Re: [Bug-gnubg] Recent RGB posting on "Change Dice" Option

[Jim Segrave]

On Wed 04 Dec 2002 (13:40 +0100), ?ystein Johansen wrote:
> >===== Original Message From "Ian Dunstan" <address@hidden> =====
> > Re: PROGRAMMING IDEA INSTEAD OF MANUAL DICE
> > My idea is to not have one dice text file but several, perhaps 5 or
> > more, files which store (say) 1000 rolls each in them. A paranoid user
> > can simply toggle between the 5 pre-determined dice text files anytime
> > he wants to, as he sees fit.
> 
> I'm speaking for myself, and I'm sure I won't waste my time on implementing
> this. Not that I don't think it will work or I think it is a bad idea, (I
> really think it is a good idea), but it won't stop the complaining.
> 
> Once I though that a open source backgammon project couldn't be accused for
> cheating with the dice. Now I know better.
> 
> Here's my opinion: As long as the as there are computer bots there will be
> complaining about the dice. These complains comes from beginners and novice
> players. Have you ever heard Neil Kazaross or Kit Woolsey complain about
> cheating dice in the bots?
> 
> If we make another method for generating dice, be sure there will be another
> idiot to still claim that gnubg cheats. This is the race between bot
> developers stiving to make better idiot-proof dice generating algorithms, and
> the Universe trying to produce bigger idiots. So far, the Universe is
> winnning.

Agree wholeheartedly. It's not a bad scheme, but it's no better nor
worse than using manual dice if you are really silly enough to believe
that bots cheat. The black helicoptor loons will never go away and
attempting to discuss this with them is simply wasting time and
energy. Even inserting yet another way of generating rolls is bowing
to their idiocy. The only idea I saw in rgb was the suggestion to add
a real cheating toggle, to show how things would work if bots did
cheat. That has a certain sick amusement value.

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden