[ ] it has a biased random dice generator [ ] intentionally coded by the author to give "better" rolls to the computer to create the illusion of an superior backgammon program; [ ] unintentionally coded by the author because he/she is too incompetent to program one, even though satisfactory algorithms for generating psuedo-random sequences have been published for decades; [ ] a conspiracy between the (specify) ___________ backgammon server(s) and (specify) _____________ bot operator(s) that gives the bot(s) "better" dice than me (I'm sure Elvis and the Kennedy assassination are involved here somewhere too, but I haven't discovered how yet); [ ] a conspiracy between the (specify) ___________ backgammon server(s) and (insert names of players who beat you) ________________ which gives them "better" dice than me; [ ] deliberately coded by the author to give weaker players higher rankings to encourage them to continue paying to play there; [ ] it maximises my duplication and minimises its own self-duplication to give the impression it rolls more "lucky" numbers than I do (this must be cheating, right?); [ ] it is horribly overpriced (I KNOW this because my 8th grade teacher once gave us a lesson on economics, it's all about the law of supply and something else, and the distributor(s) would sell lots more copies and the users would all be happy and we'd achieve world peace if it was cheaper, and I don't want to pay that much for it anyway); [ ] and it cheats too;
(Accusations of cheating only) I have the following proof (check all that apply):
[ ] I'm really good at backgammon, I can beat my grandmother and my little brother but the computer keeps winning against me, therefore it MUST be cheating; [ ] it rolled double-7 and escaped my 6-point prime; [ ] it rolled a miracle 4-3 which was one of only 6 rolls that allowed it to simultaneously complete its prime and hit the blot I left subject to only 3 direct shots; THEN I rolled 6-4 and 5-5 and danced twice in a row on a 3-point board -- there's no way that would happen with real dice, so it MUST be cheating; [ ] (the software in question) rolled 3 doubles in a row while bearing off -- this is clearly impossible, so it MUST be cheating; [ ] I've been playing for (specify) ___ years and never seen this before, therefore it MUST be cheating;
I haven't formalised my suspicions, presented a falsifiable hypothesis, designed an experiment, gathered data and made reasonable conculsions because I (check all that apply):
[ ] don't know how; [ ] can't be bothered; [ ] already KNOW I'm right so there's no point doing any of that stuff;
In conclusion, I demand the following (check all that apply):
[ ] The author publish the source code; [ ] The distributors reduce the price to (specify) $_.__; (commercial software only); [ ] I pirated the software in the first place, but it still cheats so it isn't worth what I paid for it, so SOMEBODY owes me (specify) $___,___.__ (commercial software only); [ ] Since the software is already free, the distributors should pay ME (insert amount) $___,___.__ to continue using their @!^$(* cheating software (free software only); [ ] I be compensated to the tune of (insert amount) $___,___,___.__ for damages resulting from the above complaints; [ ] I don't really want anything except to stir up the same old arguments in rec.games.backgammon. Has anybody else noticed this?
Signed, (insert psuedonym) __________________
PS: What's the registration code for (specify software) _________________?