Burr), recovering from a day in which we had arrived at a debate tournament and discovered, 11 minutes before the commencement of Round 1, that we would be competing using a format heretofore unknown to us. A lot of hemming and hawing ensued, before we ultimately turned to face the task awaiting us, and swaggered to the podium to stare down the fate bearing down on us like a hawk on a rabbit. The night was not kind to us, and by 11PM, we had succeeded in drowning our sorrows in a heretofore unimagined selection of Labatt's higher-gravity options available at the corner pub. Which is when we were wholly taken aback to encounter none other than Syracuse University's internationally ranked (!!) team of rock-paper-scissors players, fresh off their top-32 finish in that year's invitation-only (!!!) tournament. I admit I was skeptical as to the provenance of their accolades, but a quick glance at the large medallions hanging off two team members' necks was enough to assuage any doubts; these were our fellow Upstate New Yorkers, and they had come to win RoShamBo rounds and chew bubblegum, and they were all out of bubblegum. Naturally, we did what any self-respecting half-in-the-bag Americans would do upon meeting so-called champions of the rock-paper-scissors arena on the streets of a foreign nation, and challenged them to a duel on the spot. We proceeded to go a spectacular 0-24 against our fellow countrymen, before realizing that maybe there's more to the metagame than we had previously considered. It's only now, 15 years later, upon reading this description of the algorithm, that I have come to understand the instrument of our demise. https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208 https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208
nogabebop23 6y ago
OK - then make these guys play 100 or 1000 games against each other and see if anything beyond the very small sample size is responsible for the difference in win. If the previous winner is superior at RPS he should show a statistical advantage over the loser.
BurningFrog 6y ago
https://www.afiniti.com/corporate/rock-paper-scissors https://www.afiniti.com/corporate/rock-paper-scissors

tapland 6y ago

A nontrivial fraction of people form their selection when _starting to_ move their hand down the final time. It's very much possible to counter that.

gruez 6y ago
Isn't that cheating?
- paulcole 6y ago
  If your opponent is playing poorly, it’s unethical not to take advantage.
  - IggleSniggle 6y ago
    Hard disagree. Better games make affordances for players of differing skill level (like Go for example), but in games where this is not possible, the ethical calculation is more complex (although I would argue the ethical calculation isn't really relevant in a game, as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems). Whether or not the specific examples constitutes cheating is up for negotiation by the participants.
    - paulcole 6y ago
      > as the whole point of most games is about creating a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems What? Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, “do you want to create a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems?” And having them reply, “oh yeah, I would like to play a game.”
      - jakear 6y ago
        I found it apt. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum assumes there's an injective mapping from activities to points-of-activity. This is clearly not true.
        paulcole 6y ago
        Attempted? I thought I pulled it off. Would love to get feedback on how to do better next time.
        icebraining 6y ago
        Attempting is a prerequisite to pulling it off.
        paulcole 6y ago
        Cool — all clear now.
      - IggleSniggle 6y ago
        I've given this a little more thought after reading your comment. And I was wrong. The point of games is drama. Drama in music comes from an anticipated causality from A->B and either the fulfillment or denial of that causality. Romantic-era music strives for maximum drama by injecting as many fulfillment/denial moments as possible, with denials that are stretched to the limit of the implicit rules of the cultural context / musical system. Minimalist music does something entirely different, by first breaking the expectation of resolution, and then becoming the flame that we stare into; it begins within a known system and then subverts it through stasis. Can you imagine saying to any reasonable person, "do you want to skip all the boring parts and get to the final note?" Or, "yeah, ok, I don't want to see or even know what happens in the movie, just tell me what the final shot is." In games, the drama of the "game part" is in exploring the edges of a system, with the added engagement of partial agency towards "resolution" (in a musical sense). I still can't imagine any reasonable person thinking the "point" of a game is to win. Winning is the objective, not the point. Whether or not employing agency from outside the system is appropriate for a game is up for negotiation among the players, but without some level of adherence to an agreed system, it ceases to be a multiplayer game and becomes a game of solitaire where the rules are whatever the cheater decides. I can appreciate that there is drama in that, and perhaps the drama of avoiding being caught is more satisfying than the drama of performing "the perfect game" for some people. In that situation, though, I think I'd still describe games as "a safe place for the mutual exploration of systems."
  - alehul 6y ago
    I’d agree with “it’s fine to take advantage,” but “unethical not to”? Would that line apply when playing your young child in a game?
    - paulcole 6y ago
      Yeah, I assumed we were talking about crushing a toddler in Rock Paper Scissors. Glad you picked up on that.
  - nogabebop23 6y ago
    The argument isn't against good/poor play; it's if this is cheating. You're essentially saying it's unethical not to cheat if you can get away with it, which is obviously untrue
    - paulcole 6y ago
      It’s not cheating. Your opponent knows they’re supposed to keep their throw a secret as long as possible. Otherwise why not just say, “here comes rock” before they start? It’s the same as a pitcher tipping their pitches in baseball.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- tapland 6y ago
  I don't think it would be considered cheating. It's more like a poker player with a way too obvious tell that is used (abused) by the other player to gain an advantage in the game that should be random.

