The Dr. 6 Secret Paladin deck makes me saltier than pretty much any deck in the history of Hearthstone (OK, the original Miracle Rogue probably made me saltier).
But is it ethically defensible to rope Secret Paladins? No. Do I rope Secret Paladins? No.
If you can't play nicely with other people, you shouldn't play multiplayer games. End of story.
It's poor sportsmanship to waste someone's time when you have agreed to play a game together. Imagine if you were in the same room, if you were playing some other card game or board game, would you still do it? Would you rope a stranger but not a friend? How rude would it be if you just got up and walked around the room doing something else while it was your turn in a board game? I would say that even pushing the play button and going to the toilet while the game loads and wasting 20 seconds of your mulligan is a violation of the social contract that you and your opponent are there to play a game.
I notice you've used a bunch of weasel words so you can divorce yourself from the comments you're putting forward as fact (e.g. "that many believe imposes a cost (frustration, loss of enjoyment) on the rest of the Hearthstone community"). Playing a strong deck is the smart thing to do, as soon as you say that you refuse to use a certain style of deck, or play a particular card for reasons other than related to gameplay, i.e. subjective judgements on whether a card is "unfair", "OP", "cheap", "cheesy", etc., you are a SCRUB. There are plenty of good reasons to not play secret paladin, especially given how big a target it has painted on its back, and how the mirror-match is a coin flip, you don't need to go around belittling the players who play it to feel good about yourself.
Is it a question of "ethics"? Probably not, using bots or cheating is clear-cut morally reprehensible, but using within game tools to mess with people is not any different from bluffing in terms of trying to get an advantage. There's a subset of players who'll use emotes to either bluff or cause an opponent to tilt out or make bad decisions and they work to get good at those skills and apply them well. I remember getting owned by a magic player who turned up at draft night and was whining about his hand and draws all game, but was really baiting me into over-committing because he had a board clear. Did he cheat for lying in a friendly atmosphere? Was the tactic underhand? Or was I a muppet for not being prepared for someone using every tool at their disposal to win. While it's not obvious that this is a part of the game as it would be with a game with betrayal as part of it like BSG or Mafia/Werewolf, it's still there for those who want to try it (at the risk of giving away more information if an opponent sees through you or gets a read on you).
So, if you are trying to boost your win rate by roping them, you're welcome to try, but I don't think that most people would care or play much worse, even assuming they're not alt-tabbed or browsing on another screen. If anything, a good player would thank you for all that extra time you're giving them to plan out future turns.
Ultimately though, if you're roping them when you've already lost or already won, or just on principle because you don't like their deck, then you're wasting an equal amount of your own time, which is surely more valuable then that of one of a million random chumps on the internet.
It's poor sportsmanship to waste someone's time when you have agreed to play a game together. Imagine if you were in the same room, if you were playing some other card game or board game, would you still do it? Would you rope a stranger but not a friend? How rude would it be if you just got up and walked around the room doing something else while it was your turn in a board game? I would say that even pushing the play button and going to the toilet while the game loads and wasting 20 seconds of your mulligan is a violation of the social contract that you and your opponent are there to play a game.
I notice you've used a bunch of weasel words so you can divorce yourself from the comments you're putting forward as fact (e.g. "that many believe imposes a cost (frustration, loss of enjoyment) on the rest of the Hearthstone community"). Playing a strong deck is the smart thing to do, as soon as you say that you refuse to use a certain style of deck, or play a particular card for reasons other than related to gameplay, i.e. subjective judgements on whether a card is "unfair", "OP", "cheap", "cheesy", etc., you are a SCRUB. There are plenty of good reasons to not play secret paladin, especially given how big a target it has painted on its back, and how the mirror-match is a coin flip, you don't need to go around belittling the players who play it to feel good about yourself.
