A Reason Contesting SHOULD Have a Heavy Penalty?

Haze came up with this, in another thread. He was responding to a specific proposal by Damnans, but I think it is generally applicable to the question of whether contesting SHOULD be lest costly than it is now: Librarian wrote: > Haze wrote: > > On Aug 25, 5:42 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: <snip> > >> So here is my proposal: > >> A contested vampire is still controlled by any Methuselahs who put him > >> or her into play. > >> A contested vampire untaps as normal during his or her controllers' > >> untap phase. > >> The controler of a contested vampire burns 1 pool or taps that vampire > >> during his or her untap phase (i.e., the OLD infernal penalty). > >> If the contested vampires share the same title as any other contested > >> vampire or another ready vampire, then the title becomes contested as well. <snip> > > While this kind of rule change makes everyone nice and happy in the > > case of an accidental contesting, what does it do against intentional > > contesting? Me and a buddy could make a superstar vampire deck, and go > > to a tournament with each of us playing an identical copy. If we're > > ever at the same table, oh well that's only 1 pool a turn. > > Or let's say we're 5 people doing this, and the deck is strong enough > > against the metagame so all 5 get in the finals... > > > As I've heard, this "team attack" is actually how some MtG players > > enter tournaments. > > That's known as collusion, and is illegal. I'm not sure that's collusion. It is not, as far as I know, illegal to play a deck someone else designed. Nor do I see how these players are gaining much advantage out of their willingness to play the exact same deck at the exact same tournament. There is merely less of a penalty. It might be collusion if players coordinate their crypts so they DON'T contest. It is hardly collusion if they shrug their shoulders and say "who cares if we contest". Their crime has less to do with collusion and more to do with being too lazy (or incompetent) to design their own tournament-level deck. But that does bring us to another issue. It is more in keeping with the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck (preferably one that he designed himself). The severity of the contesting rule DOES tend to enforce this.

[ quoted text not captured ] If people all play paper, play scissors and win. If everyone plays intercept, play combat or block fails. People only hurt themselves by being predictable. Brandon

On Aug 25, 5:21 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is more in keeping with > the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck > (preferably one that he designed himself). I'm not sure how you came up with this one, but it's not at all true. As much as I'm not a fan of copying other peoples' decklists myself, it's just as "in keeping with the spirit of the game" to do so as to play a deck you design yourself. > The severity of the > contesting rule DOES tend to enforce this. Even if your first statment was true, this one wouldn't follow from it. If I use someone else's deck design, the chance of contesting the vampires in that deck are just as random as if I'd designed my own. John Eno

On Aug 25, 5:21 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As I've heard, this "team attack" is actually how some MtG players > > > enter tournaments. > > > That's known as collusion, and is illegal. > > I'm not sure that's collusion. I think the "team attack" being referred to involves a group of players picking a deck they think will, overall, be very good against the field, and all playing that deck, (and here's the important part) WITH the "team" mindset of sharing the prizes and working to make sure that, wherever they have a chance to influence it, one of their own gets to the finals and has a good shot to win. *That* is how I read "team attack" in reference to MtG tournament play, and it's common there, and by the VEKN rules sure looks like collusion to me. That's not to say that should have been obvious to anyone given the reference, though; it's just what I interpreted those statements as, based on how some serious MtG players I knew used to approach tournaments. - D.J.

On Aug 25, 6:14 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 25, 5:21 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is more in keeping with > > the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck > > (preferably one that he designed himself). > > I'm not sure how you came up with this one, but it's not at all true. > > As much as I'm not a fan of copying other peoples' decklists myself, > it's just as "in keeping with the spirit of the game" to do so as to > play a deck you design yourself. If you say so. But I would not consider it a good sign if players started showing up at the same tournament playing the exact same deck. > > The severity of the > > contesting rule DOES tend to enforce this. > > Even if your first statment was true, this one wouldn't follow from > it. It was meant to follow from the sort of situation described by Haze. Example: Fred: Hey Mike, can I play your Akunanse deck in the upcoming tournament. It's much better than any deck I have. Mike: Sorry, Fred, I'm playing it myself. Fred: Yes, but, I don't need your actual cards -- just give me the decklist. Mike: But ... we might contest. > If I use someone else's deck design, the chance of contesting the > vampires in that deck are just as random as if I'd designed my own. Not in situations such as the above.

