Insanely Powerful and Weirdly Unique!! World of Slardar!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2024
- Play Sweet Dreams Alex on Steam! Thank you! store.steampow...
Check out Stories of Dota! / @storiesofdota
Subscribe!!😡 www.youtube.co...
I stream on Twitch every day: / baumiandcats
Join the Community Discord! / discord
Chroma: Bloom and Blight is a digital card game I created: store.steampow...
Disastles is a physical card game I created: www.disastles....
Social Media:
/ baumiandcats
/ baumiandcats
/ baumiandcats
Business Mail:
baumi4hire@gmail.com
#Baumi #dota2 #DotaBut
I like how at 22:03, when the "trolley problem" discussion is starting, a trolley on a rail junction appears in the middle of the screen (the background map asset).
The 'kingmaker' was not an a-hole, because that assumes fulfilment of spite is not a victory in itself. The whole reason we play games is for some sort of satisfaction right? At that point, the thing that would satisfy him the most is to defeat the one who took him out. It's not a trolley problem, when the one who pulled on the proverbial lever was a vengeful spirit, who had already died, in a bout to pick out who would survive the situation. It ceases to become a trolley problem when there is clearly someone you hate more, whom you'd rather see crushed under the train. Baumi is just salty.
Commander is all about there being political consequences for power plays. In the same way that setting up a dominant board state can make you the archenemy, with the other three players teaming up to take you down before fighting amongst themselves, doing a big goofy combo that leaves your opponent on the edge of death also has political consequences. If you didn't want him to interact with the game state, you need to actually knock him out of the game, not mostly do it. If your plan is to let him slowly bleed to death while you give your villain monologue about how it's only a matter of time before you win, don't be surprised when your opponent responds by doing some cliche hero shit and use his final breath to pull off a final gambit that dismantles your entire gameplan.
He would be an asshole if he was kingmaking arbitrarily, but attempting to knock him out of the game is completely valid justification for him to respond by completely knocking you out of the game. Not considering that is refusing to play the political angle of the game.
But it's fine to feel salty too. People even add house rules so that everyone can have a better experience. Like, if I was playing UNO then yea sure sabotage me just because, but for some games it's better to compete seriously and behavior that doesn't fit that goal is frowned upon.
You could also add in the idea that there's more than a win/lose dichotomy. When I asked my partner about the situation, she immediately said she'd go for the kill because doing so would leave her placing second and not third. Which is not a reaction I expected
Imo the answer to this is simple, since Baumi targeted this person for elimination, and he has the option to get even, then you get even. It's not about being a dick, it's about "an eye for an eye", and it's been a part of human nature for our entire existence as a species.
If this wasn't meant to be the case, MTG wouldn't have the rule where the player's allowed to act, even in the face of inevitable defeat.
You could just call it, his "Last Stand", and in he eliminated his aggressor's force, with his last remaining strength. I think 90% of us, would do that, and it's in no way unsportsmanlike.
Just because you're going to lose, that doesn't mean you have to give up.
I’ll be honest, milling is the ahole move. 😂
13:38 Magic the gathering "a**hole move" topic, I consider it the "dying gasp". The bloke about to lose has the right to attempt everything they can do, if they have the opportunity to take actions regardless of the state they are in (even if it includes their loss at the end of their turn or start of their next turn).
In any game where elimination is a factor, an equal factor is player psychology. It's natural that someone would want to drag down the person who ruined their chances of winning. It's on the player to take that psychological response into account when making an aggressive move to eliminate someone. Take a strategy game with some diplomatic elements like Risk as an example. You use diplomacy and unspoken negotiation to hold bonuses and improve your overall chances of winning while trying to instigate conflicts among others. If you're playing nice and someone breaks your bonus and ruins your chances at a comeback, it's natural you'll want to go out swinging so if you want to eliminate a player, make sure you do it in 1 shot.
Regarding the Trolley problem, at first glance 1 person's life is less valuable than 5 people. If you look a little closer, it's an active choice to take someone's life vs indecision letting someone else cause others to die and making the active choice directly makes you a murderer. However if you look even closer than that, having the means to save 5 people at your disposal and refusing to do so because of moral superiority to keep your conscience clean, could (and in my opinion does) make you a hypocrite by the same standards. It boils down to "Do the ends justify the means?" Would you take the burden and dirty your hands with an unwashable stain to save/protect more people? I would, but then I'm a very logic driven and cynical person. I'm not the type of person who will ever stand on any kind of moral highground and pat myself on the back. I think we're all dirty by nature and making a conscious (albeit grim) choice for the greater good of others objectively makes the world a slightly brighter place. Though an argument can equally be made that the person controlling the lever doesn't have the right to play god and judge the weight of that scale.
Trolley problem comes down to a very simple fact. Whatever happens- whether you pull the lever or not- the deaths are not your fault. The fault lies, ultimately, with whatever or whoever orchestrated the situation; thereby forcing any decision made by any individual to result in unavoidable death.
You aren't choosing between 1 life or 5, because regardless of outcome at least 1 person is guaranteed to die; and that blame lies with whatever psychopath tied them to the rails. You are choosing to either save 4 people, or noone at all. The choice is obvious, any who choose not to pull the lever ought to feel guilty for having- by inaction- condemned 4 people who did not need to die. Of course, trolley problems basically never happen without context in the IRL- there is always some kind of external circumstance to consider. The real difficult of the trolley problem does not come from the example in vacuum, where given the choice between saving 4 people or 0 people, but from the IRL context that often surrounds the choices.
