So instead of paying GA, let’s pay people to teach rules properly …
Da: EuroDisc [mailto:eurodisc-boun...@ira.uni-karlsruhe.de] Per conto di
Patrick van der Valk
Inviato: giovedì 22 febbraio 2018 13:30
A: Roger van Swaay <ro...@procyonstudios.com>; email@example.com
Oggetto: Re: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)
All, I am also not a fan of GA's but some of the arguments are just not
> Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole
> your candy and asking her to sort it out.
No, it is asking your mum what she saw and what the rules of the house are. Was
your brother allowed to take your candy? Did she see him eat your candy? Then
you can decide to beat him up if you want to ;-)
GA's give you their insight on what they saw, and GA's are there to tell you
what the rules are. Especially the latter is something that is the
responsibility of the players! I find it shocking to sometimes see that players
are playing top level and do not know the rules well enough. If you think about
Spirit, rules knowledge is one of the key elements. If players do not take that
seriously and start to call things because they think they are making the right
call, that is when things escalate and that is when a GA is a good option.
If you really don't want GA's, make sure players know the rules! Spirit scores
over the last 5 years show me that most teams are fair-minded. So IF those two
are covered we don't really need GA's. Having another person's perspective is a
good-to-have, but we all have teammates and opponents who can also help with
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need GA's but let's be clear, they are not
Observer-types who give yellow cards and make their call count. Players
continue to make the decisions.
Just my $0.02
on behalf of Roger van Swaay
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:24 AM
Subject: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)
Can you agree, that in a game of Ultimate, MAKING A CALL, and RESOLVING A CALL,
each have unique meaning and implications?
Try this: Imagine a new type of "Game Police", who's role is to MAKE CALLS, but
who requires the decision-making (resolving) to be made by the players. What
would it look like?
Resolving the call with your opponent means you need to have dialogue, listen,
respect, and trust his/her's decision. If you turn to an advisor, you are
effectively removing *the need* for the former, and ultimately, the trust you
originally placed in your opponent. Removing *the need* is enough to spoil
SOTG, because it is in stressful and pivotal situations that the best spirit is
shown, and thus appreciated by everyone.
Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole
your candy and asking her to sort it out.
Could it be that players who are lifted the burden of dialogue, are encouraged
to make more calls, because they don't have to deal with them or they get
resolved more quickly? "Rebound effect".
I'm glad to see this discussion pop-up every once in a while, that way the
newer players can get insight.
Thanks for the graffiti space.
EuroDisc mailing list