I play both GD and HD, but haven’t played either for very long. I like GD so well that I plan to play it for a long time. Reading this thread and looking at Yatzr’s YouTube videos has been a real eye-opener. Yatzr’s tool amazes me.
I accept the summaries by genuvar (page 1) and bdramsey71 (page 2), particularly since no one has rebutted either. I also think I understand chrondon84’s objections (summarized toward the bottom of page 3).
It seems undeniable that using Yatzr’s tool is an advantage, possibly an immense advantage. I think the arguments are compelling that the tool not only saves time but does things that cannot be done without the tool. Even some of the same things that theoretically might be done without the tool pretty obviously cannot be done within the time available to accomplish them.
It is a judgment call whether the advantage is “unfair.” That depends on two things, your definition of “unfair” and WIS’s target audience. “Unfair” can be defined as “not based on or behaving according to the principles of equality and justice; disproportionate.” Using the tool does seem to create inequality, does seem to be disproportionate. WIS has to decide whether their game is intended for a wide cross section of the public or a subset of the public that has specialized computing abilities. This is not an either-or choice, but rather a matter of degree or range to which they want to give advantage to those with specialized abilities, and which particular abilities they want to favor. More simply put, does WIS want only computer geeks playing and succeeding at GD.
Perhaps even more simply put, people playing GD with yatzr’s tool are playing a completely different game than those playing GD without it. Two people going from point A to point B have traveled the same voyage, but it is a fact that it is not the same if one drives his car and the other walks. “Anyone can buy yatzr’s car for $10” does not change that fact.
No matter the degree of unfairness present, and I find it so great as to be alarming, I do not see it as “cheating.”
To me, the most important statement in the entire post so far is seble’s, “The strong reliance on this app suggests that the current recruiting system needs a lot of work. It tells me that this recruiting system requires too much time and effort to be successful. There's a good chance we'll overhaul it in the future.” AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! And I would add that the future he speaks of cannot come too soon.
Just my two cents.