Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8153678" data-attributes="member: 6696971">The problem with your assessment is two-fold:1)  You're assuming two things that I have no idea how you can have any confidence in:a)  The lever (or "make-up call") will consistently be pushed in the opposite direction to balance out (see below) the initial lever pull in the opposite direction.  This is a massive assumption that I don't see how its warranted in sport or TTRPGing.b)  You're assuming that whoever is pulling the lever (or just by dumb luck) can quantitatively assess the 1st order impacts and downstream impacts of pulling the lever in EXTREMELY complex systems.  This is not just a massive assumption that I don't see how its warranted.  Its a virtual impossibility.  Any "lever-pulling" isn't even going to measure up to "back of the envelope" maths.  Its going to be nonsense.  Even getting 1st order impacts correct is going to be an enormous outlier, let alone 2nd and 3rd order impacts.Take a look at my example above with the 1:1 count.  Umpire screws up a 1:1 call and it ends up costing one Starting Pitcher 40 extra pitches + 4 runs + their confidence (trust me...this is a HUGE thing...I was a Starting Pitcher at an extremely high level through the entirety of my career through College) + the bullpen having to be deployed early (which means matchups can't be dictated later and the bullpen will be exhausted for subsequent games).  Lets just say that Umpire actually realizes they screwed that call up and they're thinking "ya know...I need to make up for this call."  So they put into action their "make up call" later in the game when its mostly decided and in a hugely low leverage situation (let's say its 6-1, bottom of the 8th, no runners on, 2 outs).Is that a "make-up call?"2)  You're evaluating agency based on this "theory of gamestate equilibration via make-up calls and/or Force in opposite direction" (see (1) above for why I disagree that this could even be a thing) rather than evaluating agency based on "who is pulling the levers and the potency of said lever pulling!"  I mean, by what you're modeling out above (assuming gamestate equilibration is somehow reliably and magically reached...which it can't), you're explicitly saying that the propenderance of agency in a Force-laden game resides with the GM (which it obviously does) because they're capable of yo-yo-ing the gamestate back and forth via strategic applications of Force in order to assure a nice curve fit of the play prescription![HR][/HR]I'm reading these things Lanefan and I'm staggered to think that you believe that you're making a case here for the preponderance of agency for the gamestate's formulation being under the players' purview!  How!</blockquote>

Verification