I prefer to call it choosing the shiniest of two turds.
No matter what choice is made, bad things happen- it is up to they who decides to discern or decipher which one is the "least" shit. The turd that is shinier. If the 1 person on the trolley is a doctor who is the sole person in the world with the precise information needed to cure cancer, then you save them- as by extension you will save millions of lives; and 5 is nothing compared to that. Likewise, if its between 1 normal person and 5 known murderers, you again save the 1 over the 5 unless you have reason to believe that the 5 are truly reformed and will not ever kill again (I wouldn't even attempt to consider the possibility of killing less than 4 people)- as that would then classify them as normal people.
I found your way of thinking peculiar. Because in my country (Brazil) the law would not punish you for not acting, since if you did act, you would be condemning a person to death, instead, you would be condemned for participating in someone's death. And I agree with this view.
Your thought that "whether you pull the lever or not- the deaths are not your fault" disregards the fact that the person tied up alone would not die, until you pull the lever.
It may even be possible to save more people by pulling, but not feeling guilty about deciding that one person must die so that 5 others can live, and feeling guilty about someone tying 5 people to a rail is kind of illogical to me.
The way I see it is if you play a Mill deck and the standard rules of the game mode allow another player to act prior to their draw phase, they can do anything and everything they would normally be allowed to do, even if they are going to die 100% in their draw phase. There is a psychology in games that may not always be logical. Playing a mill deck you should understand that the player isn't actually dead until they draw a card and therefore if they still have playable cards, why wouldn't they play a card. Playing for a tie (or in this case mutual destruction) is a valid strategy. Granted I haven't played MTG in many years and haven't played commander, but if a rule is part of the mode, you should account for it when constructing your deck and playing the cards you draw.
I like how this game is not afraid to be wacky, some skills makes no sense but is a of fun.
What about a series like, "The First, the Fourth, and the Final hours" and its either a long video, or 3 short videos. Then it breaks down what the start of the game is like, the "Fourth hour" would represent what the game is like after a days session of playing, and the "Final hour" would be end game content or if the game is something that can be played for a long time.
Baumi, that guys trolley problem was that he was dead, but he could let the train (you) run over the other people in the game or he could pull the lever and derail it (you) and have you die and then the rest just kill each other. And you are the one who killed him. So what would you do?
I'm not an expert on magic, but if the ruleset allows a player to take actions before having to draw and be "death" then he was not death and he can do whatever he wants to do, sucks for you, but I don't think is bm, if anything I consider the strats where you force a player out of cards to end them a little bm and you expose yourself to the other player not be willing to just concede
It's an asshole move, but its an asshole move that i cant be mad about
"I might die, but i'm taking you down with me"
Also, about the trolley problem
I would pull the lever and kill myself alongside the guy i murdered by my choice
If i can i will lie beside them
If i cant i will find another way
My life after that choice will never be as worthy as the one i sacrificed
What a throw in the end!!!
New trolley problem, this time quantitative!
There is only one rail, and a person in it.
You have the option to pull the lever, derailing the train and injuring everyone inside of the train.
How many people have to be inside the train before you let the person die?
The guy you milled out does not lose until they attempt to draw a card and cannot, which means they are still in the game until that point. They have every right to punish you for overextending. If someone milled me out and then whined about me killing their stuff on my upkeep I'd think that person was just being kind of a baby.
Further this is only really the trolley problem if the person making the choice to pull or not was poisoned by the 1 person that pulling the lever would kill. And also that person put the chooser in front of the lever in the first place and said "You have 10 seconds until my poison kills you, choose who dies."
To all the people who agree with the baumi's view on the trolley problem, here's a pretty simple hypothetical(another one lol) to potentially change your view.
While you were taking a walk you pass a very shallow pool that has a child drowning in it, there are no other people around you, and it would take minimum effort for you to save that child. Would it be immoral to continue taking your walk and ignore the child instead of easily saving them? If you answer yes, then you agree that inaction is an action itself, and inaction could be considered immoral, and it's not up to you to think if you're involved or not.
When you stand in front of that lever, you are already involved, want it or not; inaction would be an action/a choice - you've chosen so that 5 people die.
Btw there are other interesting interesting arguments in favor of not pulling the level, that's why I love the trolley problem because you can branch from it and explore much more questions in philosophy of ethics than it seems at first.
Thank you! Man a breath of fresh air when it comes to this discussion! I also see it as a way of describing inevitablity. There is not getting around this you are at the lever all that's left to do is choose.
no it wouldnt be immoral to keep walking because the child is not your responsibility nor do you have any obligation to. that question is fairly different to the trolly problem because that question has a "good" outcome where no one dies and a "bad" outcome with one death.
regardless of being in front of the lever you are not "involved" until you actually touch that lever assuming you didnt put the people on the track or anything. You are simply in the area where the event is occurring, an observer if you will.
in a similar vein to your hypothetical lets say there was an animal on the road with a car coming. The car will not stop you can yell at the animal and (only then) it will move or do you simply observe to see the outcome. See this is actually pretty common in the real world (atleast where i live there is a lot of road kill maybe its just weird here) but alot of people will just watch and see the outcome. Dont say its not the same cuz its not a human life either cuz while we as humans generally value human life more then other animals we are at the end of the day just another species of animal which alot of people seem to either forget or not acknowledge and a life is a still a life.