luckylion 6y ago

"not simply a game of luck". Of course there's luck involved. There's luck involved in tennis as well. Would you consider tennis a coin flip?

codegladiator 6y ago
I can insist that there is skill in coin toss too. I think what we want to look at is how much luck/skill percent is there. If tennis was luck overpowering skill, it wouldn't be an international sport in my opinion. So rock paper scissors is 90% luck + 10% skill. A kid can potentially beat a professional rock player. Same is not the case for tennis.
- luckylion 6y ago
  You can't influence the result of a coin toss, unless you're using a manipulated coin. I'd put rock paper scissors more into the poker category, but actually there's less of a luck-component in rps, because there's no drawing of random cards. You're only playing your opponent, and unless your opponent hast figured out a way to be completely random, you can "read" them if you're good enough. But that's very hard and impossible to do perfectly, so we call it luck. Tennis is mostly a matter of the body, rps or poker are games of the mind.
  - codegladiator 6y ago
    That's a nice explanation. Tennis would also have some part of mind games right ? The more I think about it, obviously it definitely is a matter of body excellence, but if you can always predict where your opponent going to hit, wouldn't that be a sure win (considering the players equal in matter of body)? I don't see any "reaction time" available in RPS (considering equal in matter of body), and no way to predict the choice of the other one (as you stated) so similar to coin toss (you can't influence the choice of the opponent). Poker also gives you some amount of time to "react" to what others did. So I am still seeing RPS heavily biased towards luck.
    - 6y ago

Invictus0 6y ago

Some players consistently make it to the final rounds in RPS tournaments [0]. [0]: https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper-scissors/ https://priceonomics.com/the-world-of-competitive-rock-paper...

codegladiator 6y ago
Oh wow that's news to me, I had no idea there was a world competition for this ! Guess i'll have to edit my other comment now :-/ edit: wait something looks odd at http://www.worldrps.com/ http://www.worldrps.com/ , is it really an internationally recognized competition ?
- klenwell 6y ago
  It's also apparently a college sport. From one of my favorite Metafilter comments: One chilly night in the fall of 2004, I chanced to find myself upon the streets of Toronto. I represented one half of the august top-rated debate team from a small upstate NY liberal arts school ([cough] named after a man shot by Aaron Burr), recovering from a day in which we had arrived at a debate tournament and discovered, 11 minutes before the commencement of Round 1, that we would be competing using a format heretofore unknown to us. A lot of hemming and hawing ensued, before we ultimately turned to face the task awaiting us, and swaggered to the podium to stare down the fate bearing down on us like a hawk on a rabbit. The night was not kind to us, and by 11PM, we had succeeded in drowning our sorrows in a heretofore unimagined selection of Labatt's higher-gravity options available at the corner pub. Which is when we were wholly taken aback to encounter none other than Syracuse University's internationally ranked (!!) team of rock-paper-scissors players, fresh off their top-32 finish in that year's invitation-only (!!!) tournament. I admit I was skeptical as to the provenance of their accolades, but a quick glance at the large medallions hanging off two team members' necks was enough to assuage any doubts; these were our fellow Upstate New Yorkers, and they had come to win RoShamBo rounds and chew bubblegum, and they were all out of bubblegum. Naturally, we did what any self-respecting half-in-the-bag Americans would do upon meeting so-called champions of the rock-paper-scissors arena on the streets of a foreign nation, and challenged them to a duel on the spot. We proceeded to go a spectacular 0-24 against our fellow countrymen, before realizing that maybe there's more to the metagame than we had previously considered. It's only now, 15 years later, upon reading this description of the algorithm, that I have come to understand the instrument of our demise. https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208 https://www.metafilter.com/181225/Iocaine-Powder#7714208

nogabebop23 6y ago

OK - then make these guys play 100 or 1000 games against each other and see if anything beyond the very small sample size is responsible for the difference in win. If the previous winner is superior at RPS he should show a statistical advantage over the loser.

BurningFrog 6y ago

https://www.afiniti.com/corporate/rock-paper-scissors https://www.afiniti.com/corporate/rock-paper-scissors