Ralf is right. Nestor is a fucking plagiarist.

[marks...@gmail.com]

Taiji *is* a blatant ripoff of Tonga. Coffee was a ripoff too.

[Mark Steere]

Nestor's response:

> Now that Ralf has resurrected this post (thx Ralf!)
> I like to add a few more games:

I'd like to see you answer Ralf's charge of plagiarism, Nestor,
instead of dismissing it with a smartass remark.  You disrespect the
whole industry, profiting from games you ran off with.  I'm starting
to seriously dislike you.

[Mark Steere]

Meanwhile, Korneliussen is wearing out his tap dancing shoes:

> Ralf Gering, what's the point of throwing around plagiarism
> charges like that?

The point is that plagiarists are pieces of shit, and they need to be
outed.

> Nestor is here.

Case in point.

> If you think another game is similar to his, you can ask him.

Similar?  Taiji is a carbon copy of Tonga you fucking nitwit.

> Even reinvention is quite common with abstract games.
> I met a guy,

Yeah, you met a guy, and you plugged your face into his ass.

> Plagiarism charges should be based on a lot more than
> superficial similarity.

It's called integrity, Korneliussen.  Look into it.

[marks...@gmail.com]

Tonga - 2003 - Grupo de los Lunes
http://www.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/gv/tonga.htm

Taiji - 2007 - N�stor Romeral Andr�s
http://www.iggamecenter.com/info/en/taiji.html

I think you've got some 'splaining to do, Nestor, accepting an award and
charging $37.50 for someone else's game.

[marks...@gmail.com]

Of course the real crime here is charging $37 for a bag of foam.

Seriously folks, I'm fucking pissed about Nestor's plagiarism-for-profit
business model. This shit will not blow over.

[marks...@gmail.com]

I'd like to thank Ralf Gering for exposing Nestor "Sticky Fingers" Andres.
Petty disputes don't matter when a rotten apple rolls into town.

[Nick Bentley]

You know, I'm not usually given to accusing anyone of plagiarism, but
I've always wondered about Omega, which is basically a complexified
version of this:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/browse_thread/thread/29b03702dee4cc81/dd48a06941ef9e6c?lnk=gst&q=product+war#dd48a06941ef9e6c

[christian]

On Jan 12, 7:15 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, I'm not usually given to accusing anyone of plagiarism, but
> I've always wondered about Omega, which is basically a complexified
> version of this:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/browse_thread/threa...

No need to wonder, that's a rip off. And Nestor is in it for the
money, so there's no need to wonder why either.

[Mark Steere]

On Jan 12, 10:15 am, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, I'm not usually given to accusing anyone of plagiarism, but
> I've always wondered about Omega, which is basically a complexified
> version of this:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/browse_thread/threa...

Omg it's the exact same game.

1. Nestor's Taiji = Tonga by Grupo de Los Lunes'
2. Nestor's Omega = Product Hex by Bill Taylor
3.

There was a bgg discussion of Coffee being a ripoff too.  I gotta find
that...

The miraculous coincidences are adding up, Nestor.

[Nick Bentley]

> And Nestor is in it for the money, so
> there's no need to wonder why either.

I don't know. Maybe not for the money. Only an idiot would
commercialize boardgames, abstract games especially, for the money,
since it's such an abysmal way to chase gold coins (low margins, tiny
upside, small market). It's like going into mathematics for the sex.
Although, thinking about the way Nestor's productions work, maybe his
margins are better than average. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure
his buyer base is small, or at least too small for anyone (idiots
excepted) whose main goal is money.

It's probably some personal fulfillment thing. If I ever commercialize
a game, it will be strictly for my ego. I assume others are the same.

blah blah pointless speculation I must be bored.

[christian]

On Jan 12, 10:11 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know. Maybe not for the money. Only an idiot would
> commercialize boardgames, abstract games especially, for the money,
> since it's such an abysmal way to chase gold coins (low margins, tiny
> upside, small market). It's like going into mathematics for the sex.

Yes, the best way to make a small fortune with abstract games, is to
start with a big one. ;-)

> Although, thinking about the way Nestor's productions work, maybe his
> margins are better than average. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure
> his buyer base is small, or at least too small for anyone (idiots
> excepted) whose main goal is money.

I couldn't tell, the site looks professional enough and the games
selection shows a certain love for abstracts. At the same time it's
rather toyish and Kris Burm-like: make sure to use material that
buyers wouldn't have lying around. It's all right with me, but Omega
keeps me wondering ... surely Bill Taylor would have noticed it is his
game?

[Nick Bentley]

> surely Bill Taylor would have noticed it is his game?

Actually, Bill (inadvertently) stole this game from *me* (which he
freely acknowledges, btw).

See the 7th and 8th posts in the following thread (which predates the
one on product hex above):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/browse_thread/thread/2054a36bad3b2611

But in any case I don't think bill is a BGG denizen and so might not
know much about Nestor.

[christian]

On Jan 12, 11:19 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  surely Bill Taylor would have noticed it is his game?
>
> Actually, Bill (inadvertently) stole this game from *me* (which he
> freely acknowledges, btw).
>
> See the 7th and 8th posts in the following thread (which predates the
> one on product hex above):
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/browse_thread/threa...
>
Right, so you actually invented it more than three years ago. Have you
contacted Nestor about this eh ... coincidence?

(P.S. Draws in an ideal game would look like draws in Havannah ;-)

[Mark Steere]

My email to Nestor today at 7:00 am:
Subject:  Hey plagiarist!
Body:
> > The abstract games community is waiting for your response
> > to the plagiarism charges.

Nestor's email response at 10:44 am:
> Where?
>
> And, are you calling me plagiarist? I am not.