On Aug 25, 5:55 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] This is not such a big factor in the sort of situation envisioned by Haze. Two buddies who are considering playing the exact same deck at the exact same tournament might not be too worried about the other using the information to screw him (perhaps in part because the tournament might be 30+ players and they have less than 50% chance of even being at the same table; perhaps in part because of a friendly and quasi-collusive attitude). But, because the penalty for contesting is extremely severe, they MIGHT be worried about that, even if the chance of it happening is less than 50% over the course of the tournament.

On Aug 25, 6:19 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > I think the "team attack" being referred to involves a group of > players picking a deck they think will, overall, be very good against > the field, and all playing that deck, (and here's the important part) > WITH the "team" mindset of sharing the prizes and working to make sure > that, wherever they have a chance to influence it, one of their own > gets to the finals and has a good shot to win. *That* is how I read > "team attack" in reference to MtG tournament play, and it's common > there, and by the VEKN rules sure looks like collusion to me. Maybe so, but how would you prove it, seeing that the rules do not forbid a player using another player's deck? Besides, when you base your distinction on something as fuzzy as intention to share prizes later, you are talking about something the judge will never be able to prove. We are not in serious disagreement. I agree that it is somewhat contrary to the spirit of the game. I am just suggesting that a heavy contesting penalty is something of a disincentive to precisely this sort of "team attack".

On Aug 25, 6:45 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you say so. But I would not consider it a good sign if players > started showing up at the same tournament playing the exact same deck. You've said that already. You haven't explained why you think that. John Eno

On Aug 25, 10:30 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I did not think it required much elaboration. I feel that a rules set that encourages 4 buddies who travel to a tournament to each bring their own separate deck (even if its a deck 3 of them each independently copied from the TWDA), is better than a rule that makes it feasible for all 4 to bring the same new secret super-deck that the 4th managed to construct using of latest cardset, and no-one knows about yet but this one playgroup. I don't think that my preference for a ruleset that encourages and rewards some originality, in at least some circumstances, is disproven by your point that it is neither feasible nor desirable to actually try to legislate against players using decks designed by others. I think that the "team attack" phenomenon reported by Haze, which occurs in MtG, although it does not involve behavior that can be actually legislated against, creates an appearance of impropriety and possible collusion. People are going to notice, talk and gripe. Who needs it?

[ quoted text not captured ] The crippling effects of genuine, intentional contesting of vampires I don't think is undesirable. It can work against the kinds of "multi- player deck collusion" (say, 2+ players all using variants on "Muaziz's Smorgasboard" or "Una Smash") particularly in smaller tournaments where there would be a severe disincentive to contest vampires. This pushes a variety of decks (not neccessarily tactics: i.e. G1-2 Pre Bleed Weenies, G3-4 Pre Bleed Weenies) to be at a table. I like that. I like sitting at a table with Ven, Tor, Tzi, Gan, Gur decks... then the next game potentially seeing none of those clans other than my own (or even a deck with a blend of clans). I think there are more strategic paths opened by harsh contesting rules than by the "time-share agreement" contesting.