@@dom7899 You aren't actually supposed to give a sociopath answer to the drowning child hypothetical... bruh
It's pretty much a rhetorical question-type of hypothetical because every person in our society would agree that refusing to do a bare minimum and pick up a child from the pool to not let it die is not only immoral but a borderline illegal action.
And under most moral systems it is agreed that there has to be some sort of buy-in/duty for individuals in society for it to exist. Laws being the obvious example of such duty, with societal norms coming right after.
And the animal example is also nonsense and a non-sequitur, unless you're a vegan living in a vegan society lol. For most of humans and human societies, animals in general are on a completely different level or moral consideration, more close to plants than humans. Reminder that there's a never-stopping industry of torture, rape, and genocide of tens of billions of animals and most of us agree with it and pay for it.
eh i didnt say i wouldnt save the person (child or not) i just said that you dont technically need to as there is no obligation nor responsibility on your part.it would certainly make you a good person in the eyes of the people around you and you could get rewarded so in your situation yes the chance of benefits outweights the potential downsides of making a decision to save the drowning person (at most youd just get wet). This is fundamentally different from the trolley problem because the downsides of either choice is much greater.
Also dunno how you think its borderline illegal to not save a drowning person. there is no laws requiring you to save people lol (also in the case you need to preform cpr its actually better to not do it unless you are trained because youll likely do even more damage to the person)
as for the animal example its more or less the same though i agreed that people dont view animals as importantly as humans. It costs you nothing to raise your voice and speak out to the animal as your walking by. there is no downsides to saving it so saying that you wouldnt just because its an animal and millions get killed elsewhere is kinda questionable. @@artemiygulyaev2280
i would most certainly pull the lever on the 1 person and pull the lever again to go back and hit the 5 people too
The trolley problem made Baumi forget his lever on Windwaker, so he killed himself at last.
The trolley problem isn't even really about what you would choose between the two choices, but about what your personal responsibility is.
Basically the trolley problem asks if you are responsible for the deaths of the five by doing nothing, and if you are responsible for the death of the one if you pull the lever. There is also the assumption that based on your beliefs about responsibility, that will affect your actions, though whether that is true or not has also been explored separately, but the core of it is about personal responsibility, not about which is "better."
The trolley problem only starts with the switch. People tend to favor switching the track, but there are at least two escalations.
The first: you have to push a fat man onto the tracks.
The second: you're a doctor and can kill one person to harvest organs to save 5 people.
It's not a "problem" so much as a thought experiment that shows how a utilitarian moral calculus is complicated by ones personal feelings (caveat, this is what i remember from a college class)
Baumi asked a trolley problem, where the decision is being made by a man dying of poison, and flipping the track switch will have the trolley run over the man who poisoned him, and doing nothing will have it run over a random person. If you want to think of it that way.
My trolley suggestion, dont pull the lever so 5 people die and I can easily take on 1 tied down idiot in a 1v1. Guaranteed no survivors to tell the tale. As how most things are solved, no witnesses, no crime.
how about the train passenger though?
I would think that the train would *try* to stop after/before running over 5 people.
So you'll have a time limit on your 1v1
King-making is an important part of games! It allows players to have agency over their experience, which makes them feel more favorably and more likely to play again.
Your feeling was that you didn't like this guy's play - but maybe this player didn't like the way you knocked them out of the game? Winning is the point of the game in rules, Fun is the meta-point of the game. Maybe you felt like this diminished your fun, but maybe the other player actually had more fun losing vengefully than winning. This is all within the rules of the game, and is part of what makes games fun, emotional, and replayable!
Also framing it as the trolley problem is interesting. If there's a guy on the tracks -- and he's 100% going to get hit and die, because you put him in that position. Down the track, either an unrelated other person will get hit, OR: he can pull a lever and the train will hit you, which he chooses to do because you put him on the tracks to die. I feel like? It makes sense that he'd pull the lever? xD
I dont think it was a dick move. If you play together more, its about the social aspect - as you can choose who to target with spells or counterspells or whatever. It did not helped him in this game, he knew he was dead... but now everybody knows, that if they target him, he can and will bring them down with him so they may choose to rather target someone else if they get the opportunity to choose. It may help him win some game later, or at least make him stay in the game a bit longer. These situations like "i can kill you now, but then you have no reason to hold the card in hand = you will use it and bcz im killing you, so you will use it on me... well, so i rather not kill you now, so you maybe use the card on someone else" are really common.
But, even if we say that you are not going to play together again. Lets compare it to a "real life" situation. Lets say, you and two other players are throwned into an arena to battle on live and death. Now, someone managed to almost kill you, you are bleeding badly and you know you will die in a few second... but you still have a gun in your hand pointing at him and you can pull the trigger before daying. Would you do it? Yes. Most ppl would do it. He just took your live away, you will hate that person and you will shoot - even if that means that the third guy survives. Why not, you dont have any problem with the other guy, he did not kill you... this one did, so you will "fight back" even if you know you can not survive anymore.
