[Rule Change Proposal] Play Beyblade Not Loophole Abuse.

In Jakarta, I have limited the stalling clause time to 2 minutes for quite some time. It doesn't really make a whole lot changes except for 1-2 players who seems to always like to stall the round just to figure out what combo his opponent uses. Even they in the end have to obey the new rule & now they are used to the 2 minutes stalling clause.

Quite a few players would cheat just to win a tournament. In my experience, that happened before in Jakarta. They used the fake out or blatantly lied about the bey they wanted to use. So, at some point I asked all the players to give the bey they wanted to use to the judges before the match & the judge will put both beyblades on the stadium before the round.

Now in Jakarta, the event is much more competitive because we really have to use our knowledge & skill to win.
As I've said, the main advantage comes from putting your opponent off/annoying them, and that is why it is used. Most effective form would be when they need a good launch to win, as frustration can really screw that up, speaking from experience.

I'm afraid I'm not totally sure what your second paragraph intends to say, so I can't really reply to that if it needs one, haha. I'm pretty tired atm, so it's almost certainly my fault rather than yours.

wpardin: wow, that's basically a pre-existing test case! Thankyou! So, there are no problems with the two minute limit, or at least people adjusted to it quickly (which I think our four minute maximum would do easily)? What about new bladers, were there any, if so how did they adapt to the time limit (though I know most new bladers only tend to have a couple of tops to choose from anyway, haha). Personally, it doesn't surprise me, but it's great to have actual "field testing" show it isn't too long.
The tops chosen for use, are they chosen double-blind or can deception be used beforehand still, and more importantly, does it occur at all still? Just want to see if this is just a test-case for one of these rules, or pretty much emulates the whole thing as it seems to roughly do, which would be absolutely brilliant haha.
I made myself a little task; to make a MSF-H Wyvang Dragooon BD145 RDF and for it to be locked onto a Beylauncher-L within two minutes. Conditions: MSF-H was assembled to a random bey, Wyvang was assembled to another random bey, Dragooon was assembled to another random bey, BD145 was assembled to another random bey and RDF was assembled to another random bey. My launcher grip had a Beylauncher-R in it and my Beylauncher-L was in my 'bey box' sealed with the other random beys. I also had to put all the parts that i disassembled back in the box so none could get lost (If i were at a tournament). That took me 1 min and 19 seconds. Now imagine it in tournament conditions, with all the pressure from the tournament and deciding what bey to use in the first place etc. I know that situation would very rarely come up in a tournament however it is a possibility. So i would say ATLEAST 2 minutes? However, in my opinion 1 minute/and a half, is no where near enough time if you're in that situation in a tournament.
(May. 29, 2013  12:39 PM)Kai-V Wrote: What really bothers me and that I think is the actual moral issue here is when the Stalling Clause has not been invoked yet, and that, when asked by the judge, a Blader says they are attached, but actually are not and they wait for their opponent to turn around with their Beyblade selection really attached. If you say you are attached or that you nod when asked if attached, that should be it, it should be a magical sentence that you cannot lie about. It did seem to hurt the one or two Bladers I saw this happen to during BEYBLADE REVOLUTION.

The problem here is the judge asking "Are you attached?" when Stalling Clause has not been invoked. Under the current rules, they have no right to ask this directly to one Blader, as it puts the other Blader who is still waiting to attach at an unfair advantage. And the same can actually be said when Stalling Clause has actually been invoked: a judge should not be announcing that one Blader is ready, because that can give the opponent an indication of what the other Blader is using. If they took only 10 seconds to decide, it's pretty obvious that they are using a previously established combo, for example. The judge should only confirm with both Bladers privately, and then begin the match once they are both ready.

I do agree that Bladers should not lie to judges, but the judges themselves should not be interfering with the selection process unless Stalling Clause has been invoked. If it has not been invoked yet, it is up to the Bladers themselves to show that they are ready to begin. The only thing a judge should be asking in that situation is "Ready?" as a general question to both competitors. Asking if they are "attached" is irrelevant because it should be kept in mind that one Blader may be attempting to deceive the other. The Blader who is attempting to deceive may be "ready", but he won't necessarily be "attached".

wpardin Wrote:In Jakarta, I have limited the stalling clause time to 2 minutes for quite some time.

wpardin Wrote:So, at some point I asked all the players to give the bey they wanted to use to the judges before the match & the judge will put both beyblades on the stadium before the round.

Did you consult with the Committee regarding these changes? Were Bladers made aware that these changes were not official? I understand the motivation behind the modifications, but you can't change the rules unless we approve it. Bladers can unofficially agree to abide by these changes, but if there is anyone who doesn't want to, he or she has that right to refuse, as they are not official rules.
All the participants adjusted quickly. It only took 2 tournaments & there were no more complains about the time limit.

As for deception in pronouncing what they want to use, it is still doable. You can not forbid them from that kind of practice but you can prevent them from changing beyblade before the match because they have to give the combo they want to use to the judge before the match.

Kei: uwik also know the problems I faced as a host before. At that time, I really need to take some measures if I still want to have a healthy tournament. Before I made the changes, I explained to all the participants about the changes & the importance that it has to be obeyed. Now we have a better tournament's environment & they don't need to give their bey to the judge before the match because i trust them that they will not cheat to win the tournament.
(May. 29, 2013  5:15 PM)BeyHyperK!LLeR Wrote: I made myself a little task; to make a MSF-H Wyvang Dragooon BD145 RDF and for it to be locked onto a Beylauncher-L within two minutes. Conditions: MSF-H was assembled to a random bey, Wyvang was assembled to another random bey, Dragooon was assembled to another random bey, BD145 was assembled to another random bey and RDF was assembled to another random bey. My launcher grip had a Beylauncher-R in it and my Beylauncher-L was in my 'bey box' sealed with the other random beys. That took me 1 min and 19 seconds. Now imagine it in tournament conditions, with all the pressure from the tournament and deciding what bey to use in the first place etc. I know that situation would very rarely come up in a tournament however it is a possibility. So i would say ATLEAST 2 minutes? However, in my opinion 1 minute/and a half, is no where near enough time if you're in that situation in a tournament.