On Aug 25, 11:23 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I feel that a rules set that encourages 4 buddies who travel to a > tournament to each bring their own separate deck (even if its a deck 3 > of them each independently copied from the TWDA), is better than a > rule that makes it feasible for all 4 to bring the same new secret > super-deck that the 4th managed to construct using of latest cardset, > and no-one knows about yet but this one playgroup. Why? You've not yet stated any actual reasons for why you think deck- copying is bad or somehow against the spirit of the game. > I don't think that my preference for a ruleset that encourages and > rewards some originality, in at least some circumstances, is disproven > by your point that it is neither feasible nor desirable to actually > try to legislate against players using decks designed by others. I think you're confusing me with someone else. I just said that I think it's no more in the spirit of the game to make your own deck than it is to copy someone else's. I didn't mention legislating anything. John Eno

Johann von Doom wrote: > You've not yet stated any actual reasons for why you think deck- > copying is bad or somehow against the spirit of the game. Yes I did. You're just not happy, because if I tell you the Elephant stands on the back of a Turtle, you'll demand to know what the Turtle is standing on. Well you cannot fool me. IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN! > I just said that I > think it's no more in the spirit of the game to make your own deck > than it is to copy someone else's. I obviously disagree. I think that it is more in keeping with the spirit of the game to use a deck you made yourself than to copy someone else's. I think this is especially so when the person who designed your deck for you is supposed to be your opponent in the tournament you are playing in.

[ quoted text not captured ] Just adding my two cents here: is the 'spirit of the game' requiring you to make up your own deck instead of trying something someone else made up before you? I looked through the rulebook and various webpages, and there is no description of 'the spirit of the game' in regard to V:teS anywhere? Isn't the 'spirit' of all games to have fun? Isn't fun the main purpose of any game we play? Isn't the word 'game' an indication to this? And if it is, how is playing a deck you've found on the TWDA less fun (for anyone involved in the game it's played in)? For the one playing the deck it could be fun to try how a certain game mechanic works. For others it could be fun to test how their deck fares against one that already won a tournament somewhere. All perfectly in harmony with the spirit of this game, me thinks. On topic: linking a heavy penalty for contesting and using a deck concept someone else made up seems a bit weird to me.

[ quoted text not captured ] Leave the contesting rule as it is! It's hard enough to play my betrayer deck!!!!!!

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 25, 6:19 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: >> I think the "team attack" being referred to involves a group of >> players picking a deck they think will, overall, be very good against >> the field, and all playing that deck, (and here's the important part) >> WITH the "team" mindset of sharing the prizes and working to make >> sure that, wherever they have a chance to influence it, one of their >> own gets to the finals and has a good shot to win. *That* is how I >> read "team attack" in reference to MtG tournament play, and it's >> common there, and by the VEKN rules sure looks like collusion to me. > > Maybe so, but how would you prove it, seeing that the rules do not > forbid a player using another player's deck? Then it's consciously illegal and you're trying to hide it. That's ugly. > Besides, when you base > your distinction on something as fuzzy as intention to share prizes > later, you are talking about something the judge will never be able to > prove. > > We are not in serious disagreement. I agree that it is somewhat > contrary to the spirit of the game. I am just suggesting that a heavy > contesting penalty is something of a disincentive to precisely this > sort of "team attack". a) For me it is plain collusion, as two players will have info (the decktype they play, maybe even the entire decklist) the other one plays. b) The fact that players decide to play this deck at the same moment could also be random, because other players might think the exact same thing. So you're really questionning the contesting of metagame decks, not "intentional contesting". Sure, contesting does tend to avoid multiple copies of the same deck making it to the finals and / or winning them, although it isn't unheard of. So the penalty must be severe enough, but maybe right now it is too randomly severe and that's what it's all about. c) It may succeed, or not. Anticipating the metagame can work, it can also fail miserably, and anyway it isn't a key to success in VTES, just a part of it. In other words, I think this thread has no reason to be and the discussion should continue where it started. Orpheus

John Whelan wrote: > Johann von Doom wrote: >> I just said that I think it's no more in the spirit of the game >> to make your own deck than it is to copy someone else's. > > I obviously disagree. I think that it is more in keeping with the > spirit of the game to use a deck you made yourself than to copy > someone else's. I (and vonDoom, probably) would like to see this "spirit of the game" definition of which you speak. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] On 26 aug, 07:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > my preference Looks like a valid definition to me, considering the subjectivity of the spirit of the game. Or do you believe that what isn't written down in the rules doesn't exist, subjectively or not?