And about the trolley problem - I hate when ppl are trying to dodge it by making these stupid "but what if...". The question is simple. There is no "but" about it. I think the person on the leaver should pull it and I hope that if I would be in the situation (no matter how improbable that is) I would be able to pull it... So yes, hypothetically pull it. In reality I sadly may be frozen by stress and confusion. Unable to do anything. Then I would have to live the rest of my live with the knowledge that i could and should have saved 4 ppl but failed doing it.
I personally play a ton of commander and "king-making" comes up a lot in all playgroups. I am a firm believer that if someone is going to kill me, I will make as many plays as I can to make it hurt. If someone has lethal swing on me and I have a deathtoucher, I will block the best creature. I do not think that someone being dead on paper means they should not make it hurt to kill them. If someone is known to not fight back when their death is presented they will always be killed for free.
Edit: I just heard the conversation about the trolley problem. I believe everyone objectively feels that 1 person dying is better than 5. Mind Field actually ran the experiment to see how many people would actually pull the lever and who would watch it happen. I won't spoil the results, but it is so easy in the moment to act like doing nothing is best because it must be someone else who is responsible for the situation.
about the magic question as someone who played way too much munchkin i kinda expect that player who you fucked in someway will comeback with a vengeance so i dont think it was an asshole move
did not act is also a choice, when you the only one that have capability to change the outcome, you still responsible on the outcome, that mean, by choose not to act, you have killed 5 people, you cannot run away from responsibility by close your eye, life is always about a choice
Baumi, plz play more indie strat/puzzle games pretty plz. That's the 1 thing all your fans have in common: the love for a wacky strategy game.
I dont know about mgtg, but his 'kingmaker' move was fully expected imo, even though it was prob a jerk move too.
When pushed to a wall ppl fight much more fearlessly, so great emperors wear their weak enemies slowly while giving them a narrow escape route.
i think that pulling the lever is ultimately the better choice logically, since it minimizes damage.
but i would actually have a hard time pulling it. not as much because of moral ramifications of the action, but because of my indecisiveness.
i think it's right to pull the lever, and i think that you need the strength of will to be able to place such a burden on yourself, but in the heat of the moment, not anyone can just do it. if i hadn't interfered, i'd feel guilty and pathetic, because i wasn't able to will my body to act fast enough to save 5 lives instead of 1.
I liked the itemization for this build, you can get a lot of small parts of the helpful items first
In similar cases, i would have offered you a deal before milling me completely: “Mill the other player or I would kill all of your stuff”. In this case it would be your decision to mill or not and suffer the consequences, in this case he might have won an additional turn to turn the game around. I agree that afterwards it was not the best sportmanship.
Welp, he besicaly did that... not for this game, but for the further games that they will play together. Now it goes without saying that if someone kill him in this way, he may be able and willing to revenge like this = ppl may choose to target other player instead.
That 'She got bkb' has 'me saw who' energy
25:37 holy sht 😂 hook goes brr
I will add my voice for NTA. Commander is about politics and many people consider "trying to help out the table" before you die the right thing to do.
If you kill someone, you better count on them retaliating as hard as they can against their killer. By doing so, the player improves their chances of winning the next round, because you will be more careful next time: If you can't kill them immediately and make sure you're in a good position to win the entire game, you'll be more likely to let them live, in fear of getting wrecked again. Which buys them more turns.
TL;DR: Don't complain on the internet when someone retaliates against being killed
For magic, to me it sound more like nuclear mutually assured destruction. Therefor, the dude has to kill you to prevent futur attack.
Now you know that if you're using your strat to someone, he'll use all his stuff on you before quitting. So, he's not protected against such attack.
This is not the most fair play move but clearly a technical good one
My answer for the trolley problem would be pull the lever.
Then it means I killed 1 people. No, I saved 5 people. If all 6 of the peoples have same values, then it's only logical to make the choice with the most end values.
But that 1 people could've lived if it weren't for my involvement, I caused their death. No, the circumstances required someone to die, therefore the killer was the circumstances. As for exactly who's responsible for said circumstances is already outside of the hypothetical.
To understand the situation more easily, we could just change the shape of the presentation but still keep the main premise. What if, instead of 2 tracks with 1 and 5 people tied on the tracks, there's only 1 track with 6 people tied on it. The scenario is the same: you have the choice to pull the lever or leave it. If you pull the lever, the trolley will instantly stop after killing the first people. If you doesn't pull the lever, the trolley will kill 5 people and then stop before hitting the 6th one. In this case, did I killed the first people by pulling the lever? keep in mind all 6 of the people have the same values (no bad guy, no good guy)
My main point is, since the people in this given scenario are binaries then the only thing that matters is the end result. Even if it wasn't binary, the end result is still what matters the most - which one is worth more. And you can't be considered a killer by making either choice, you're merely given the option to redirect the flow of an event in which all of the outcomes will result in fatality
I guess if we put Baumi's situation into the trolley problem, it does also help decide what's write or wrong. In his case the both tracks have one person on them and the trolley is currently going towards the other person, so while both people are equal, it is kinda a dick move to change where the trolley hits.
But something that's hared to consider is that the person flipping the switch at this point is technicallay also in their own trolley problem and baumi was the one that flicked the switch so that it wouldnt hit him and would instead hit the other person.
For the trolley problem I would just freeze and not even be able to make a choice before the trolley comes by
Please go play palworld and make videos out of it. We want to see your journey in palworld from the very start. It will be fun Baumi..