That's quite the unlikely situation, but fair enough, two minutes minimum if required is acceptable in my books - but that is the upper limit for me, at least, for what it's worth - 40 seconds on top of all you described is plenty, and any blader that gets themselves into that situation and doesn't rectify it before the round is kinda asking for it anyway to be blunt. Based of wpardin's post, people will adapt to it quickly anyway. And remember, I've had, what, one setup go on maybe that long, when my opponent was assembling a beyblade from other people's parts in the finals, and was changing his mind etc. Given a time limit, it just wouldn't have happened like that in the first place - time would've been saved, etc etc.

wpardin: Basically sounds like a pretty decent test case, and it certainly doesn't seem to have done Jakarta any harm, so that is excellent! Thankyou! I feel bad given Kei's post, but personally, you have my sincerest thanks for providing a test case showing that this is workable/not problematic, and I personally feel it should make what I see as steps in the right direction (these rule changes) much easier. Thankyou. Smile

Kei: Mmm, that thought crossed my mind too, though I was kinda distracted I guess. Honestly, checking whether participants are ready to go without inadvertently disadvantaging one of those participants is a problem with the current system. Funnily enough, making double blind standard would solve it entirely, at least in this instance. Still, outside of it, it raises an interesting, if likely much less common conundrum of judges asking questions that disadvantage one player. Personally we do have 'criteria' for who can judge a match, and I think "knowing not to ask questions like that" should be part of it. I might write something up about this. Honestly, we could look at a whole page about being a good judge at some point, methinks, but yeah, I will give it some thought myself, haha.
Well, adding to my previous post-
If users, A and B are going to battle, and they decide on stalking clause, and if I'm great friends with B, I could go near A while the stalking clause is going on, and tell B, what A is going to use.
I did that before, just for fun, knowing there was nothing wrong in that.
So yeah, for stalling clause, the two bladers should be given utmost privacy to decide themselves, and do a stalling clause instead of a stalking clause.

This is one of the things that happened between Ashton(or was it someone else?) and me, during our match-
- Both decide to do stalling clause.
- Both shows our backs to each other
- I make my selection, put the bey in the launcher. So does Ashton
- I push my launcher(attached to the bey), away from me, and I say, "I have made my decision".
- Ashton follows suit.
- Time over
- Other beys aside
- We turn around
- Take the launcher
- Battle
Pretty neat system in my opinion

THIS THREAD IS ON FIRE I MUST SAY....!!!!!!
COMPLETE TEXT OVERFLOW....!!!!!!!!!!!
(May. 29, 2013  5:26 PM)th!nk Wrote: That's quite the unlikely situation, but fair enough, two minutes minimum if required is acceptable in my books - but that is the upper limit for me, at least, for what it's worth - 40 seconds on top of all you described is plenty, and any blader that gets themselves into that situation and doesn't rectify it before the round is kinda asking for it anyway to be blunt. Based of wpardin's post, people will adapt to it quickly anyway. And remember, I've had, what, one setup go on maybe that long, when my opponent was assembling a beyblade from other people's parts in the finals, and was changing his mind etc. Given a time limit, it just wouldn't have happened like that in the first place - time would've been saved, etc etc.
Come to think of it, i think 2 minutes should be fine for everyone. However i would maybe suggest this rule; every blader gets 2 minutes to assemble there bey and be locked on, however if they do take over 2 minutes to be locked on they get an extra minute to be locked on and a warning, if they are still not locked on it is an automatic loss for the match and if they do use the extra minute they can only use it once per tourney. So if they do take over 2 minutes again in another match that tournament then it is an automatic lose for that match. Just a suggestion. Maybe it could be introduced for just the first two or three months as it may be hard work to keep up with who has already used there minute.

(May. 29, 2013  5:26 PM)zeneo Wrote: Well, adding to my previous post-
If users, A and B are going to battle, and they decide on stalking clause, and if I'm great friends with B, I could go near A while the stalking clause is going on, and tell B, what A is going to use.
I did that before, just for fun, knowing there was nothing wrong in that.
So yeah, for stalling clause, the two bladers should be given utmost privacy to decide themselves, and do a stalling clause instead of a stalking clause.
Imo, there is a lot wrong with that. Not only is it poor sportsmanship, i believe it is cheating as well. Imagine you was Blader A and you lost that match, how would you feel?
I think Zeneo knows now that it was not the right thing to do, haha.

The way I see it, the rule would be this, but in clearer language:
After the first blader declares their choice made, the other blader has one minute to choose their beyblade and launcher and be ready for battle, unless the total selection time is under two minutes, or over four.

I think it can be worded a lot more clearly than that, and I'll do so tomorrow, I'm ready to go to sleep now, haha.

Also, there was one other thing I forgot to mention which pertains to dual spin shooters, though given Variares and Gravity Perseus don't see much use anymore, it's not a huge deal aside from the sadly-rarely-used HMS format, and that is that spin direction choice is almost as big a deal as combo choice, and deception, while a little harder, can still be employed.
For this, I would suggest double blind launcher attachment with a much, much shorter timeframe. Just both turn around quickly and insert the ripcord, perhaps it would get kinda annoying for HMS tournaments but it's still pretty simple. Wouldn't need to be as strict about it as with beyblade selection unless it became a problem to the same extent, and I think our few HMS hosts can probably nip that in the bud themselves if we set a precedent in the rules that that kind of thing is wrong.
Sorry, didn't 100% get the rule. So if the first blader is locked on, the other blader has to be locked on within one minute after? As long as the first blader is locked on within 1 to 2 minutes? Because otherwise the first blader could abuse the rule and lock on within 5 seconds and then his/her opponent only has 1 min and 5 seconds to lock on. Therefore if it is between 1 and 2 minutes then the second blader to lock on has at least 2 minutes to lock on no matter what. So if the 1st blader locked on at 1 min 55 secs, then the second blader would have 2 mins 55 secs to lock on? And if neither blader is locked on within 2 minutes, they both have 1 extra minute to lock on or an automatic loss. Is that close to or what your saying?
Interesting. For a while now we've had double blind in the UK so I have no idea of how a fake out would really work. However yes in the finals people taking forever to pick is a problem as the judge and everyone watching gets bored waiting for like 4 - 5 minutes sometimes for the plastics to pick. I don't think there's any malicious element in it however it's just the pressure in the finals and if this match decides where you place then you're gonna think a lot harder about what to pick.
If the first blader locks on under 1 minute, then the second has two minutes from the start of selection, two minutes total.
If the first blader takes over two minutes, but under or equal to 3 minutes, the second blader has a minute from the time they lock on to lock on themselves.
If the first blader takes over 3 minutes, the second blade has until 4 minutes from the start of selection to make up their mind. Both could choose at the last second though doing this offers no advantage aside from annoying spectators/judges lol.

I will find a good way to word and explain this, I promise. I am really happy with it, I think it's a very good compromise that has a successful pre-existing test case to support that it is not too strict, so I'd like to see it implemented Tongue_out

Ultra: It does work, which is why it is quite popular, Janstarblast gave an example of it working himself earlier in the thread, and mentioned it is commonplace in India. As for plastics, I still don't think it's too short, people will adapt anyway, they take that time because they have that long. Of course, in the highly unlikely event it does cause difficulty in plastics, it would not be hard to include an extra line on short notice to bump up the minimum by a minute. Wouldn't be a change I'd bother making if people weren't abusing it, and we're not really disadvantaging anyone.
Slightly clearer. However i take it you made a mistake here?; 'If the first blader takes over two minutes, but under or equal to 3 minutes, the first blade has a minute from the time they lock on to lock on themselves' Do you mean the second blader has a minute after the 1st blader to lock on? The rest i get perfectly. I also believe that this is very fair, however it will be slightly harder on the judges behalf rather than just simply giving one time for both bladers and both having to be locked on by that time. Again, it could also be slightly confusing for younger members. I'm just trying to see it from everyone's behalf.

