GGG has a Ben problem.
|
The differences you mention like men vs women are because there are physiological differences that directly impact the medium being tested. THAT would be akin to some players being given a PoE version with higher drop rates, for example.
You COULD argue that a PoE competition is inherently unfair for people with, say, one arm. Or if they were blind. Those arguments could definitely be made. But do they matter in this specific scenario? No. And actually....they technically wouldn't make the COMPETITION unfair, because the player with one arm is still choosing to compete in the same set of rules as the others. They are making a CHOICE to set themselves at a disadvantage, but the competition still remains fair. Luck has no fairness involved: its pretty much definitely neither fair nor unfair. It's actually probably the best example against everything you have said. You are simply misunderstanding or mis-stating what "fairness" means. What makes luck "fair" in the context of PoE is that everyone has the same mathematical luck in the form of common set probabilities. It is literally proven down to a mathematical fact that no one person is any more imbalanced-y "lucky" than another when they play PoE. Whether one person drops the mageblood and another doesn't has no bearing on "fairness", if both players were in the environment that the mageblood drops .00001% of the time. Just like you can't claim that its "unfair" someone else won the lottery over you. You might feel that way emotionally, but it most certainly isn't true. Consider a sports game: there is always the chance that something might go wrong for an individual player. They might commit an error, they might hit a bird when golfing, a gust of wind might pick up at an inopportune time. All of that is LUCK....but because everyone is equally within the same context of it, those games, plays, strokes, etc. are rarely repeated or done over. And the games are pretty much never qualified as being "unfair" wins because of luck-based shenanigans. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Aug 27, 2025, 4:41:35 PM
|
|
" sure but is it fair to let one-arm man compete? its not fair to let one-leg guy run a 100m dash against 2 legged guys. the 1-legged guy gets his own category for that reason. then in terms of poe you have things like SSDs, should they have HDD and SSD races?(p2w confirmed) maybe 10 levels of blindness ranging from legally blind to being slightly drunk. oh yeah maybe lets have natty races where no Monster energy drink are allowed. .... do you get where im going with this? at the end of the day no one even cares if its fair, and only reason why we don't let 250lbs guys box a 80lbs grandmas its because its not 'entertaining' ... to most at least, there are some 'sporting events' that border on this, with questionable ethicacy i'm not even going to address the rng being 'fair' in competition that argues of being a 'fair measure' of 'betterness'. that is next level |
|
" This happened really nearly a month ago (source). Sorry for de-railing your discussion. relax - it's just ones and zeros!
|
|
|
^I know, that's why I said it! It happened in both golf and baseball quite a few times actually throughout history.
Starting anew....with PoE 2
|
|
" That is simply not up to you......if the DISadvantaged chooses to compete knowing they have a handicap, that is totally on them. BUT the other way around doesn't work: a two-legged person being allowed to compete in a one-legged race....isn't fair. Remember, those who are not Ben are CHOOSING to compete against Ben. They aren't being forced. Many of them know how good he is ahead of time. You do bring up a great point: I had not thought about hardware advantages (the infamous ultra-wide offering extra vision stuff comes to mind....). I will concede that those factors absolutely make the competition NOT 100% fair. But it isn't inherently UNFAIR because of those. Again we can turn to sports: golfers who have "better" clubs and therefore an unfair advantage....isn't a thing. But better and worse clubs certainly play a role to some degree. Muggsy Bogues is a great example of this in action: he was at a natural height disadvantage compared to most other nba players, yet he is still considered one of the best of all time and made many top10 lists in terms of stats. But despite his disadvantage, he chose to work hard and pursue NBA as a career...and excelled. Was it unfair to him that he was shorter than everyone else? Maybe. Was it unfair for the entire NBA? No. So I'll adjust what I said earlier: competitions, by design, strive to be AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. They are rarely, if ever, unfair by design. Now...if that's what you are arguing is actually the case in terms of the Gauntlet...and something having to do with Ben_ in particular...then we would simply have to stop there in our discussion about this particular competition. We could extrapolate from the gender or one-legged man argument: what about Ben_ gives him the unfair edge over everyone else that isn't simply being better at the competition medium? Is his rig THAT much better than everyone else? Does he have a third arm that helps him play, to the point of no one else ever being able to overcome him? Because everything else is fair: hes following the same rules, playing the same game, using the same programming, same drop weighting, same passive trees, same access to information, etc. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Aug 27, 2025, 5:19:00 PM
|
|
" right, and i am simply touching on edge cases to show you how fairness is not a thing. not in organized competitions and def not in life in general. people make certain rules to make it 'as fair as possible' so people are entertained- both by watching and participating. the moment the entertainment value drops organizers would/should start to change things.. its not for some noble goal. other competitions, organized or not, don't even try to be 'fair' Last edited by AintCare#6513 on Aug 27, 2025, 5:30:39 PM
|
|