[ quoted text not captured ] > in the rules doesn't exist, subjectively or not?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Thin ice, this 'spirit of the game' discussion. There is a very clear statement in this thread: "It is more in keeping with the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck (preferably one that he designed himself)." We're only questioning how this would be true. Personally, I think it's utter crap. The reason why I think that can be found in my previous post. Can a term like 'the spirit of the game' be defined? Probably not, taking into consideration a persons personal intent on playing games. "Or do you believe that what isn't written down in the rules doesn't exist, subjectively or not?" - let's keep beliefs and stuff like that out of the discussion; we're merely contradicting / discussing the statement about this 'spirit'.

On 26 elo, 13:06, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thin ice, this 'spirit of the game' discussion. > > There is a very clear statement in this thread: Which, as John later clarified, was a statement of preference. > "It is more in keeping with > the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck > (preferably one that he designed himself)." > > We're only questioning how this would be true. It is true for every person who prefers that players made their own decks. Maybe John just assumed that most people share this preference. > Personally, I think it's utter crap. The reason why I think that can > be found in my previous post. > > Can a term like 'the spirit of the game' be defined? Probably not, > taking into consideration a persons personal intent on playing games. Here's my take on it: 'The spirit of the game' is what a given player considers to be the most preferable (or sometimes just the intended) set of social contracts for the game. > "Or do you believe that what isn't written down in the rules doesn't > exist, subjectively or not?" - let's keep beliefs and stuff like that > out of the discussion; we're merely contradicting / discussing the > statement about this 'spirit'. 'Belief' is a useful word for making the distinction between statements of fact and statements of opinion. I figured it would help avoiding side tracks.

On Aug 26, 1:31 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Johann von Doom wrote: > > You've not yet stated any actual reasons for why you think deck- > > copying is bad or somehow against the spirit of the game. > > Yes I did. What? No. You've said that you don't like it. You haven't said why you don't like it. The only thing even like any explanation of how you've arrived at the conclusion that "self-designed > other-designed" is your issue with some kind of team attack thing, which doesn't happen in VTES and so doesn't matter to this discussion. I'm not even sure what you perceive the spirit of the game to be, let alone what that has to do with your perceived difference between who designs the decks that people play. So, for instance, do you think that it's against the spirit of the game for someone to unwrap a preconstructed starter deck and play it in a tournament? What about someone who shows up to the tournament and doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play and so borrows someone else's deck? What about a new player who's not sure if they want to get into VTES, and so borrows a deck from an established player in order to try out the game? Those are all examples of people playing decks designed by someone other than themselves; I'm having a really tough time seeing how any of them are against the spirit of the game. (Which admittedly may be because I have no idea what "the spirit of the game" actually is.) John Eno