Don't get me wrong, i 100% agree with this rule. And i believe everyone else should do as well. However, judging tourneys myself, i understand how stressful it can get and this would just make Judges jobs a lot harder than just giving one time for both bladers and that be it.

My overall/easiest decision on this would be for one time limit. Those time limits being 2 mins, 2 mins 30 secs or 3 mins.
I had hoped to reply this morning (12 hours ago), not to have to skim through the whole thread. Since most appear to agree with your first point (to which I disagree) without adding much anything new, and most of the discussion is centered around the second point (to which I agree), it seems I will not have to. So, I will focus on your first post, or at least, what I felt relevant to the point at hand, and I will keep it (relatively) short.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote:
Wikipedia's Cheating Article Wrote:Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote: The quote from Wikipedia's Cheating Article at the top of this post is particularly poignant when you consider that we openly call this deception – a synonym for dishonesty. In almost every other mainstream competitive game or sport, weakening your opponent is considered cheating. Football teams don't hire people to break the opposing striker's leg before matches, chess players don't slip their opponents strong laxatives before matches, and so on. Heck, seeing a coach in the Australian Football League play down a victory in the post-match press conference because the opposition were without their three best players due to injury is a thing that happens. Sure, some boxers will play mind games before fights (though they are generally considered bad sports for doing so), but they don't bribe someone to slip their opponents sedatives before the fight - mind games do not present them with an Auto-Win situation even if they work about as well as they can. And then there's us, openly discussing and boasting about how we made sure we didn't have to rely on skill or thorough understanding of opponent or either our or their beyblades so that we could beat them at competitive children's spinning tops. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think this is how it should be.

This is sabotage, not deception. Deception is not physical in nature, it is not done forcibly: It is a bait that your opponent leaves or takes of his own accord; it is not beaten down his throat.

What you seem to forget is that every sport you cite employ a form of deception. It's called a feint.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right; the football player pretends to make an aerial play, but goes for ground; the boxer will pretend to hit right, but will actually hit left: I will show you a Defense-type, I will go with an Attack-type. By your definition, your point, I am cheating: by our combined definitions, everyone is cheating.

And sports are played on an arguably leveled playing field, same number of players, same equipment (mostly), Beyblade is not. People are allowed to play no matter the number of Beyblades they have, the competitiveness of their parts. Beyblade is a game of rock-paper-scissors, itself a game of deception (you call rock, so I believe you will not use rock, but you use rock anyway, etc.), with a more complex underlying mechanic, someone with very little "rock" and much "paper" can call "scissors" while going "paper," hoping that his opponent goes with "rock."

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote: In context, fooling your opponent into using a combination you can predict/counter undermines their ability, unlike getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability. We're here to see who is best at tops, not who is best at making their opponent suck at tops.

They can do the same to you, not everyone can, being predictable is a fantastic way to lose (Kai-V laid out all her customizations at Crusade 2; she didn’t get very far), those techniques are only relevant to what you will pull, regardless of whether you use deception or not. All you will see is who is luckiest in his match-ups. You will not make people more adaptable to a situation because it is luck-induced rather than deception-induced.

Do not forget that deception goes both ways, and that unlike other forms of cheating, its success relies as much on you as your opponent. There is little that can be done against sabotage, save preventing it; deception is as much a game as a tool.

You say "learning what your opponent will likely use through observation." Thus, you claim that there is guessing involved. So, what if a player with an affinity for Stamina-types battles you? You choose an Attack-type, even though you prefer Defense-types. You break pattern to counter his Stamina-type, while he does not, because he figured his pattern can beat your pattern, meaning that you, unwittingly perhaps, deceived him. And that's the problem, permanent Double Blind will only incorporate a system where the one with the most parts, and therefore the one who can break pattern the most, win. Deception encourages making more with less. There are battles and match-ups you cannot win, no matter how much skill and BeySpirit you pour into it.

Alternatively, if you can bring valid tests that formally proves that I can reliably use my uncostumized Earth Aquila to knock out a Synchrom Defense-type through the skill and power of my launch, I will withdraw any objections without questions.
I just wanted to give my opinion on some of this.

I support the "Double Blind" automatic set up I think its just beneficial because in MD its commonly people staring at each other to see when they will turn around and in about 1 minute the judge calls the clause if the Bladers don't already then they stall for actually quite a while it would definatly speed up tournaments if this was automatic and decrease the deception in use which is a pretty minimal factor in MD from my experiences but hit two birds with one stone anyways right?


Now on to the shortening of the stalling clause's 4 minutes I somewhat disagree but I do understand that 4 minutes per a match of stalling can be big, at a max value with around 1 stadium assuming everyone stalls which will honestly not happen but this is suppose to somewhat demenstrate the extreme of it and my horrible sentence structure that 5 matches could take up to 20 minutes or more assuming the stalling clause isn't called quickly which is why "Double Blind" I think is a great idea. However cutting stalling to 1 minute I think is too little. From my personal experience it does take me a while to assemble my beys I commonly bring double the beys I plan to use and I don't have a nice case of any kind really and I am consistently customizing my beys while stalling because of so many factors the battle could have: Like, what I am led to believe of their beys in their collection, what they have used before, counters, surprising variables, etc...


I think this could be fairly lowered to 3 minutes though but I disagree with it being lowered to 1 minute entirely. However I do find that cutting the time is a nice idea, when 1 Blader ends up holding the battle for 4 minutes that is a bit strenuous so if it gets put to 2 minutes or 1 and a half minutes then it would definatly speed up the tournament.

I believe the lying to a judge rule to simply be self-evident and it would be nice to have something in the rules to provide for that I suppose.

I have a kinda issue to discuss though:
People Cheating by Squealing
kinda ridiculous titling for me but I'm bad with those things. By Squealing I mean going to 1 player then telling the other player what they are using, quite clearly this is cheating and I have never seen someone do it but people do sometimes threaten to attempt it or similar things and it is quite literally IMO cheating to give out the custom, I'm not sure what can be done to help this but I do hate that this can be done and I wanted to mention this.

So thats my opinion that I wanted to state for some reason.

EDIT: I was posting the same time as Nocto but he finished first apparently and I agree with his view of Deception VS Sabotage I didn't mention it because of my bad wording I would proably make it seem like something else.
(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote:
Play Beyblade Not Loophole Abuse - A Rule Change Proposal

Note: Cliff Notes Version in spoiler at bottom of post for the lazy.

Wikipedia's Cheating Article Wrote:Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means.