Is it a question of "ethics"? Probably not, using bots or cheating is clear-cut morally reprehensible, but using within game tools to mess with people is not any different from bluffing in terms of trying to get an advantage. There's a subset of players who'll use emotes to either bluff or cause an opponent to tilt out or make bad decisions and they work to get good at those skills and apply them well. I remember getting owned by a magic player who turned up at draft night and was whining about his hand and draws all game, but was really baiting me into over-committing because he had a board clear. Did he cheat for lying in a friendly atmosphere? Was the tactic underhand? Or was I a muppet for not being prepared for someone using every tool at their disposal to win. While it's not obvious that this is a part of the game as it would be with a game with betrayal as part of it like BSG or Mafia/Werewolf, it's still there for those who want to try it (at the risk of giving away more information if an opponent sees through you or gets a read on you).
So, if you are trying to boost your win rate by roping them, you're welcome to try, but I don't think that most people would care or play much worse, even assuming they're not alt-tabbed or browsing on another screen. If anything, a good player would thank you for all that extra time you're giving them to plan out future turns.
Ultimately though, if you're roping them when you've already lost or already won, or just on principle because you don't like their deck, then you're wasting an equal amount of your own time, which is surely more valuable then that of one of a million random chumps on the internet.
I don't see how qualifying a statement in attempt to avoid having this turn into a discussion about whether or not a particular deck is 'overpowered' in order to allow for a discussion about how and why people react when playing against that deck qualifies as using weasel words. Is it not in fact the case that many people have expressed frustration about Secret Paladin (or Undertaker Hunter etc)? Does having any small bit of consideration for the enjoyment of other players while making your deck selections mean that you are a scrub? You seem to want to read an intention into my original statement simply isn't there.
It's PVP and the game lets you do it, so 'ethics' doesn't exist anywhere except on a third party message board. I usually 'rope' these paladins, not because I detest the deck or try to be an ass, but because I need time to consider my move, think about what secrets it may be, and gain the advantage. It isn't a coincidence that top-tier players tend to rope most turns - to the novice there is the board and a few cards in the hand. More experienced players know that far more needs to be considered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Whether it is ethically defensible depends on a few things, the first being what you consider ethical, and second being the efficacy of roping. For example, if you were a utilitarian, you would need to consider a few things:
Does the happiness I gain/lose by roping plus the potential happiness the community gains by having fewer Secret Paladins outweigh the negative happiness that the other person will experience by you roping? Perhaps you can do some calculations for yourself and decide.
In the end though, I think that doing what brings you the most joy is the best way to handle the situation. Ultimately you can't control the actions of others and in this case you have almost no influence whatsoever regarding the situation. I personally would not rope because it's boring as hell to me. I think a far more effective way of dealing with the problem would be building a deck that specifically counters them. If it is as you say, and they are rational agents acting independently of the good of the whole, then what better what to change their actions then to make them in accordance with the good of the whole. In this case, a rational agent who finds that Secret Paladin is no longer winning him games will stop using the deck. Animal behavior has a way of evolving in such a way that the good of the individual is aligned with the good of the whole, at least in general and at least when the environment has not changed too much. Unfortunately Hearthstone does not obey this rule, so it's up to you to create that alignment.
I don't believe in right and wrong and I think that you can do whatever you want in this case. Rope away if it makes you happy, though I would argue it's not good for the collective and that's what you seem to be concerned about. Much more effective is to de-incentivise doing things that are bad for the system and that you don't like.
Thanks for what is, in my opinion, the best reply yet. And I'm totally not just saying that because I happen to be in agreement with just about every point you made. ;-) I think that one of the reasons that we see so much negativity in Hearthstone related discussions is precisely because there is no effective way to "de-incentivise doing things that are bad for the system and that you don't like." Roping and BMing certainly don't fit the bill, but I suspect that a good portion of this sort of behavior represent futile attempts at creating disincentives.
It's PVP and the game lets you do it, so 'ethics' doesn't exist anywhere except on a third party message board. I usually 'rope' these paladins, not because I detest the deck or try to be an ass, but because I need time to consider my move, think about what secrets it may be, and gain the advantage. It isn't a coincidence that top-tier players tend to rope most turns - to the novice there is the board and a few cards in the hand. More experienced players know that far more needs to be considered.