Nestor's bgg response at 10:45 am, **ONE MINUTE LATER**:
> Again?
>
> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/228944/tonga
> [when Aaron Dalton first busted Nestor for plagiarizing Tonga]
>
> I hope this helps.

It's absolutely incredible how quickly you found and denied the
plagiarism accusations, Nestor.

You could have saved yourself some trouble if you had answered Ralf's
inquiry the first time around, instead of smarting off.

[Mark Steere]

Nestor "Sticky Fingers" Andres wrote:

> Don't worry, Mark.

I'm not the least bit worried, you plagiarizing sack of shit.

> I don't blame you.

Nor should you.  It's your own damn fault.

> BTW, thanks for the free promotion! :)

You're a fool.

[Nick Bentley]

> Right, so you actually invented it more than three years ago. Have you
> contacted Nestor about this eh ... coincidence?

Nope. too lazy / don't care.

And even if I did there's no way to distinguish between the
possibility that it was reinvented vs plagiarized without going to
extraordinary lengths.

> (P.S. Draws in an ideal game would look like draws in Havannah ;-)

Well, Havannah is perhaps closer to what I had in mind than any other
game I know, but it's not quite it, because it has more than one drawn
node in its game tree.

[luigi]

On 13 ene, 04:44, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (P.S. Draws in an ideal game would look like draws in Havannah ;-)
>
> Well, Havannah is perhaps closer to what I had in mind than any other
> game I know, but it's not quite it, because it has more than one drawn
> node in its game tree.

Square Oust has exactly one drawn position, as does, if I'm not
mistaken, Yavalath (rotations and symmetries aside). However, I don't
think perfect play would lead to it.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 13-Jan-2012, luigi <luis....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Square Oust has exactly one drawn position,

> ...

> However, I don't think perfect play would lead
> to it.

I suspect perfect Square Oust play would be a draw. If played on a
checkerboard using Go stones, Black's first placement would designate each
player's square color. E.g. if Black first placed on a dark square, Black
would be dark and White would be light for the duration. Perfect play might
entail never breaking parity by placing on your non-designated square color.

Not to suggest that you could place on any one of your designated squares in
perfect play, nor to rule out that possibility.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 13-Jan-2012, marks...@gmail.com wrote:

> Not to suggest that you could place on any one of your
> designated squares in perfect play, nor to rule out that
> possibility.

I guess that possibility would be ruled out. If you were playing perfectly,
you'd also be playing intelligently (doh)

[luigi]

On 14 ene, 08:06, markste...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 13-Jan-2012, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Square Oust has exactly one drawn position,
> > ...
> > However, I don't think perfect play would lead
> > to it.
>
> I suspect perfect Square Oust play would be a draw.

Well, perfect 2x2 Square Oust isn't a draw, to begin with. Why should
it be on bigger boards?

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 14-Jan-2012, luigi <luis....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I suspect perfect Square Oust play would be a draw.
>
> Well, perfect 2x2 Square Oust isn't a draw, to begin with.
> Why should it be on bigger boards?

[Disclaimer: I'm not arguing. Just playing devil's simple advocate, no
particular emphasis on simple.]

Your trivial, special case could support my conjecture more than refute it.

White's only two options (for his first placement) are:
1. Not breaking parity, which is a suicide move on a 2x2.
2. Breaking parity (by moving to the same board square
color Black placed on) which always ultimately causes
defeat, in this case immediately.

[luigi]

On 14 ene, 15:37, markste...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your trivial, special case could support my conjecture more than refute it.

In fact, there is a trivial way to refute your conjecture. Let's
assume both players keep playing on their designated point color till
there are only two vacant points left. At that moment, the player in
turn can necessarily capture all his opponent's stones by playing on
his non-designated point. For example:

x . x o
o x o x
x o . o
o x o x

x x x .
. x . x
x . . o
o x o x

x x x .
. x . x
x x . o
. x . x

x x x x
. x . x
x x . .
. x . x

So we can say for sure that Square Oust is "trivially soft drawless"
for all bi-dimensional boards. (Quiz: are there any other games with
this property?)

[luigi]

On 15 ene, 12:21, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So we can say for sure that Square Oust is "trivially soft drawless"
> for all bi-dimensional boards.

Actually, for all boards bigger than 1x2, even one-dimensional. More
or less formal proof:

Let's assume, as before, that both players keep playing on their
designated point color till
there is only one white (A) and one black (B) point left. These points
can be adjacent to each other or non-adjacent to each other. Let's say
we're using an even-sized board, so it's Black's turn.

- If A and B are adjacent to each other, Black will always be able to
capture all his opponent's stones on a single turn by making his first
placement at A and following at B.

- If A and B aren't adjacent to each other, Black plays at A and keeps
capturing as long as he can. He then ends his turn by playing at B,
after which White can only make a non-capturing placement. Next, Black
will necessarily capture all enemy stones on a single turn.

Example on a 1x8 board:

x o . o x . x o

x o . . x x x .

x o x . x x x .

x o x o x x x .

x o x . x x x x

x . x x x x x x

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 15-Jan-2012, luigi <luis....@gmail.com> wrote:

> So we can say for sure that Square Oust is "trivially soft
> drawless" for all bi-dimensional boards.

Yes. I'd pare it down to "soft decisive".

[luigi]

On 15 ene, 15:51, markste...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 15-Jan-2012, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So we can say for sure that Square Oust is "trivially soft
> > drawless" for all bi-dimensional boards.
>
> Yes.  I'd pare it down to "soft decisive".

That sounds much better, indeed.

By the way, I find it hard to believe that nobody has proved Square
Oust's soft decisiveness before...