I was going to write an opinion piece/rant about people employing unsportsmanlike tactics to win at children's spinning tops, but someone I spoke to while drafting that pointed out that rule changes would have a lot more impact than my moaning, and somehow it was only then I realised that the main problems I'm aware of of - Fake-Outs and Timewasting, can actually be addressed pretty easily with rule changes – and fairly simple ones that have precedents, at that!
Rule changes won't directly address the root of the problem – that's a 'cultural' thing, but they can set a strong precedent about what we consider "right" and "being a jerk", and as I said, they're a lot more effective than my grumbling. So, here we go:

Why This Needs To Happen
The reason deception tactics (in particular, fake-outs) are unfair is because they aim to weaken the opponent rather than strengthen oneself – it undermines the opponents ability, as opposed to things such as getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability without affecting the opponent.

The quote from Wikipedia's Cheating Article at the top of this post is particularly poignant when you consider that we openly call this deception – a synonym for dishonesty. In almost every other mainstream competitive game or sport, weakening your opponent is considered cheating. Football teams don't hire people to break the opposing striker's leg before matches, chess players don't slip their opponents strong laxatives before matches, and so on. Heck, seeing a coach in the Australian Football League play down a victory in the post-match press conference because the opposition were without their three best players due to injury is a thing that happens. Sure, some boxers will play mind games before fights (though they are generally considered bad sports for doing so), but they don't bribe someone to slip their opponents sedatives before the fight - mind games do not present them with an Auto-Win situation even if they work about as well as they can. And then there's us, openly discussing and boasting about how we made sure we didn't have to rely on skill or thorough understanding of opponent or either our or their beyblades so that we could beat them at competitive children's spinning tops. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think this is how it should be.

Furthermore, it reflects badly on the WBO as a sanctioning body (our primary purpose), to parents, new tournament attendees, sponsors, and distributors. I dislike excessively intrusive parents as much as the next guy, but is it really any wonder that they complain when an older teen/young adult/actual adult fools their kid into using the wrong combination rather than playing them at full strength, just to win a game of tops? Especially when you consider the intimidation factor they already have to their advantage.
One of the primary reasons the World Beyblade Organization began was because Hasbro does not allow anyone over the age of 14 to compete in their tournaments, and I ask you, are we really making a good case against that?

Perhaps this opinion that deception tactics are not fair clashes with tradition, but that tradition began when the community was small and nowhere near as varied as it is today. Now, we actually get sponsorship from and communicate with distributors, and it's time to shape up to the standards set by other competitive games/sports. So please, can we all agree to play tops rather than "make other people suck at tops"?


Commonly Exploited Loopholes and How To Close Them

1. Fake-outs.
If you are wondering why I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed, you should probably read my extended rant here, but the core of it comes from Wikipedia's Cheating article:
"Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means."
In context, fooling your opponent into using a combination you can predict/counter undermines their ability, unlike getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability. We're here to see who is best at tops, not who is best at making their opponent suck at tops.

It also tends to really annoy parents when older bladers do it to kids, and upset kids too. That's not good for our image, to bladers, parents, potential sponsors, and almost certainly the distributors themselves.

Solution: This has been proposed before, but I don't think there was an appropriate rebuttal of WHY Fake-outs/deception need to be removed. Now I've done that, here's the suggestion again: Double Blind all the time.

-Both players turn around, facing away from each other, and select and attach their beyblades and launchers, and tell the judge when they are ready. Once BOTH players have signalled they are ready, they then turn around and begin the match.

-Judges should be on the lookout for bladers who purposely fail to conceal things– if it is obvious they are doing it to gain an advantage (primarily if they show one top/launcher and then use something else etc), in the first instance during a tournament a verbal warning should be issued and selection restarted, if a blader does it again, then it should be an automatic loss for that match – after the verbal warning, bladers will be careful to avoid doing it again anyway. And yes, this apparently does occur and thus needs to be addressed.

- To minimise fake-outs before the selection period begins, both bladers should arrive at the stadium for their match with their beyblades and launchers concealed, be it in a suitably opaque bag, container, etc. It would be good if hosts bought a few spare opaque bags for attendees who mightn't notice this rule, but most people seem to bring bags with them anyway. This could be mildly inconvenient, but as this will be the most convenient/obvious fake-out method remaining if/when double-blind-all-the-time is implemented, we need to be proactive about it, and this is the simplest solution I can come up with.

- Keep in mind that 'punishments' are only to be enforced where a blader displays one combo and then uses something else. If for some reason they want to show their opponent their actual combo, that's their strange, strange choice. They should still be recommended not to, however, as a lot of people will feel uneasy about that kind of advantage. If it happens, for a few months these rules are implemented, I think hosts should strongly discourage this to prevent any second-guessing shenanigans, but there's no real need to make a rule for that unless it becomes a serious problem.

- To be practical, I feel the time limit on selection needs to be reduced as four minutes is a very long time, but more on that in my other recommendation.

2. Wasting time to annoy opponents.
2a: In Stalling Clause/Double Blind Picking:
-We currently allow a whole 4 minutes for Beyblade assembly once stalling clause is caused.
-The most complicated Beyblade parts swap I could think of, swapping the casings between two plastics zombies with SP-equipped bases and dual bearings for extra fiddliness took my shaky hands a whole 1:35 – and 30 seconds of that was one of the sets of casings getting stuck together and my fingernails being too short to pry them apart – which is something the extremely small number of people who would have to do this at a tournament have a responsibility to prepare for, honestly.
-So, 4 minutes is far too long, and people are abusing this to annoy their opponents. This was brought up at AN this year, so I think it needs addressing.

Solution: Reduce the length to 1 minute 30 (or 1 minute for HMS/MFB, 2 minutes for Plastics, perhaps?)

-Before anyone objects that this is too short, I suggest simulating having to select/assemble a Beyblade for a tournament. Unless you have taken a bag full of hundreds of miscellaneous parts (which is your own fault), you won't take a whole minute to find parts and assemble a Beyblade – and most people tend to have combos pre-assembled.

2b: Wasting time getting to the stadium.
I wish I could say this was just a proactive measure to prevent an alternative to the above, but I've heard of this happening a few times. The rules don't lay out a timeframe for getting to the stadium for a beybattle, and this is exploitable. However, as complications can occur, we need to allow for them.

Solution: 1 minute limit, with reshoot-clause-styled exceptions for emergencies.

- 1 minute is plenty of time to be called for a match and get to the stadium, especially as it is the responsibility of participants to know when their next match is. Judges should ensure bladers are made aware that they are due for a match. I just yell really loud (especially because I'm bad with remembering names/faces). It's generally considered a blader's responsibility to know when they're due for a match (I have another proposal that will make this easier, but it's complicated/requires a bit of work on my part and a lot of discussion, so I'll save it for another day and thread).