I tend to overthink (or think to an appropriate level) as well. It doesn't really have any bearing on the topic at hand, but I do find it mildly amusing when I legitimately use up all my time thinking and inadvertently set off a rope war. If only there was an emote for 'I'm not trying to mess with you. I really just need to consider my options.' Thanks for the response.
Personally i don't have anything against ropers. Everyone deals with defeat and victory the differently. They can rope when they lose, wank when they win, eat fries dipped in shit when they are unhappy, fornicate with an iguana when they get BM'ed, i don't really care.
The thing that i find funny is (no, not fornicating with an iguana) how some people say that they are "teaching their opponents a lesson by roping". Dude, you just wasted unnecessary time on a game, no one is going to be like "Oh people always rope me when i play Secretdin, maybe i should play another deck".
It's fun to watch tv and troll the low ranks. Ladder is boring enough so why not play crazy decks and make the other guy waste their time. I've nothing to win or lose but it's fun to think of the little rager on the other side just throwing fits. You know they do and I think it's funny. I don't rope for any other reason. When I'm watchng tv sorry I'm not really paying attention anyway. Personally I wish they would limit plays to 20-25 seconds. Let's face it, this isn't bran surgery and until blizzard changes it I guess you can blame them. If someone is wasting your time concede and move on. The last time I checked this game does not penalize losses and never will so who gives a shit anyway.
This was the best thread I've read for a while, thanks OP and consequently others. I like to peruse more than comment, and I was interested to hear about the specific rage roping induces (good material for my 2016 bming meta). I don't think I have said it verbatim yet but bming is a huge contributor in my fun for this game--whatever you reading this may feel about that is fine, take a second to consider though how much i will care what reprimand you have, given the former--plus winning is just tops. Playing a flustered opponent is a substantive advantage, whether you play to win to the fullest is a matter of choice, I just so happen to enjoy it as well. If that happens to be a secret pally, neat, but it's just another deck that happens to be well formatted for the meta and why be upset about facing a deck you know every card to and how it's played? Basically a free win unless you get unlucky or they are just better than you.
Edit: To the post above me, there happens to a button labeled "ranked play" right next to the casual one; leaving most of your consensus mute. And with regards to 25 seconds, it is not brain surgery, yet good plays take time as well. I encourage you to watch any of the following: Strifecro, Kolento, Justsaiyan, Lifecoach, or Dog (strong bias to my preference obviously, but all highly skilled nonetheless)
It's really really funny to counter-rope people. If you take all your sweet time to click the fucking end-turn button without playing anything on turn 1, you'll bet I fucking burn that rope too. So far, the longest anyone could stand a roping mirror was turn 3. Wussies.
What I really don't get is roping when you know you lost. Dude, hit concede, get on with your life. I don't give a fuck and you just extend the pain.
It's fun to watch tv and troll the low ranks. Ladder is boring enough so why not play crazy decks and make the other guy waste their time. I've nothing to win or lose but it's fun to think of the little rager on the other side just throwing fits. You know they do and I think it's funny. I don't rope for any other reason. When I'm watchng tv sorry I'm not really paying attention anyway. Personally I wish they would limit plays to 20-25 seconds. Let's face it, this isn't bran surgery and until blizzard changes it I guess you can blame them. If someone is wasting your time concede and move on. The last time I checked this game does not penalize losses and never will so who gives a shit anyway.
Very few things are as complicated as bran surgery. ;-)
I enjoy the sweet taste when my opponent finally realizes he/she has been completely defeated and the only thing he/she can do is to rope me, postponing the inevitable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
One thing i think is interesting in this thread is that nobody brought up the point of what ethics are. They seem to be talked about here as a sure scale as to what is good and what is bad. And as much as ethics want to be that, until we can agree on a standard they are not. Lets look at Roping Secret Pallys under just a few different ethical systems and see which under which it is ok.
First we will look at Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. Super simplified version to suit this scenario boils down to if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action. So here we would need to ask"Is it ever not ok to rope someone?" I assume most of us would say there are places where roping is wrong, so it is wrong to do that no matter the situation.
In Ann Rand's ethical egotism of course it is ok to rope secret pallys. As this systems denotes ethics to be entirely dependent on what is the best for you in both the long and short term. If the benefit of making this wait is worth the cost of waiting and any mental anguish making them wait causes you, then it is ok. But in the end if it isn't worth it to you, then it is not ethical.
In Mill's Utilitarianism things get a little harder. Like ethical egotism we are dealing with happiness. Unlike ethical egotism it is bringing the greatest amount of net happiness. Often misused, but essentially the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. While impossible to calculate i will make the assumption that the loss of the Pally's happiness is offset by the amount of happiness you gain. So it comes down to how the rest of the community's happiness is influenced by your roping the Pally. Again this is a generalization, but from looking at the responses in the thread it would appear they seem to gain less happiness by roping the Pally then by not roping. So very tentatively Utilitarianism seems to say roping the Pally is not morally sound.
Care ethics is similar to ethical egotism because it is relative. But rather than happiness for just you, it is happiness for everyone. But unlike Utilitarianism the weight of everyone is not equal. Those closest to you are weighed more. So if you and your friend group are ok with it, it outweighs the more people on hearthpwn who seem to be against it. And if you and your friend group are not ok with it, then it is not ok.
There are a lot more ethical systems out there, and the ones i talked about were overly simplified. But the very nature of the question is it ethical to rope secret Pally's is a very loose question. Just at the quick look I did it would never be ok in deontological ethics and utilitarianism, but could go either way in ethical egotism and care ethics. So to answer the question in the topic of this thread, yes it is ethically defensible to rope a secret Pally, it just depends on how you define ethics.
This was the best thread I've read for a while, thanks OP and consequently others. I like to peruse more than comment, and I was interested to hear about the specific rage roping induces (good material for my 2016 bming meta). I don't think I have said it verbatim yet but bming is a huge contributor in my fun for this game--whatever you reading this may feel about that is fine, take a second to consider though how much i will care what reprimand you have, given the former--plus winning is just tops. Playing a flustered opponent is a substantive advantage, whether you play to win to the fullest is a matter of choice, I just so happen to enjoy it as well. If that happens to be a secret pally, neat, but it's just another deck that happens to be well formatted for the meta and why be upset about facing a deck you know every card to and how it's played? Basically a free win unless you get unlucky or they are just better than you.
Edit: To the post above me, there happens to a button labeled "ranked play" right next to the casual one; leaving most of your consensus mute. And with regards to 25 seconds, it is not brain surgery, yet good plays take time as well. I encourage you to watch any of the following: Strifecro, Kolento, Justsaiyan, Lifecoach, or Dog (strong bias to my preference obviously, but all highly skilled nonetheless)
If you manage to revolutionize the 2016 BM meta, I hope you will give me and the other participants in this discussion some credit. I always try to give thanks to Lifecoach whenever I curse someone out with German phrases I picked up on his stream. ;-)
One thing i think is interesting in this thread is that nobody brought up the point of what ethics are. They seem to be talked about here as a sure scale as to what is good and what is bad. And as much as ethics want to be that, until we can agree on a standard they are not. Lets look at Roping Secret Pallys under just a few different ethical systems and see which under which it is ok.
First we will look at Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. Super simplified version to suit this scenario boils down to if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action. So here we would need to ask"Is it ever not ok to rope someone?" I assume most of us would say there are places where roping is wrong, so it is wrong to do that no matter the situation.
In Ann Rand's ethical egotism of course it is ok to rope secret pallys. As this systems denotes ethics to be entirely dependent on what is the best for you in both the long and short term. If the benefit of making this wait is worth the cost of waiting and any mental anguish making them wait causes you, then it is ok. But in the end if it isn't worth it to you, then it is not ethical.
In Mill's Utilitarianism things get a little harder. Like ethical egotism we are dealing with happiness. Unlike ethical egotism it is bringing the greatest amount of net happiness. Often misused, but essentially the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. While impossible to calculate i will make the assumption that the loss of the Pally's happiness is offset by the amount of happiness you gain. So it comes down to how the rest of the community's happiness is influenced by your roping the Pally. Again this is a generalization, but from looking at the responses in the thread it would appear they seem to gain less happiness by roping the Pally then by not roping. So very tentatively Utilitarianism seems to say roping the Pally is not morally sound.
Care ethics is similar to ethical egotism because it is relative. But rather than happiness for just you, it is happiness for everyone. But unlike Utilitarianism the weight of everyone is not equal. Those closest to you are weighed more. So if you and your friend group are ok with it, it outweighs the more people on hearthpwn who seem to be against it. And if you and your friend group are not ok with it, then it is not ok.
There are a lot more ethical systems out there, and the ones i talked about were overly simplified. But the very nature of the question is it ethical to rope secret Pally's is a very loose question. Just at the quick look I did it would never be ok in deontological ethics and utilitarianism, but could go either way in ethical egotism and care ethics. So to answer the question in the topic of this thread, yes it is ethically defensible to rope a secret Pally, it just depends on how you define ethics.
I would very much like to thank you for responding in the spirit of the original post. Allow me to run through the ethical systems that you present in reverse order.
Care ethics--Bonus points for being familiar with Carol Gilligan. It's rare to find someone that is familiar with an actual feminist's theories on a gaming related site. Usually, sputtering rage over the comments of Anita Sarkeesian is the closest we can expect.
Utilitarianism--Not much to see here. I think you are basically correct in your, admittedly simplified, assessment.
Ayn Rand's Ethical Egoism-- I'll admit to some bias here. I just don't like Rand enough to want to weigh in on this one. I really don't see much in the way of ethics in her approach.
Deontological Ethics-- this is the one area where I think that your simplification goes awry. Boiling Kant's categorical imperative down to mean that "if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action" begs the question. Are we meant to use some other ethical system to determine whether a given action is wrong in itself? The first formulation of the categorical imperative is to "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." The important part, that most people seem to miss, is the bit about contradiction. Since I've written a lot on this thread already, I'll be a bit lazy and allow Wikipedia to make the point about contradiction. "According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A: 'It is permissible to steal' would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of property, but were A universalized, then there could be no property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself. " If we were to consider stealing wrong because it hurt the person whose property was stolen and then universalized that judgment, we would be left with a particularly rigid form of Utilitarianism.
If I were to try to analyze the questions posed in my original post from a deontological perspective, I think I would start with the second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." It is arguable that choosing to play Secret Paladin might represent a very mild failure to avoid treating your opponent as a merely a means to an end. Of course, this is also an extremely simplified analysis of the situation. I would need to do a lot more mental work to figure out where a proper Kantian would stand on the issue.
I don't see how qualifying a statement in attempt to avoid having this turn into a discussion about whether or not a particular deck is 'overpowered' in order to allow for a discussion about how and why people react when playing against that deck qualifies as using weasel words. Is it not in fact the case that many people have expressed frustration about Secret Paladin (or Undertaker Hunter etc)? Does having any small bit of consideration for the enjoyment of other players while making your deck selections mean that you are a scrub? You seem to want to read an intention into my original statement simply isn't there.
It's a minor point in how you put forward your original post, but you might as well come out and say that "I think other players are having a bad time." If not it makes you sound like one of those people. People complain about losing to specific decks all the time, but most of the time this is because they have trouble coming to terms with the fact that the every game has a winner and a loser.
Yes, considering the other player's feelings makes you a scrub because you're no longer playing the game, you're trying to be popular amongst imaginary friends. When I play with my real life friends I play fun decks because they don't have full collections and we're playing to have a laugh. When you play casual, you're playing against people doing quests and testing out random stuff, sure you can frown at netdeckers here because they might as well take their skills to ranked, but you can always concede with no consequence if you don't want to play them. When you play ranked, you play the gauntlet, and if your precious snowflake is worse than secret paladin, then it deserves to get beaten into the ground down to rank 20.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Dr. 6 Secret Paladin deck makes me saltier than pretty much any deck in the history of Hearthstone (OK, the original Miracle Rogue probably made me saltier).