Regarding the trolley problem: you aren't obligated, but you are given a choice. You can either play hero, rescuing the five but having the weight of taking a life on you. Or you can choose to not act, neglecting the opportunity to be a hero and save those people but doing the morally correct thing. You can't blame the person in the scenario no matter what they choose and the action performed will all come down to personality traits and how one reacts under stress. But moral dilemmas are a ton of fun. Btw Baum, if you are reading, I love you man. I fully support you, even though you don't know me, I consider you a friend. I hope to speak with you someday.
Thing with the asshole question is that the guy's position was already decided. He can't eliminate anyone to raise his position prior to being knocked out. So unless there's some external factor to who wins ultimately that affects championship points etc., then it is 100% an asshole move.
So... the trolley problem is stupidly defined because of a simple thing that someone said, and you commented.
Which is this: you are not responsible for anything that's happening because you didn't put those people there, also you're not the one causing the trolley to be a runaway trolley.
Considering that if you don't pull the lever, the only thing you can be accused of is inaction but not the killing of anyone, and that will be either bad or good on an individual level. I.e. it only matters how bad you would feel about your inactivity.
On the other hand, if you pull the lever, you are also not the one responsible for the situation. You're simply minimising damage done. Whoever decided to put people there is still the responsible one.
So it ends up being a personal debate in which what only matters is what makes you yourself feel worse, letting your inaction be the cause of 5 deaths or making yourself actively involved in one death but saving 4 people.
And now that you mentioned capitalism also. This problem is usually used to criticise capitalist because they have something called the NAP (non aggression principle), and what people tend to say is that capitalist ideas are flawed because they forbid them from even having the possibility to pull the lever because they will be committing an aggression thus making it not a personal problem as with everyone else will be (explained above) and making it a philosophical problem nested in their ideology.
However, most intellectual respondents to that criticism say the exact same thing. It's not an aggression because it's a situation that was imposed on you, and you're not the one who put the conditions or, as they call it, "a situation of nature."
I'm not saying there's not a debate yet. Only that is a moral one and thus is subjective and not an ethical one as they try to portray it. So whatever you do is good for you although it might be bad for another person.
2 upgrades Baumi never picks: spell life steal and mana loss reduction.
Just pull the lever when it's halfway over the track change, either you get owned by the lever flinging back or you derail the trolley and possibly kill or save everyone depending on how far away they are
This is the exact energy Baumi talked about not engaging with the premise. Always trying to find a "clever" way around and not learning the real point which is somethings are inevitable. That you will be powerless to stop it only able to influence it and then left with the consequences.
I don't play magic but from what I analyze: you're lost first, then enemy draw card to lose. They shouldn't be needing to draw a card, he already won. If you lose first, you should be the one who lost. If you lose at the same time, then its a draw. Hate the game not the player. And kingmaker is a bullshit rule that allows 3rd player to grief others, nobody should have been given chance to grief. Tiebreaker should be done face-to-face, head on, mano e mano.
In case of the trolley problem, its the crime of the one who tied those people to the train track in the first place. There's a term in medical knowledge called "triage", order of severity. There dicates that in a situation where you need to choose which one to be saved from 2 patient that need each other organ to survive, you choose the most likely that will survive. In the trolley problem, the more need to survive.
Sucks to be that one guy, but at least we could get him his revenge delivered, and our own revenge for make us do it.
*edit: You should play void stranger sometimes, its amazing
Clearly the answer to the trolly problem is multi-track drifting. If you can't feel good about your decision to kill people, at least it will look cool.
Mmmm, on the MTG guy.... that's not an asshole move. If you're already taking him out of the game, it's his job to make you bleed for every drop he can on the way down if he can. That's the downside with anything designed to kill one person at a time like mill in a format where it's not 1v1, in that if someone knows you've got them dead, there's no reason for them not to hobble you on the way out. You took away their chance at winning, therefore it's fair game for them to do the same to you. Also... kingmaking itself is not an asshole move at all anyway.
Lol.. That final duel was a mess..
Gameplay with a result of a review would be fine or possibly be amazing
Your example wasn't the trolley, maybe if you knew both the tied rails were your competitors in life and you knew the one who wouldn't get hit was the one who had publicly poisoned you, but now you had the choice of choosing who would live the competition who hadn't killed you or the one who had. It'd take a great sportsman to think hats off, I'd rather been eliminated by the winner.
The comparison to the trolley problem is in the fact you're deciding between inaction and one outcome, or action and another outcome, not so much the ethical ramifications of it imo.
Pull the level, you have saved 5 people, then you attempt to save the remaining one, in this hypothetical you fail, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try.
i agree that of youre dead you should not interfere with the match outcome, on another topic love the world of dota videos. Keep up the good work Baumi
You have two options to pull a lever or not to pull a lever. Siding with any choice is an action. From what we know from crisis management, its up to us to minimalise the casualties. So the answer is simple 1 is lesser than 5. You will live with your dicisions eitherway and rather to live with reality of saving 5 people than killing 5.
However if you want to spice it up, try to think about the group of people like this:
5 people are criminals in prison
1 people is the best person on earth.
Whats your choice then?
Hm, I wonder if cleave works with Slithereen once you get the attack application from it- since slardar is a melee hero, afterall?
If he didn’t rivers rebuke you or whatever he did he would have been king making for you. That is very frustrating though, definitely been on both sides of that.
the real answer to the trolley question is be accepting to the person pulling the lever, be happy you didn't have to make that choice and face the dilemmas that your choice will bring..
the 1 person that lives is like yay im so happy i wasn't that baumi guy. who chose to do nothing and spared me but let 5 people die thank you baumi for making that choice and not me.
im glad people won't hate me for just not wanting to get involved thanks again baumi.
or the 5 people are like, are saying wow i'm so happy i didn't have to kill that 1 guy. thank you baumi for making that choice.
im glad people won't hate me for going with him ethical code to save 5 people but kill 1 person, thanks again baumi.
The trolley problem is an idealistic problem. It has no real consequences in real life. So there would be no guilt whatsoever pulling or not pulling the lever because its not real life. This problem is generally used in a cowardly way to corner uneducated people into shaming of killing someone. Although its useful to distinguish what personality they have. Somone in military for example would say pull the lever and kill only one person. Someone in religion would say pray to God and do nothing, etc.
If it were to have consequences (like the consequence of killing someone), then we should ask for context of the situation. How did you get to the trolley and how did the people get on the tracks. Lots of variables to add which define the outcome and your decision. One of the probable reasonings on the trolley problem is that most people don't realize that when you take a decision on a matter you have to weigh everything related to it. Not only the consequences but also the causes.
Adiction is an excellent example. Should I pull the lever and stop smoking? Or should I keep on the same track?
If I stop smoking/drinking I still have issues related to but they will be less.
If I keep Ill continue feeling "easy joy" but Ill end with huge issues in the end.
The trolley problem is used in almost every decision we make. With the difference that the problem is proposed in an extreme way. We have to make choices everyday all day long. Even for the most mundane ones. But always context is applied.
Choosing not to do anything would have still made him a kingmaker but for you ...
You arent dead unless you are dead. Politics are the cornerstone of multifaction gameplay. If you overextend your position you are put into danger of another exploiting it. If you focus too much on someone they might retaliate out of revenge even if it may not be the optimal play. And if you try to take someone out of the game, he very much is allowed to punish you for it.
You try to kill me and i mess you up is a perfectly valid politic move, and you can then fuck around and find out. Not verbalizing that to not reveal your cards preemptively is on a similar level just strategy.
It seems like this case is much more of a question of manners than morality so the answer is that it depends on the expectations of the group more than it being a trolley problem. I don't have a problem with king-making per se but it should be a negotiation or a case of mutually assured destruction but my gaming group and I tend to play games in a manner where overtly politicking is the half of the fun and negotiation, spite (for lack of a better word), and backstabbing are expected. The instant you know you can't win the expectation is that you should jockey for second place or attempt to get revenge. I would probably be mildly insulted if one of my friends got into a situation like you described and didn't try to get revenge or bargain for favors in the same way that you were mildly insulted that they didn't just concede the instant they couldn't win.
That said we all have the expectation that we play games like that and it's not good manners in many other gaming groups I've been in. The real question is how did everyone else at the table feel. If the expectation is that anything goes so long as you just follow the rules or that you go down fighting then he's perfectly fine. If your group expects that you should concede as soon as you lose your ability to win then you are in the right.
Try pudge build it looks interesting
To me baumi is essentially saying that netero shouldn't have blown himself up to kill netero since it would be a dick move (but with lower stakes lol)
About the trolley problem, after seeing about how it would be caused by a systematic problem that would make the train being able to kill the people, I started to think like this: whatever the answer you come to, just go with it till the end. And if you want to do something about the problem, work towards making sure the "trolley problem" situation doesn't happen again.
(and about the magic situation, I'm finding it funny how the opinion of someone about the trolley problem makes them think that the guy was an asshole or not)
Do the Palworld, I would watch it 👍
On one hand you can say there is some salt about the kingmaking. On the other hand it's actually pretty petty that when you know you're certain to lose you make it a display to ruin it for someone else and sleight their victory.
Is it on the level of table flipping a poker game? No
But it's like two professional chess players going for an additional 7 turns and running the clock because one of them realizer they were outclassed.
No one likes to see it being unprofessional.
TL;DR it was an, "If I'm going down I'm taking you with me!" Moment.
20:20 discouraging a play style is kind of a part of that,but let's be honest that's revenge all the way,no ogre Q build will win on my watch.i have no shame and I'm aware
Whether or not what he did is a dick move depends entirely on context. Between friends a suicide move can be a funny, but between strangers it really is just spite and nothing else- and being spiteful is petty and definitely a dick move.
Most people don't even have a organ donation card.
So how can they pull a lever to save people,
if they don't even fill a piece of paper to save human lives.
Yup, not an asshole. Though I do understand that you were this close to winning with a deck that you genuinely liked. So you're bummed out, and that's fair.
Nah nah baumi, that's just magic. He thinks you're an ahole for milling him out. You think he's an ahole for blowing your board up. It is what it is. I think my buddy is an ahole for running eldrazi with annihilator, my play group thinks I'm an ahole for playing Light-Paws Voltron, and I think they're aholes for never letting it pop off. It's just how EDH works. This is why I find joy in playing gay kings group hug now.