-Exceptions can be made in the case of 'emergencies', and that is things that are actually a problem: important phone calls, temporary incapacitation (minor injuries), unexpectedly extended toilet breaks etc, which should be limited to two times per tournament. The odds of emergencies happening when you're due for a match twice in a single tournament are pretty much zero (as in, this could probably be limited to once per tournament and still be fair, but two is a lot more palatable). While this involves the judge's discretion, it limits it just like the reshoot clause. When an extension is granted, the next match should occur instead, and the person granted the extension should be at the stadium when that match is completed. Perhaps a minimum extension limit should be put in place in case the matchup ends up being attack vs stamina with no self-KO's, 5 minutes should be plenty IMO (which would make it "by the end of the next match or 5 minutes, whichever is longer).

-For clarification, matches should be reported in the order they actually occurred, not the order they were supposed to occur.



That's it, for now anyway – there is at least one more proposal I intend to post, but that both requires a lot more work on my part before it is due for posting, and is mainly something that needs to be discussed with hosts, so that'll go in organizer's circle.

I think I've made a strong case for why this needs to happen, for both the game and the WBO, as well as outlined practical, precedent-based solutions, but I'd love to hear from hosts, attendees, and parents on their thoughts on this, any concerns, issues, or general feedback is greatly appreciated. I will say that I do feel very strongly that rule-abuse strategies are tantamount to cheating, so I'm sorry if I'm somewhat dismissive of counter-arguments that may be raised, but I'll do my best. Smile

Also, if you feel there are any other loopholes that are commonly abused under the guise of 'tactics', feel free to post them and any possible solutions you can think of, though I would ask that we remain focussed on the suggestions in this OP (which may be updated if I feel it is necessary/can be bothered).

One final note: I would request that if you disagree about deception etc being wrong, that you first check whether you use these tactics at tournaments, and if so, perhaps consider that you might not be entirely objective about this, but either way, at least state that you do in your response.
Me? I've got nothing to gain/lose either way given I don't like competition much anyway, main bias is being excessively idealistic and perhaps not taking competitive beyblade seriously enough, but I think mainstream sports set a strong precedent there for what is considered "being competitive" and what is considered "being a cheat" anyway.


Cliff Notes Version: (Click to View)
I think this is great, just IMO, have the time to the double blind clause to 2 minutes for all beyblade series'. And if I ever host a tournament or go to one, i'll make sure to let them borrow parts and give them good combos form there parts. Smile
(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: This is sabotage, not deception. Deception is not physical in nature, it is not done forcibly: It is a bait that your opponent leaves or takes of his own accord; it is not beaten down his throat.

What you seem to forget is that every sport you cite employ a form of deception. It's called a feint.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right; the football player pretends to make an aerial play, but goes for ground; the boxer will pretend to hit right, but will actually hit left: I will show you a Defense-type, I will go with an Attack-type. By your definition, your point, I am cheating: by our combined definitions, everyone is cheating.

And sports are played on an arguably leveled playing field, same number of players, same equipment (mostly), Beyblade is not. People are allowed to play no matter the number of Beyblades they have, the competitiveness of their parts. Beyblade is a game of rock-paper-scissors, itself a game of deception (you call rock, so I believe you will not use rock, but you use rock anyway, etc.), with a more complex underlying mechanic, someone with very little "rock" and much "paper" can call "scissors" while going "paper," hoping that his opponent goes with "rock."

Point one: Deception, when successful, breaks the actual game.
A single successful feint does not end an entire match in most sports, it takes multiple successful plays to win because the other player still has a chance to make a comeback afterwards, whereas a lot of the time with deception tactics, it becomes an auto-loss for the decieved. Deception also takes place before a match starts, not during the match, like a feint. A feint lacks an actual analogy in beyblade because we don't have control during the match, IMO. Perhaps there's something with launching, but we're getting away from the point. Even if the analogy is correct as it may be, my point is that it's far too 'powerful' in beyblade if it succeeds, and I think this explains the feelings of guilt Zeneo described - it's basically game over.

Quote:Do not forget that deception goes both ways, and that unlike other forms of cheating, its success relies as much on you as your opponent. There is little that can be done against sabotage, save preventing it; deception is as much a game as a tool.

And that game is not spinning tops, is what I've been saying. If you "win" deception in the way it seems to pan out most of the time, the tops battle becomes irrelevant. While perhaps the same could be said of knowledge, that at least derives from knowing the game, your opponent, your parts, their parts, deception requires very little that actually relates to tops - he who can lie the best and has a basic knowledge of attack beats stamina beats defense beats attack and what is good enough to do the above (which is well publicised on these forums) wins.
Also, like most sabotage, nothing can be done if it succeeds (though things can be done to prevent both - trying to ignore it/setting up better security) - deception represents two parties trying to sabotage each other at best. Successful deception basically ends the match there most of the time, or may as well. Matches between major players seem to just be decided on who can gain the upper hand through deception and mind games a lot of the time - a lot of our best players use them to gain an advantage, and I don't think that's right, it's just not part of tops.

Quote:You say "learning what your opponent will likely use through observation." Thus, you claim that there is guessing involved. So, what if a player with an affinity for Stamina-types battles you? You choose an Attack-type, even though you prefer Defense-types. You break pattern to counter his Stamina-type, while he does not, because he figured his pattern can beat your pattern, meaning that you, unwittingly perhaps, deceived him. And that's the problem, permanent Double Blind will only incorporate a system where the one with the most parts, and therefore the one who can break pattern the most, win. Deception encourages making more with less. There are battles and match-ups you cannot win, no matter how much skill and BeySpirit you pour into it.
And he can predict I will do this by knowing I am flexible in my typings, switch to defense, and I'm wrecked.

Point 2: Deception is more likely to be used by people with a parts advantage, and is much less practical without good part access.

The fact is the system is already very parts-focussed but let's be honest, does deception really favour those with few parts as it is? The people who seem to benefit from it most are still those with more, they're still the people who place. See, the thing is the people who learn to deceive well (and I won't lie, it's a learnt skill, but it ain't a tops skill) are the people who care enough about winning at tops to learn to deceive and are willing to deceive to win at tops. These sorts of people, generally, are the people who have good part access, and those that don't have good part access in the first place will struggle to put together enough decent combinations to use deception in the first place. Instead, what happens is people who already have both a parts and mental advantage end up doing it against kids, parents complain, the WBO looks bad. It doesn't work as it is, and ends up doing a lot more damage because it's easier to abuse with better parts.

But yes, there is some value in it because players who are mentally capable of deceiving well but who don't have a large budget for tops do have an improved chance of winning. However, deception just isn't nearly as successful if you don't have enough good parts to make the opponent believe you AND good enough parts to beat what you trick them into using (whereas if you already have good part access, both become a lot easier), and in addition to this, a large number of the people who use it - if they are somehow not the majority, they are a highly-publicised minority - use it when they already have a significant advantage over their opponents. Usually this is a significant age and thus intimidation advantage (and usually a mental and, for whatever it affects, a physical one, and generally, for the reason described in the previous paragraph, better part access than most of their region), and that reflects very, very poorly on the WBO, as I described in the opening post.
Even if it is to be considered a legitimate tactic, then we still have, at best, a case of some poor sports who use it against people they really shouldn't need to (i.e. young kids), who are ruining it for others - as we can't build "who you can and can't use deception against" into the rules, but I still do not think, due to how devastating it often ends up being to the deceive-ee's chances of winning, it is a legitimate tactic akin to a simple feint where the opponent may recover. It's a skill unrelated to actual tops - both knowledge and technique require research of and practice with tops, whereas deception only requires some very basic knowledge and the right cookie-cutter combos, and to win when successfully deceived requires an incredible amount of skill AND luck - it basically doesn't happen.

Lastly, as shown by wpardin's test case, and as I privately suspected, removing deception - a method which aims to make the matchup predictable - places greater emphasis on combo innovation and skill, because being able to beat a wide range of things becomes that much more important - good players have to build in versatility at the expense of complete certainty against a single type to win reliably, and people who innovate well become that much better. A lot of people get really bored when a metagame becomes repetitive, and by removing ways for people to reduce it down to rock-paper-scissors (without going so far as reducing things to blind chance), we will fuel a much more varied, interesting metagame. Combo research/building is one of the key parts of the beyblade hobby, and we already have a test case showing this helps it a lot. I think we can all agree that that is a good thing, no? This is, of course, on top of other benefits provided by double blind picking, given how many questions and dramas arrive over things that push the rules too far (see: brooklyn's battalion where deikailo put left launcher prongs in basalt (don't actually see the thread that was embarrassing)). A whole arms race over who can lie most convincingly by showing certain people certain things and judges others and so on has basically developed, when people should be focussing on making better combos and practising harder to win tops through skill at and knowledge of tops, not skill at spotting gaps in the rules they can exploit - and the vast majority of these gaps can be plugged by double blind picking.

BillyBlast: Yeah squealing comes under 'dude not cool', and the rules should cover it. Not sure how it could be enforced without being abusable or heavy-handed, though.

@BHK: I've edited my post now, I was tired. As I said, I'm working on making it simple to do/explain, just needs some thought IMO, but it would be interested in seeing what Kai-V thinks of a flat 2 minute maximum based on what wpardin said - IMO it's a solid test-case, at least for everything except plastics (and probably even then IMO).
(May. 29, 2013  5:17 PM)Kei Wrote: The problem here is the judge asking "Are you attached?" when Stalling Clause has not been invoked. Under the current rules, they have no right to ask this directly to one Blader, as it puts the other Blader who is still waiting to attach at an unfair advantage. And the same can actually be said when Stalling Clause has actually been invoked: a judge should not be announcing that one Blader is ready, because that can give the opponent an indication of what the other Blader is using. If they took only 10 seconds to decide, it's pretty obvious that they are using a previously established combo, for example. The judge should only confirm with both Bladers privately, and then begin the match once they are both ready.

I do agree that Bladers should not lie to judges, but the judges themselves should not be interfering with the selection process unless Stalling Clause has been invoked. If it has not been invoked yet, it is up to the Bladers themselves to show that they are ready to begin. The only thing a judge should be asking in that situation is "Ready?" as a general question to both competitors. Asking if they are "attached" is irrelevant because it should be kept in mind that one Blader may be attempting to deceive the other. The Blader who is attempting to deceive may be "ready", but he won't necessarily be "attached".

No, you do not understand. The situation I specifically mentioned was where an experienced Blader was just sitting there with his hand hiding his Beyblade close to his launcher, doing nothing. After a few seconds, I asked him if he was attached/ready, and he essentially nodded. The other Blader had turned around to make his Beyblade selection, so overall there seemed to be no reason to invoke the Stalling Clause. That second player resumed his position toward the BeyStadium, and then the first one made his selection ... This would of course all be resolved with a double-blind standard.

In the case of a Stalling Clause, telling the other Blader if the first one is finished is just a way of telling them to hurry up. Technically, whatever issue you think this creates will not really be helped with the solution everyone seems to prefer now, which is to give only one or two minutes more to the second player once the first has selected their Beyblade and launcher.


(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: They can do the same to you, not everyone can, being predictable is a fantastic way to lose (Kai-V laid out all her customizations at Crusade 2; she didn’t get very far), those techniques are only relevant to what you will pull, regardless of whether you use deception or not.

Eh, what ? Excuse me, but I won my first match against Blitz, then I super luckily had to face him again right after so I would of course not use the same combination (but he did think I would use the same Meteo customization, which is why he chose Gravity Perseus), and then I just lost my third battle because that is my general record/weak launch or whatever. When did I lay out all of my combinations exactly ?
Kai-V: Just out of curiosity, does what wpardin posted (an example of a two minute time limit being equitable for all players in his area), change your thoughts at all? I'm still perfectly happy with the compromise I've discussed but a flat two minutes would be simpler, and most (in particular, that test case) seem to agree that this is probably plenty of time - and I think we can all agree it's not too long to wait for a match, either. Just curious as I'm going to get started updating the OP in a little, haha.

EDIT: Also, any thoughts on how a rule against spying/squealing by friends could be enforced? It does seem quite common, but the only solution I can think of that is fair to both competing players (as redoing selection still leaves the squeal-ee at a disadvantage) only works in RR (the squealer loses their match against the person they squeal on), so I'm not sure what could be done that wouldn't be too heavy handed.
How would double blind work if both bladers use a random combo ex. I use a def. custom vs. someone else using a stam. combo. Of course The def. combo is going to lose because its made to counter attack combos. If the judge allows the use of a combo proposal: i say i'll use an attack combo and the opponent will use a defensive combo, so... if the attack combo is better it will KO but if the defense custom is better it won't KO. Thos doesn't fix the problem of cheating, but there has to be a better way, like just as simple as using opaque carrying cases. Maybe if the judges take a list of combos used by the blader that they have to use throughout the tournament unless after a match they can inform the judges of a combo change after a match, but they wouldn't know who they would be up against so they can't change their combos if they don't know who there up against and theu won't be able to change it in between matches. I'm just thinking out loud here so... it may be a good solution it may not.
(May. 30, 2013  5:47 AM)Kyler_the best Wrote: How would double blind work if both bladers use a random combo ex. I use a def. custom vs. someone else using a stam. combo. Of course The def. combo is going to lose because its made to counter attack combos. If the judge allows the use of a combo proposal: i say i'll use an attack combo and the opponent will use a defensive combo, so... if the attack combo is better it will KO but if the defense custom is better it won't KO. Thos doesn't fix the problem of cheating, but there has to be a better way, like just as simple as using opaque carrying cases. Maybe if the judges take a list of combos used by the blader that they have to use throughout the tournament unless after a match they can inform the judges of a combo change after a match, but they wouldn't know who they would be up against so they can't change their combos if they don't know who there up against and theu won't be able to change it in between matches. I'm just thinking out loud here so... it may be a good solution it may not.