But is it ethically defensible to rope Secret Paladins? No. Do I rope Secret Paladins? No.
If you can't play nicely with other people, you shouldn't play multiplayer games. End of story.
1. No
2. No, im not 12
3. No
It's poor sportsmanship to waste someone's time when you have agreed to play a game together. Imagine if you were in the same room, if you were playing some other card game or board game, would you still do it? Would you rope a stranger but not a friend? How rude would it be if you just got up and walked around the room doing something else while it was your turn in a board game?
I would say that even pushing the play button and going to the toilet while the game loads and wasting 20 seconds of your mulligan is a violation of the social contract that you and your opponent are there to play a game.
I notice you've used a bunch of weasel words so you can divorce yourself from the comments you're putting forward as fact (e.g. "that many believe imposes a cost (frustration, loss of enjoyment) on the rest of the Hearthstone community"). Playing a strong deck is the smart thing to do, as soon as you say that you refuse to use a certain style of deck, or play a particular card for reasons other than related to gameplay, i.e. subjective judgements on whether a card is "unfair", "OP", "cheap", "cheesy", etc., you are a SCRUB. There are plenty of good reasons to not play secret paladin, especially given how big a target it has painted on its back, and how the mirror-match is a coin flip, you don't need to go around belittling the players who play it to feel good about yourself.
Is it a question of "ethics"? Probably not, using bots or cheating is clear-cut morally reprehensible, but using within game tools to mess with people is not any different from bluffing in terms of trying to get an advantage. There's a subset of players who'll use emotes to either bluff or cause an opponent to tilt out or make bad decisions and they work to get good at those skills and apply them well. I remember getting owned by a magic player who turned up at draft night and was whining about his hand and draws all game, but was really baiting me into over-committing because he had a board clear. Did he cheat for lying in a friendly atmosphere? Was the tactic underhand? Or was I a muppet for not being prepared for someone using every tool at their disposal to win. While it's not obvious that this is a part of the game as it would be with a game with betrayal as part of it like BSG or Mafia/Werewolf, it's still there for those who want to try it (at the risk of giving away more information if an opponent sees through you or gets a read on you).
So, if you are trying to boost your win rate by roping them, you're welcome to try, but I don't think that most people would care or play much worse, even assuming they're not alt-tabbed or browsing on another screen. If anything, a good player would thank you for all that extra time you're giving them to plan out future turns.
Ultimately though, if you're roping them when you've already lost or already won, or just on principle because you don't like their deck, then you're wasting an equal amount of your own time, which is surely more valuable then that of one of a million random chumps on the internet.
It's PVP and the game lets you do it, so 'ethics' doesn't exist anywhere except on a third party message board. I usually 'rope' these paladins, not because I detest the deck or try to be an ass, but because I need time to consider my move, think about what secrets it may be, and gain the advantage. It isn't a coincidence that top-tier players tend to rope most turns - to the novice there is the board and a few cards in the hand. More experienced players know that far more needs to be considered.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Personally i don't have anything against ropers. Everyone deals with defeat and victory the differently. They can rope when they lose, wank when they win, eat fries dipped in shit when they are unhappy, fornicate with an iguana when they get BM'ed, i don't really care.
The thing that i find funny is (no, not fornicating with an iguana) how some people say that they are "teaching their opponents a lesson by roping". Dude, you just wasted unnecessary time on a game, no one is going to be like "Oh people always rope me when i play Secretdin, maybe i should play another deck".
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
It's fun to watch tv and troll the low ranks. Ladder is boring enough so why not play crazy decks and make the other guy waste their time. I've nothing to win or lose but it's fun to think of the little rager on the other side just throwing fits. You know they do and I think it's funny. I don't rope for any other reason. When I'm watchng tv sorry I'm not really paying attention anyway. Personally I wish they would limit plays to 20-25 seconds. Let's face it, this isn't bran surgery and until blizzard changes it I guess you can blame them. If someone is wasting your time concede and move on. The last time I checked this game does not penalize losses and never will so who gives a shit anyway.