On 26 aug, 12:30, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 elo, 13:06, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thin ice, this 'spirit of the game' discussion. > > > There is a very clear statement in this thread: > > Which, as John later clarified, was a statement of preference. Yeah, I've been looking for that clarification, but couldn't find it... "On 26 aug, 07:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > my preference " is what you have in one of your posts, but the word 'preference' is not in the 26 aug, 07:31 post by John... I don't mean to nitpick, but I really tried to find that statement. > > "It is more in keeping with > > the spirit of the game if each player comes with his own unique deck > > (preferably one that he designed himself)." > > > We're only questioning how this would be true. > > It is true for every person who prefers that players made their own > decks. Maybe John just assumed that most people share this preference. I can understand that. But I happen to know more than a few players who actually enjoy testing mechanics 'made up' by someone else, either by playing with or against such decks. You could also wonder how long it would take before playing V:tes would become impossible if each deck/concept could be played only once - I just mean: when is a deck/ concept still original, and when would you be able to find at least one other published deck that has lots and lots of similarities to the one you just 'made up'? I agree with John (and you?) that it's not really a challenge to copy/ paste a deck found on the twda for example, but it has never ever hampered my fun in playing the game. > > Personally, I think it's utter crap. The reason why I think that can > > be found in my previous post. > > > Can a term like 'the spirit of the game' be defined? Probably not, > > taking into consideration a persons personal intent on playing games. > > Here's my take on it: 'The spirit of the game' is what a given player > considers to be the most preferable (or sometimes just the intended) > set of social contracts for the game. Seems to me that you and I are saying the same thing here, only in different wording. > > "Or do you believe that what isn't written down in the rules doesn't > > exist, subjectively or not?" - let's keep beliefs and stuff like that > > out of the discussion; we're merely contradicting / discussing the > > statement about this 'spirit'. > > 'Belief' is a useful word for making the distinction between > statements of fact and statements of opinion. I figured it would help > avoiding side tracks. Thanks for that clarification; if I had to elaborate on the things I do not believe even though other people tell me differently, this thread would become a whole lot longer...

On Aug 26, 4:02 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > is the 'spirit of the game' requiring you to make up your own deck > instead of trying something someone else made up before you? REQUIRED? I certainly never said so. I merely suggested that it was part of the "spirit of the game" to encourage and reward creativity to at least some extent; and I would not like to see this extent reduced. > Isn't the 'spirit' of all games to have fun? Isn't fun the main > purpose of any game we play? Isn't the word 'game' an indication to > this? Yes, but I did not refer to the "spirit of all games" but to the spirit of a particular game. > And if it is, how is playing a deck you've found on the TWDA less fun > (for anyone involved in the game it's played in)? Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to goal of using what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being creative. > For the one playing > the deck it could be fun to try how a certain game mechanic works. For > others it could be fun to test how their deck fares against one that > already won a tournament somewhere. All perfectly in harmony with the > spirit of this game, me thinks. Did anyone propose they be prevented from doing so? Who exactly are you arguing with? > On topic: linking a heavy penalty for contesting and using a deck > concept someone else made up seems a bit weird to me. Perhaps that's because you are ignoring the specific context, and ascribing an over-broad meaning to my words.

On 26 elo, 18:01, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 aug, 12:30, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 elo, 13:06, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thin ice, this 'spirit of the game' discussion. > > > > There is a very clear statement in this thread: > > > Which, as John later clarified, was a statement of preference. > > Yeah, I've been looking for that clarification, but couldn't find > it... > > "On 26 aug, 07:31, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > my preference " > > is what you have in one of your posts, but the word 'preference' is > not in the 26 aug, 07:31 post by John... I don't mean to nitpick, but > I really tried to find that statement. Sorry, I wasn't trying to one up you. Just clarifying on what I believe John meant.

[ quoted text not captured ] Did you read my posts concerning your statements? Do you disagree with them? Are you trying to start an argument for the fun of arguing itself? If you are, you should make sure that other posters know what they're getting in to.

On Aug 26, 12:20 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Did you read my posts concerning your statements? Do you disagree with > them? I plan further responses. I don't disagree with your statements, but there is more that I could say to elaborate / clarity.

