From: wallace@dtc.hp.com (David Wallace)
Subject: Re: Question on Seeker...
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:14:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Design Technology Center, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1993Jan24.231245.28210@njitgw.njit.edu> tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  ) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.200139.12410@risky.ecs.umass.edu> hopcraft@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Geoffrey S Hopcraft) writes:
>>I've replied individually to a few posters, but this house rule seems
>>pretty widespread, so I'm going to post. Essentially, by allowing the
>>seeker to get away with questions which essentially force behavoir,
>>you're getting onto pretty thin ice. To whit:
>>
>
>	[House rule description deleted]
>
>>
>>Alright, let's take this house rule, and have the seeker ask a main
>>player (who does not have parasite):
>>
>>"Are you going to ally for the rest of the game?"
>>
>
>The problem with this is that the seeker power is limited to asking a
>question about the _current_ challenge.  This eliminates the problem of
>what are you going to do for the rest of the game.

No - that's not the rule.  Mayfair Seeker, at least, says that you can ask
a question that relates to a "single specific challenge" - not necessarily
the current challenge - and may not bind the player beyond that one
specific challenge.  Thus the above question is disallowed, but it would be
legal to ask, e.g.,:
	"Are you going to ally the next time that Red invites you?"
because that question relates to the player's intentions in a single,
specific future challenge.

Here is the Mayfair Seeker text, as quoted by Russell Davoli earlier in
this thread:

You have the power of truth.  When you are involved in a challenge, you may
ask one off the main players a 'yes' or 'no' question.  He must answer
truthfully.  You may ask him the question any time before cards are played,
and he must answer it then.  If it involves his intentions, he must decide
then and subsequently abide by that decision if he can.  The question must
relate to a single specific challenge or to the player's current hand.  You
may not bind the player to an action beyond one specific challenge.

To get back to the main theme of this thread, I would disallow all
questions of the form:
	"Are you going to do X or answer 'no' to this question?"
on the grounds that the question as phrased does not allow the player to
make a decision about her intentions at any time (if you accept the
analysis that "yes" is the only non-contradictory answer to this question).

However, I would allow the following Seeker question:
	"In the next challenge in which Seeker asks you about your
	intentions, will you answer 'yes' if that represents a legal option
	for you?"

This question does involve a genuine choice about intentions, despite the
fact that Seeker can subsequently force both choices to have the same
effect by properly phrasing the next question.  This lets Seeker use his
power to create a limited "forcing function" on the other player, but I
think the natural limits of using the power this way limit the potential
for abuse:

	1) It requires Seeker to burn an extra question in order to gain
	this power.
	2) There is no guarantee that the future challenge will be a useful
	one in which to force that player to do something.
	3) The game may well be over or Seeker may lose the Seeker power
	before he can "collect" on the free question, in which case
	he has just wasted a question.
	4) It gives the other players two opportunities instead of one to
	Zap Seeker or take other action to prevent the force from taking
	effect.
	5) It requires Seeker to remember how every player has answered the
	first question in order to properly phrase the second, and
	6) The subject of the second question may be one about which the
	player has no legal choice, in which case Seeker has just wasted
	*two* questions.

>[more deleted]
>
>>Ok, so you forbid this situation. What about "Are you going to
>>compromise?" Can't do it unless the other main player agrees (barring
>>the obvious cases), so you have to say no. Heck, make it "Are you
>>going to compromise ever with anyone in the game other than me?"
>
>Similar argument.

The second question does not relate to a "single, specific challenge," and
so is invalid.  The first question, if understood as relating to the
current challenge only, would be fine (the player compromises by playing a
compromise card).  If the original poster meant "Are you going to make a
deal?" which does require the cooperation of the other player to execute, I
would say the question is still fine: it asks about the player's
intentions.  If the question is answered "no," the player is then committed
to not accepting or offering any deal during the negotiation (unless Seeker
is zapped, or something else that forces a deal occurs).  If the question
is answered "yes," the player is then committed to accepting *some* deal
during negotiations - if the time period is about to expire and no deal has
yet been made, the player must accept the other player's latest offer.  If
the other player foolishly does not make any offer, the first player is off
the hook: he must only abide by his decision "if he can," and he has done
all he can to abide by it.  Note that in this situation, the other player
is free to offer a ridiculously one-sided deal secure in the knowledge that
it must be accepted: "Give me all your Attack cards above an 8, plus all
your Edicts and Flares and a base in exchange for this Compromise card," so
it would be foolish (but legal) for the player to answer "yes" to the
question.

>>Following the rules as stated (the person must do what they said they
>>would if they can) still allows seeker to be used for information
>>(although the seeker must be careful with her questions). If anybody
>>doubts that, send me a case (in email, so this board isn't swamped) of
>>some yes/no information item, and we'll see whether we can work out a
>>reasonable question to ask. This house rule opens the door to hundreds
>>of abuses, and with a little work can be made to be a pretty general
>>"Do what I tell you to do" power even without the logical trap
>>mentioned above. To my mind, this is not the intent behind seeker.
>
>Agreed.  I think that setting up these kind of traps is definitely against
>the spirit of the game.  Such things should be looked down upon.

I don't agree with respect to the two-phase force outlined above.  I think
that the natural limits on using the power this way prevent abuse, and it
becomes an instance of creative use of a power.

Dave W.
-- 
Dave W. 	(dwallace@dtc.hp.com)