I'm, uh, not quite sure what you're getting at, but selection isn't random. When bladers select combinations for a match, they generally (or at least, they should) consider what their opponent is likely to use - information garnered by watching them play/what they use in the tournament and knowing if they're prone to switching it up to fool opponents and so on (rather than by trying to make them use something you can easily beat by lying to them so they do that). Also in your example, the defense combination may be able to beat the stamina combination with suitably aggressive launching. Like attack combos generally still having a chance against defense and stamina combos having a chance that the attacker self KO's/is launched badly/just hits the stamina combo into walls through sheer bad luck etc - and there are also sometimes ways to launch to mess up the attacker's movement patterns, though only a few bladers manage to pull this off through anything but blind luck. While beyblade is basically rock-paper-scissors, at least at the higher tiers it's rock paper scissors with a 'dice roll' favouring rock vs scissors, scissors vs paper, and paper vs rock (and that dice roll generally also depends on how good the roller is at getting the right numbers on dice). In addition to that, we have combination types and so on mixing things up even more - most games where there are 'types' are inevitably comparable to rock-paper-scissors, but like most successful ones, beyblade has a lot of extra variables.
So much for making it a simple analogy, but I hope this helps, somehow.


EDIT: I've updated the times in the OP to two minutes and included a link to wpardin's post. There are certain things I want responses on before I do a big update, so that will wait. The edits should help in the meantime as I've noticed a lot of people posting their disagreement of my likely too strict initial time limit proposals. The way I see it, the more varied rule we laid out is currently the most popular from participants points, but I would like people to consider wpardin's posts, i.e. that two minutes has been plenty after he implemented it in his area.
I'm also writing up some other rule proposals (stuff not related to unfair advantages, or that only belongs in Organizer's Circle etc) as well as some HMS stuff at the moment, so there's that too, haha.
Ah well, Beyblade being a more complex version of Rock-Paper-Scissors is exactly what makes people with amazing prediction skills rule the tournament.
Its not that they are cheating by using a Type-Advantage against you; its just that they put in a lot more thought in their selection- and that is skill.

Until now, deception was considered a skill too. I mean, deceiving your opponent into using something he/she shouldn't be, establishes one as an amazing manipulator (or the other as an easily-manipulated jerk). Playing with someone else's mind is "totally cool" in theory, and something that people love to see in practice. One cannot deny though, that it is morally wrong.
There are two ways to win: Win by enhancing your abilities, or weaken your opponent.
The first way is truly commendable. That kind of a win is a lot more satisfying than the latter (as seen in zeneo's "guilt", which seems funny when I recall the celebration that followed after his victory XD).
Plus, if you win with your own strength, even your opponent appreciates it. If you act cheeky, then your opponent is usually upset.
So yeah, you shouldn't be expecting too many people opposing your rule change (and supporting deception), th!nk.

After reading Nocto's post though, I did sway a bit towards supporting deception "feinting" again.
I mean, the way he put it, what we call "deception" is actually "feint".
However, deception (more precisely, fake-outs) is about setting up decoys for your opponent, and then striking when he's distracted. Its like when a player falls down while playing soccer, pretending to have been injured, but then suddenly charges down the field (completely fine) and scores a goal. You don't see that happen, because that is wrong.
Using the same example with reference to Beyblade, is the situation wherein you show your opponent a weak combo, and return with an extremely strong one- thus catching him unawares.

Feint, in reference to your "The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right" example, is much fairer and is actually a way to enhance one's skill. In context of Beyblade, a Feint would be launching a Defense combo aggressively. This scenario, would be considered a feint. You use your own skill to strengthen something which would otherwise be weak and predictable.

As for the discussion I had with Zancrow earlier, I found his idea illogical if the time limit was reduced to "1-2 minute(s) maximum". However, now I get what he meant, haha! Grin

I agree to whatever th!nk and Zancrow said about the ease with which a MFB can be assembled within 20 seconds max. I also acknowledged the point that one actually gets more time for selection than the stipulated time-limit as their are always breaks between consecutive battles(of a certain player).
However, reducing it way too much isn't justified. 2 minutes is just perfect, IMO.

Oh, as for the "Squealing" thingy, yeah that is totally wrong. It makes Stalling Clause useless.
However, at a recent tournament I attended, there were several newbies seeking help for combos before making a double-blind selection. Yes, we should advice people to do their home work (on beys) before attending a tournament, but what if there is still some inexperienced player asking for help?
Total privacy for either blader (during Stalling Clause) is perfect, but I suggest that newbies get some sort of an assistant to help them. Maybe the host himself could help the newbie. Or else some other knowledgeable blader (who is sitting idle, and is not expected to have an upcoming match in the next 2 minutes) should be made to help...
(May. 30, 2013  5:08 AM)Kai-V Wrote: Eh, what ? Excuse me, but I won my first match against Blitz, then I super luckily had to face him again right after so I would of course not use the same combination (but he did think I would use the same Meteo customization, which is why he chose Gravity Perseus), and then I just lost my third battle because that is my general record/weak launch or whatever. When did I lay out all of my combinations exactly ?

You did not show your Meteo, but Death [Attack] Quetzalcoatl BD145__, Phantom Orion TH170, VariAres R145RF, as I remember it, were laid out on the Committee’s table sometime after the registration, I believe while you were talking to Spinster. The only match of yours I saw, you used Death Quetzalcoatl. From this, I deduced a likely cause of your early defeat; I was not, at any point, trying to persecute, bash, or mock you.


Truly, your post has tripled in size since I went to sleep, th!nk, but I guess I expected that.

(May. 30, 2013  3:23 AM)th!nk Wrote:
(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: This is sabotage, not deception. Deception is not physical in nature, it is not done forcibly: It is a bait that your opponent leaves or takes of his own accord; it is not beaten down his throat.

What you seem to forget is that every sport you cite employ a form of deception. It's called a feint.

[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right; the football player pretends to make an aerial play, but goes for ground; the boxer will pretend to hit right, but will actually hit left: I will show you a Defense-type, I will go with an Attack-type. By your definition, your point, I am cheating: by our combined definitions, everyone is cheating.

And sports are played on an arguably leveled playing field, same number of players, same equipment (mostly), Beyblade is not. People are allowed to play no matter the number of Beyblades they have, the competitiveness of their parts. Beyblade is a game of rock-paper-scissors, itself a game of deception (you call rock, so I believe you will not use rock, but you use rock anyway, etc.), with a more complex underlying mechanic, someone with very little "rock" and much "paper" can call "scissors" while going "paper," hoping that his opponent goes with "rock."