On Aug 26, 4:46 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 25, 6:19 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> I think the "team attack" being referred to involves a group of > >> players picking a deck they think will, overall, be very good against > >> the field, and all playing that deck, (and here's the important part) > >> WITH the "team" mindset of sharing the prizes and working to make > >> sure that, wherever they have a chance to influence it, one of their > >> own gets to the finals and has a good shot to win. *That* is how I > >> read "team attack" in reference to MtG tournament play, and it's > >> common there, and by the VEKN rules sure looks like collusion to me. > > > Maybe so, but how would you prove it, seeing that the rules do not > > forbid a player using another player's deck? > > Then it's consciously illegal and you're trying to hide it. That's ugly. You seem to miss the point. I'm not advocating such conduct. But since it is unreasonable to expect such "collusion" to be provable, is it not better to have rules that discourage such conduct, regardless of whether actual collusion can be proven or even actually exists? By "such conduct" I merely mean bringing a deck to a game or a tournament where you have good reason to believe or suspect that someone else (such as a member of your playgroup) will be playing a very similar deck; and by "rules that discourage" I merely mean keeping the current contesting rules, which provide a severe penalty for contesting > > Besides, when you base > > your distinction on something as fuzzy as intention to share prizes > > later, you are talking about something the judge will never be able to > > prove. > > > We are not in serious disagreement. I agree that it is somewhat > > contrary to the spirit of the game. I am just suggesting that a heavy > > contesting penalty is something of a disincentive to precisely this > > sort of "team attack". > > a) For me it is plain collusion, as two players will have info (the decktype > they play, maybe even the entire decklist) the other one plays. How is it plain? Why must I prevent another player in my playgroup from imitating my deck and playing a similar or even identical one? Should I be penalized for what I cannot reasonably prevent? > b) The fact that players decide to play this deck at the same moment could > also be random, because other players might think the exact same thing. Seems you just conceded it might not be that plain. > So > you're really questionning the contesting of metagame decks, not > "intentional contesting". Incorrect. I am referring to a player who chooses to play a certain deck, in a game or a tournament, where he has good reason to believe or suspect that another player will be playing a similar or identical deck. Intentional but not necessarily cooperative. > Sure, contesting does tend to avoid multiple > copies of the same deck making it to the finals and / or winning them, > although it isn't unheard of. So the penalty must be severe enough, [...] The point of this thread was not to suggest that the penalty was not severe enough. It was to suggest that maybe the severity of that penalty serves a valuable function, and perhaps ought not be changed. > [...] but > maybe right now it is too randomly severe and that's what it's all about. Maybe. But the point of this thread was "maybe not".

On 26 aug, 18:01, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 4:02 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > is the 'spirit of the game' requiring you to make up your own deck > > instead of trying something someone else made up before you? > > REQUIRED? I certainly never said so. I merely suggested that it was > part of the "spirit of the game" to encourage and reward creativity to > at least some extent; and I would not like to see this extent reduced. I do not state that you ever said 'required'. I'm asking a question. Rewarding creativity has nothing to do with (either if you play with a 'borrowed' deck concept or with one entirely made up by yourself) the chance that something could be contested - for which is some cases the penalty still seems quite harsh. As I recall that is the main reason why change might be at hand. > > Isn't the 'spirit' of all games to have fun? Isn't fun the main > > purpose of any game we play? Isn't the word 'game' an indication to > > this? > > Yes, but I did not refer to the "spirit of all games" but to the > spirit of a particular game. Your "yes" implies to me that you agree on my statement about 'fun'. 'A particular game' falls under the category 'all games'. So what are you stating here? > > And if it is, how is playing a deck you've found on the TWDA less fun > > (for anyone involved in the game it's played in)? > > Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to goal of using > what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being creative. Fair enough. But please consider that borrowing a deck can also contribute to ultimately being creative. There's a learning process in there as well; I'm not convinced that you can see that. > > For the one playing > > the deck it could be fun to try how a certain game mechanic works. For > > others it could be fun to test how their deck fares against one that > > already won a tournament somewhere. All perfectly in harmony with the > > spirit of this game, me thinks. > > Did anyone propose they be prevented from doing so? Who exactly are > you arguing with? I'm not arguing with anyone. We're having a discussion about a possible upcoming change in the rules of this game we all seem to play. I am trying to make you see that borrowing a deck/concept (something not so much in the spirit of the game according to you) can also contribute to creativity. It still doesn't change the fact that an unwanted contesting sometimes is punished too harsh. > > On topic: linking a heavy penalty for contesting and using a deck > > concept someone else made up seems a bit weird to me. > > Perhaps that's because you are ignoring the specific context, and > ascribing an over-broad meaning to my words. I'll be a little more specific then: in whatever specific context it may be, how you seem to think that the severity of the contesting-rule 'enforces' people to come up with their own unique deck (preferrably designed by themselves) is beyond me. Especially since it has nothing to do with the fact that the penalty for contesting still seems too harsh to many, including myself. With all this, I am merely responding to the last issue you brought up in your first post. An issue that still seems a bit weird to me.