This was the best thread I've read for a while, thanks OP and consequently others. I like to peruse more than comment, and I was interested to hear about the specific rage roping induces (good material for my 2016 bming meta). I don't think I have said it verbatim yet but bming is a huge contributor in my fun for this game--whatever you reading this may feel about that is fine, take a second to consider though how much i will care what reprimand you have, given the former--plus winning is just tops. Playing a flustered opponent is a substantive advantage, whether you play to win to the fullest is a matter of choice, I just so happen to enjoy it as well. If that happens to be a secret pally, neat, but it's just another deck that happens to be well formatted for the meta and why be upset about facing a deck you know every card to and how it's played? Basically a free win unless you get unlucky or they are just better than you.
Edit: To the post above me, there happens to a button labeled "ranked play" right next to the casual one; leaving most of your consensus mute. And with regards to 25 seconds, it is not brain surgery, yet good plays take time as well. I encourage you to watch any of the following: Strifecro, Kolento, Justsaiyan, Lifecoach, or Dog (strong bias to my preference obviously, but all highly skilled nonetheless)
10/10 BM
It's really really funny to counter-rope people. If you take all your sweet time to click the fucking end-turn button without playing anything on turn 1, you'll bet I fucking burn that rope too. So far, the longest anyone could stand a roping mirror was turn 3. Wussies.
What I really don't get is roping when you know you lost. Dude, hit concede, get on with your life. I don't give a fuck and you just extend the pain.
group-therapy-need-to-blow-off-steam-mega-salty
You need this, really.
RNG love me Kappa
I enjoy the sweet taste when my opponent finally realizes he/she has been completely defeated and the only thing he/she can do is to rope me, postponing the inevitable.
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
One thing i think is interesting in this thread is that nobody brought up the point of what ethics are. They seem to be talked about here as a sure scale as to what is good and what is bad. And as much as ethics want to be that, until we can agree on a standard they are not. Lets look at Roping Secret Pallys under just a few different ethical systems and see which under which it is ok.
First we will look at Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics. Super simplified version to suit this scenario boils down to if an action is ever wrong in itself you cannot do the action. So here we would need to ask"Is it ever not ok to rope someone?" I assume most of us would say there are places where roping is wrong, so it is wrong to do that no matter the situation.
In Ann Rand's ethical egotism of course it is ok to rope secret pallys. As this systems denotes ethics to be entirely dependent on what is the best for you in both the long and short term. If the benefit of making this wait is worth the cost of waiting and any mental anguish making them wait causes you, then it is ok. But in the end if it isn't worth it to you, then it is not ethical.
In Mill's Utilitarianism things get a little harder. Like ethical egotism we are dealing with happiness. Unlike ethical egotism it is bringing the greatest amount of net happiness. Often misused, but essentially the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. While impossible to calculate i will make the assumption that the loss of the Pally's happiness is offset by the amount of happiness you gain. So it comes down to how the rest of the community's happiness is influenced by your roping the Pally. Again this is a generalization, but from looking at the responses in the thread it would appear they seem to gain less happiness by roping the Pally then by not roping. So very tentatively Utilitarianism seems to say roping the Pally is not morally sound.
Care ethics is similar to ethical egotism because it is relative. But rather than happiness for just you, it is happiness for everyone. But unlike Utilitarianism the weight of everyone is not equal. Those closest to you are weighed more. So if you and your friend group are ok with it, it outweighs the more people on hearthpwn who seem to be against it. And if you and your friend group are not ok with it, then it is not ok.
There are a lot more ethical systems out there, and the ones i talked about were overly simplified. But the very nature of the question is it ethical to rope secret Pally's is a very loose question. Just at the quick look I did it would never be ok in deontological ethics and utilitarianism, but could go either way in ethical egotism and care ethics. So to answer the question in the topic of this thread, yes it is ethically defensible to rope a secret Pally, it just depends on how you define ethics.
My friend plays secret pally. He's awesome. Just started hearthstone this month. Rank 5
sorry meant December