Point one: Deception, when successful, breaks the actual game.
A single successful feint does not end an entire match in most sports, it takes multiple successful plays to win because the other player still has a chance to make a comeback afterwards, whereas a lot of the time with deception tactics, it becomes an auto-loss for the decieved. Deception also takes place before a match starts, not during the match, like a feint. A feint lacks an actual analogy in beyblade because we don't have control during the match, IMO. Perhaps there's something with launching, but we're getting away from the point. Even if the analogy is correct as it may be, my point is that it's far too 'powerful' in beyblade if it succeeds, and I think this explains the feelings of guilt Zeneo described - it's basically game over.

You are the one who brought the definition of cheating, “Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means,” and said that deception was a synonym of dishonest. A feint, which is a means to deceive, is thereby dishonest, and thus, cheating when used to get a reward (win). So, you don’t have moral objections, as you initially said. Remains being overpowered, and bad publicity.

Yes, it is overpowered, and no, it is not as much in sports. You’re right, but I will also say that “it comes with the game.” I consider the Beyblade selection period before the battle as much part of the match as the actual battle. In fact, I think it is the most important part. That part is the most decisive point of the match. Even if the selection is achieved in secret, relying on luck and probabilities1, you will still get unwinnable match-ups, because that’s how the game is, decisive and inherently unfair; you will not be able to win through skill alone, and I think you overplay its importance. Yes, it can save you in some circumstances (regardless of how it came to those circumstances), but not all the time.

What you perceive as undermining your opponent, I see as tempering luck in my favour. Tomato and tomahto perhaps, but you get what I’m getting at.

(May. 30, 2013  3:23 AM)th!nk Wrote:
Quote:Do not forget that deception goes both ways, and that unlike other forms of cheating, its success relies as much on you as your opponent. There is little that can be done against sabotage, save preventing it; deception is as much a game as a tool.

And that game is not spinning tops, is what I've been saying. If you "win" deception in the way it seems to pan out most of the time, the tops battle becomes irrelevant. While perhaps the same could be said of knowledge, that at least derives from knowing the game, your opponent, your parts, their parts, deception requires very little that actually relates to tops - he who can lie the best and has a basic knowledge of attack beats stamina beats defense beats attack and what is good enough to do the above (which is well publicised on these forums) wins.

Also, like most sabotage, nothing can be done if it succeeds (though things can be done to prevent both - trying to ignore it/setting up better security) - deception represents two parties trying to sabotage each other at best. Successful deception basically ends the match there most of the time, or may as well. Matches between major players seem to just be decided on who can gain the upper hand through deception and mind games a lot of the time - a lot of our best players use them to gain an advantage, and I don't think that's right, it's just not part of tops.

Perhaps deception is more useful against the more, shall we say simple minded (getting deceived and never expecting that being deceived is a possibility are two different things, I speak of the latter), than knowledge, but these people also often fail to grasp these basics. When entering a match with full knowledge that deception is possible, you need as much knowledge of yourself, your opponent (his knowledge of you, his tactics, what he’s most likely to fall back on if he believes you are also attempting to deceive him or not, etc.).

I believe deception to be intrinsic to any game with a “rock-paper-scissors” mechanic, because there is no real leveled playing field. Of course, everyone can win, but provided they choose correctly. Beyblade is not as clear-cut as this, with counters, and as I said, you are right to say that skill can overcome some slightly unfavourable match-ups, but “removing” deception, in my opinion, is only going to make it more subtle, and eventually is just going to creep back in, like the circular (as in movement, not shape) that derives from it.


Anyhow, there are a couple of points I don’t have time to tackle right now, namely publicity (but parents are generally unhappy to see their kids lose to older people), and I’ll try to rectify that when I can, in about 10-12 hours, but I figured I owed an answer to Kai-V ASAP, as she seemed rather offended by my comment, and perhaps not unjustifiably so.

I also think some of my comments spread to some unquoted paragraphs, which I sometimes feel simply paraphrase previous ones, but feel free to quote back some of the things you would like a more thorough answer to. And by the way, the Earth Aquila is more likely to be knocked out by the Synchrom, or have its spin trashed away, than outspinning it.

Edit: And I'll also see to read your post, Janstarblast.
I'm also kinda busy atm but seeing as you are the only person vocally disagreeing with what I consider the most important proposition here, I won't be able to relax until I've responded, haha.

Right I'll start with the easy thing: Defense these days has officially lost CS - that's balance, so they don't have any tips with good stamina bar RDF's opposite spin LAD stuff, and if I recall my random experimentation correctly (and that's a sizeable if), the spin reduction from weight/rpm maintenance advantage isn't enough to compensate. But perhaps I am wrong, and they do wear down spin (I know basalt could do this to an extent, but it was unusually aggressive for a defense part), I was basing it off memory and my memory is not great, so I'll let it be, this is all side-remarks anyway haha.

Deception is dishonesty by definition, I still maintain that, and the whole thing with feints is an example of morality and its grey areas - it's a pretty subjective thing, which does kinda support what you said about it being due to the nature of beyblade, but I don't think that's enough to justify it - especially when a fair few people who do it can back up that they feel a bit guilty for doing so. I still have a moral issue with it BECAUSE it undermines the opponent at what I agree with you is the most critical point of a beybattle. If successful, it doesn't shade the chances, it completely removes the impact of everything bar the small amount of tops-related knowledge and the parts you needed to pull it off. It is common enough that I hear about it being used successfully at just about every tournament I hear about - that's mostly tournaments the people I talk to regularly attend (India, NY/NJ though less so these days, and "big" tournaments, various other US states semi-regularly, Indonesia/The Phillipines sometimes, as well as any I happen to read about, but it ends up being quite a broad range of competitors and environments, haha). There's already less overpowered, actually tops-related ways to temper luck in your favor and that's what people should be relying on. Furthermore, deception doesn't contribute one bit to the game/collective knowledge of it, while finding new ways to beat things, beat multiple things at once, even adjusting launches etc all increase the total knowledge the community has (moreso if people actually post about it but that's another issue entirely).

Making selection double blind won't remove various methods of pushing the rules to gain an unfair advantage, and it won't even defeat all deception, I agree, but it will make it far less powerful, and far less practical. Double blind picking removes a multitude of deception tactics, which you probably would have seen a number of at AN, the main way I can see would then be relying on one combo for most of the tournament before you fight a major opponent - which is difficult and relies on being able to that. However, if I see another tactic I consider unfair become popular, I will certainly try to do something about it when that happens, and the inevitability of it occurring again is no reason not to do the right thing now.

Much like you, I will say if I haven't covered anything that you want a response to, feel free to raise it, I'm pretty absent minded/also generally anxious with anything that I care about that I have to debate about like this/also have other stuff to do atm so I may forget things in the rush to get the response over and done with haha.