13:38 well Baumi it's normal since its human behavior "if they can't win thwy drag someone with them"
This mentioned in Hadith of Islam, there's a story about when u on your way to Heaven(may Allah willing it) your friends, your family & etc will drag u to hell just because of their own sins that u doesn't advice or force to stop them
Will they go to Heaven? Nope but they want others to go with them so it's normal if that happens now even if it's just a game
43:10 I'm crying 😭
Spoiler: we're not fine 🤣
In response to you stating that its best to not involve yourself in a situation that is ongoing, i feel that is highly subjective and circumstantial. That same statement would imply that it is best to allow someone to spike a girls drink in a bar if you see it happen, rather than to say something or stop it from happening. The problem is specifically the logic of not involving yourself absolving you of blame in and of itself, when i dont think that is always the case, because its also a matter of opportunity and ability to engage the situation.
bit of a jerk move... would have been funny if he played an instant to flash out his next spell and play thassa's. for those who dont know you win if your deck is less than your devotion to blue. when it comes to the trolley problem would just try to put it half way and try to derail it. would try to find a way to save all
Abt the trolley problem, i don't pull the lever on the first train passing, then pull the lever on the second train
Obviously just joking
I'm going against the grain here and saying that it's absolutely an asshole move. Valid and legal, but still an asshole move. I don't play MTG, but to me it seems obvious the rules is more or less meant for you to have one last chance of knocking your opponent on a final 1v1 after you're milled out, and using that to kingmake is just unsportsmanlike behaviour.
I think the law agrees that you're not obligated to get involved, but ethically I do think there is some onus. Like i I dont think you can tell me that you wouldn't pull the lever if on the one track was the whole country of peru and on the other was one man.
I think the trolley problem is better thought from a pov of you're driving a car with no breaks(someone sabotaged you) and people are crossing the road legally. There are 5 people in your lane and one person in the other, what do you do
I don't think that what the mtg guy he did was a dick move. Like others free for all multiplayer games , commander magic is about diplomacy and politics as well. In his situation I would use this as a leverage in the game imposing a condition to the other players: "If you mess with me, I will nuke your board". I mean, it is cold war logic of mutual destruction in a nutshell. Also, in a vacuum it does not make sense, but you will probably play with this person again and I am certain that you will remember this possibility before make a move against him in the future. So I don't think it is a dick move at all.
By the way, I am not against total annihilation of other players in commander, but I think that the format lacks other victory conditions that allow more diplomatic solutions for the game.
Yes it is king making, yes it is a spite play, no they shouldn’t have done that, and yes they are a jerk. Unfortunately play/players like that is common in casual which frustrates me endlessly and is one of, if not the, reason i play cEDH and generally avoid casual. I do also occasionally play “high power” casual and people usually have a good mindset for play on that but there’s still annoying players every once in a while.
On the topic of elimination in commander, I firmly believe that you can do screw the remaining players if it ends up being funny due to unconventional interaction or some other farfetched BS )
Pull the lever and SAVE 5 people. Ofcourse. The 1 dying is not your fault. Only thing that would change my mind is if the 5 are very old. Like 100 years. And the 1 is young. 😅
Nah bro, if you attack someone and cant kill them before they attack you back, you gotta live with the consequences. Its absurd to think someone should just roll over and die
I think as long as the rules in a game allow it, they are not an asshole if they choose to not let you win.
Sucks to be on the receiving end, but it's completely reasonable if it's in the rules.
I know people who root for the guy who knocked them out, like "Hey, you defeated me, so OBVIOUSLY you should win", and your guy seems to be on the opposite side of that way of thinking^^
I personally feel like even if it's legal that doesn't make them not an asshole for choosing the least sportsmanlike option, but that's just me.
When it comes to the Magic the Gathering thing, if that person eliminated you before drawing the card you can make the argument that he was about to win when you made him draw his last card and you were the one who were about to lose and decided to eliminate him. In my opinion you are just salty that you lost and you try to intelectualize the situation to make it seem like it's an actual problem and not just need to vent out the frustration but I dunno.
old boomi slow boomi
I will say people just creating new scenarios to try and catch him in a gatcha is just funny, but a sad kind of a funny. My favorite one was when they just removed the single person from the track and then saying Baumi would be wrong for not doing anything and this killed 5 people. It's somewhat telling how that person engages wih difficult choices instead of engaging they deflect and try to do some uno reverse shit. I dont want to make too many prescriptions on who that individual but man it's just disheartening to see people prefer to do the smarmy reddit debate tactics vs engaging with the substance and have a moment of self reflection and gain insight into themselves.
In regards to the Trolley problem:
I think the solution to the question is fairly simple. It just depends on the choice, if you are informed, you are accountable, if you are merely given a choice, but are not aware of the consequences, it's a cointoss. It doesn't matter which choice you make, if you don't know what they will result in. Kind of like putting 2 items in front of a baby, as it will head to whichever item attracts its attention the most. You can however influence the result, by expanding on the details... put something shiney or with flashing lights as one of the items, and it's bound to attract the child's attention, though, there is also the chance that the baby will opt for the other item.
I feel like I can't quite phrase it well, but you get the gist of the idea.
Yes, I agree with that. But in the trolley problem you have all the informations. You are fully informed what is happening, how many people are on which track, what will happen if you decide to pull the leaver or not. Its really simple and yes, it is extremly unrealistic - but thats why its only a hypothetical question.
You dont know and dont need to know how and why that situation happend, or who exactly are the people - if you would knew these things, it would be completly different and much more complex hypothetical question.
@@Mprokess Well, in the end it's a cointoss isn't it? Because it comes down to a yes (pull the lever) or no (leave it be), who dies in the process is irrelevant, because they will die regardless, you'd just be choosing who dies sooner?
Everyone's overcomplicating it, human nature is shit by default, even a saint could decide to kill 4 instead of one purely based on the heat of the moment.
There's a metric fuckton of information that could influence the outcome, but without that information, it really is just a flip of the coin.
I was mainly just trying to answer Baumi's question on the morality of the decision, and less about the ethics of the choices.
Baumi, you milled someone out of a game in Magic. In the eyes of the community you passively removed someone from the game without grasping the consequences of how that player might view you afterward. In this case with this person, that warranted your loss just as much as theirs and you left them with the opportunity to retaliate back at you. That retaliation just so happened to also be your downfall. You have every right to view it as an asshole move, but at the end of the day, you left them the opportunity to be an asshole.
20:53 are you saying the player, who is well within the rule to do a "last breath" action to drag you down with him is wrong? are you saying that when you are in that person situation and you have the means to do it and well within the rules, you won't drag the person who defeats you?
sounds to me, you are just salty because you are the one on the receiving end. you lose after enduring all those times to see your deck shines and almost win. just one more turn but all of those glories are snagged away in front of you.
if you're just a spectator to that game and see it happen to other people, you probably would said, damn that's epic, the game is unpredictable, the player pulled a secret move and other similar things.
In rp i'd definetly not go down without a fight, if i'm doomed and there's anything I can do, I'll fight til' failure. So i respect the borrowed time play albeit scummy.
def the ass
kingmaking and spiteplay should be hated in normal edh just like its in cedh
not pulling the lever is keeping yourself out of the situation. but thats an illusion. the moment u have a choice u are automatically able to be held responsible what is happening. so not pulling the lever is still an active choise and would make you responsible for the level of the catastrophy.
but kingmaking, or the game u were playing has nothing to do with that.
there would still be only one victor/survivor. that was probably an act of revenge. but not killing you would still be kingmaking out of the same principle like in the troley problem.
making a decision makes you feel more sovereign, even tho you arent. but not making a decision is still making a decision. accepting fate without trying to impact the world u could also just suicide. then u are not important. but making a decision will allways impact the universe. who knows what ur actions will bring forth.
it might be heaven or hell, but u were impactfull.
that also counts towards saving the planet or democracy.
of course u are responsible, as long as u have a choice.
Ive been in and out of magic the gathering since before the 7th edition a long time ago, and sincerely the only thing that makes me dont want to play the game is the obvious money aspect of it. Whoever spends the most is the winner almost always in a small group of friends, and I honestly I never found a way to actually make it fun, its sad. I still love my big collection of cheap cards though, but Ill probably never play again.
If a player that killed you didn't have exat knolege that u would defenetly kill last guy and it was kinda in the air, makes it not exacly a troley problem, and also is an asshole move for making game prematurly over for both of u, but only if
Baumi, I'm very surprised at this, Overall I think you are usually relatively logical EVEN if I disagree with you. But holy moley, you getting salty over someone doing a last stand after you mill them out and calling it a 'jerk move' is absolutely baffling. I am a person that believes in not raging in video games, one that believes in 'is only a game' and am still surprised at that sentiment. You have a single moment before death takes you. Your crossbow is loaded. The one that slew you in smirking at you as your life escapes you, other knights hold their weapons ready. Do you 1. shoot the random knight? 2. do nothing? 3. shoot the knight that made you bleed out. Do you see how many people brought this up to you? If you run into a jerk once in the morning, you ran into a jerk. If you ran into jerks all day, then perhaps you yourself are the jerk?
27s ago , anyway thanks for making my day feel better because of your content
You just said that you have to draw to be dead and that he could cast instant speed cards so IMO you aint out till your out, just admit it man you are just salty he took your win we all get that feeling.
Totally not the asshole, you made a tactical error in eliminating the person in a way where they got to counterattack before they died. If they broke the game rules, they'd be an asshole, but within the MTG framework? Not at all, you just sound salty tbh.
An interesting characteristic of the trolley problem is, that it poses a hard question if you think of it on a societal level too.
Meaning the question is not "should you push the lever" but "how should society act".
Would it be a better society if everyone it it would push the lever in such a situation or not?
In essence its the question if the greater good is worth smaller evils.
It is worth bombing something knowing you will kill civilians if you also know you kill terrorists who will kill many more in the future?
Or if you are more on the rebell-side: is it worth to fight in civilian clothes to be able to ambush the enemy even if that means that more civilians will die?
Or at last a question for a non war scenario: If you have limited supply of medicine and currently there are only elderly people infected. Should society let them die because it is known that the medicine will be needed for children in a week or two?
I think the answer to the trolley problem from this perspective is also that society should not pull the lever.
Although I say this out of a position of comfort. Its not hard to imagine that I would change my tune confronted with a more bitter reality.
it's funny how chat fails to understand that "not saving five people" and "killing a person" is in question of the trolley problem. its not kill 5 or kill 1.