" that is a ridiculous comment to make and an enormous leap. Fairness isn't a switch you turn "on" or "off". It is an absolute limit that we strive to approach. There is a massive difference in fairness between two baseball teams playing within the same set of rules, and another between two teams where one isn't allowed to bat. By that logic, the word simply wouldn't exist in ANY form. Consider how that logic affects pretty much every single possible descriptive noun in existence. And ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Fairness isn't implanted into competitions because of entertainment value! There exists competitions that are incredibly entertaining that are literally designed TO BE UNFAIR because it is more entertaining that way, in some scenarios. But those would NOT be considered "competitions"....they are entertainment. Harlem Globetrotters. The baseball one. Goofy game shows that have existed since TV was first invented lol. That's another HUGE leap and illogical conclusion to make. There is not a person alive who knows anything who would claim that the Harlem Globetrotters and their shtick belong in the NBA. They exist, not to compete, but to provide entertainment. The Gauntlet and every example I mentioned is the exact opposite of that. Fairness, rules, and regulations exist for the COMPETITORS. That is their primary function. If entertainment, not competition, is the MAIN goal, those things don't exist. I would point back to my piano competition example from earlier: you think ENTERTAINMENT is the reason why certain rules and specific repertoire requirements exist? That is a statement in complete ignorance of WHY those rules are created...the audience certainly doesn't give a damn. In SOME situations, SOME audiences do care and the rules are what keep them entertained, but that isn't WHY those rules exist lol. After that post....I'm actually at a loss to continue this conversation anywhere meaningful. I never would have thought you'd say either of those two things....because they are bonkers. It's the classic "flat earth" defense. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Aug 27, 2025, 5:48:08 PM
|
|
" right, hence i mentioned that some don't care about fairness at all at the end. as i said, fairness is applied to make some competitions (games) entertaining (as needed) at least in this context, there might be some other cases where people use fairness to level a plain field but i doubt poe racing will fall into that in any meaningful way. and no, games don't have to be fair to be entertaining, and not all competitions are for entertainment purposes, some are for survival, but those aren't usually called games. i don't really want to get into some weird territory of 'degrees of fairness' neither. its a concept that doesn't exist beyond its conceptual form like any other, but its an idealized abstract construct of polarizing nature, similar to truth. can something be 'partially true' yes, but partial truths are also lies. the more you start spreading this into degrees the less meaning it holds. |
|
" This is.....simply not correct. A partial truth is demonstrably and factually a completely different entity from a lie. Conflating the two together like that is an error and a misunderstanding of the terms you are using. Just like your analysis of "fairness". A "partial truth", by definition, is a truthful statement that willingly (or even unwillingly i think?) omits pertinent information A "lie", in any form, is a deliberate choice to speak something untrue. While they both might have similar end results in some situations, they are polar opposite actions. They literally both cannot simultaneously occur. That is pretty much the entire foundation of law and justice, "intent", and many many other systems that we use and interact with every day. You are attempting, again, to re-write the meaning of something to suit your argument when you simply don't have the power to do that. This goes all the way back to your statement that the Gauntlet Competition exists as entertainment for the watchers and my entire argument against that. If I might borrow from this post, you are speaking only in half-truths: not directly lying about what you mean, but also purposely avoiding the WHOLE truth in order to shoehorn meaning in where it doesn't exist. As an aside re: the whole "luck" thing: In philosophy, there exists a school of thought called "Luck Egalitarianism" that deals with exactly this question: is "luck" fair? Simply put, there are two types of luck: uncontrollable luck and controllable luck. Uncontrollable luck inequality is inherently unfair: being born with one arm, being born into a wealthy familiy, growing up to be tall, etc. You personally have no control over these lucky events, but they nonetheless have a profound impact in your successes or failures. But CONTROLLABLE luck inequality: winning a lottery or game of chance falls into this (basically all aspects of PoE), is itself inherently JUST and FAIR because everyone has the option to engage equally in the potential source of that luck. Assuming no other barriers exist (such as the cost of purchasing a lottery ticket, etc.). Since no such barriers exist within the playing of PoE in The Gauntlet, all luck events are inherently just and fair, and ought not be corrected for. Starting anew....with PoE 2 Last edited by cowmoo275#3095 on Aug 27, 2025, 6:56:34 PM
|
|
" yeah i'm no linguist but partial truth is a lie by omission. now again really not enjoying getting into gradients, because then we will end up dissecting perception. also i'm not trying to deceive you and my repetitions are attempts at rephrasing what i wrote initially because i feel i am not making it clear. also not a philosopher (shocking i know), but probabilities don't work in terms of 'controllable or not' but lets run with your lottery scenario if we assume PoE has a high degree of randomness than we have to abandon the concept its a pure competition and it will have a non-negligible lottery part to it. in that regard i can see how a lottery can be fair if it offers the same odds for all participants. however it stops being fair if some participants know more about odds. then we can get into how they got to know about those odds. its clear if someone simply told them the odds in secret- unfair. but what about counting cards? its experience, lil math, fair game, right? what about a gpu rack at a bingo hall? hmmm not so much huh? point is what if, hypothetically (not accusing anyone here) they could afford to somehow simulate the outcome frequency due to having more resources? would that still make this activity fair? because if you got enough resources eventually you wont be playing a random game- you will be able to predict any game of chance very accurately no matter how 'fair' it is (pretty sure our overlords are working on that as i type this) |
|