John Whelan wrote: > "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I think the "team attack" being referred to involves a group >>>> of players picking a deck they think will, overall, be very >>>> good against the field, and all playing that deck, (and here's >>>> the important part) WITH the "team" mindset of sharing the >>>> prizes and working to make sure that, wherever they have >>>> a chance to influence it, one of their own gets to the finals >>>> and has a good shot to win. *That* is how I read "team attack" >>>> in reference to MtG tournament play, and it's common there, >>>> and by the VEKN rules sure looks like collusion to me. >>> >>> Maybe so, but how would you prove it, seeing that the rules >>> do not forbid a player using another player's deck? >> >> Then it's consciously illegal and you're trying to hide it. >> That's ugly. > > You seem to miss the point. I'm not advocating such conduct. > But since it is unreasonable to expect such "collusion" to be > provable, is it not better to have rules that discourage such > conduct, regardless of whether actual collusion can be proven > or even actually exists? So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 26, 5:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I (and vonDoom, probably) would like to see this "spirit of the game" > definition of which you speak. Suoli is essentially correct that it is on some level a subjective matter of preference. But I do not think it is just that. I would not have used the phrase, if I did not imagine a phenomenon external to myself. There are all kinds of games with all kinds of arbitrary rules. There are reasons why people (according to their subjective arbitrary preferences) like to play some games rather than others. When I refer to the "spirit of V:tES" I have in mind the particular things about this game that attract certain players to this particular game (according to their subjective arbitrary preferences) as distinct from other games they might be playing instead, such as D&D, or MtG, or Tennis, or Monopoly, or Axis & Allies. It does not seem like a radical notion that it is in keeping with the "spirit of the game" that the game to some extent permits, encourages, and rewards creativity and originality of deck construction. Seems that "variety "is also in keeping with the spirit of the game. Novelty and variety keep things interesting. It helps if every player at a table -- or a tournament -- has brought his own unique deck. And if he skimps on originality by copying the deck from the TWDA, he should at least think twice before he copies another deck he expects to see at the tournament. I would also competition rather than cooperation is in the "spirit of the game". Which is why it looks bad when 3 players from the same town show up at a tournament all playing the same deck.

On Aug 26, 6:01 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? I think the CURRENT rule, if left in place, might continue to discourage the so-called "team attack" phenomenon described by Haze. That, as I have said, is a phenomenon I would not like to see regardless of whether it constitutes "collusion". It was not me who raised the "collusion" issue. And no, I don't think it is meaningless to speak of rules being designed in such a way as to create or remove opportunities for unprovable collusion.

On Aug 26, 10:56 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 1:31 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Johann von Doom wrote: > > > You've not yet stated any actual reasons for why you think deck- > > > copying is bad or somehow against the spirit of the game. > > > Yes I did. > > What? No. You've said that you don't like it. You haven't said why you > don't like it. This is getting out of hand. I never said I disliked deck copying, or was against deck copying, or wanted to ban deck copying. I tried to express that it was more in keeping with the "spirit of the game" if the rules permit, reward and encourage creativity and originality of deck construction -- perhaps I should also say "variety" -- , at least to the extent of preventing players from knowingly bringing the same deck to the same game session or tournament. > The only thing even like any explanation of how you've > arrived at the conclusion that "self-designed > other-designed" is > your issue with some kind of team attack thing, which doesn't happen > in VTES and so doesn't matter to this discussion. The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility that the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in V:tES is because of the severity of the contestation penalty. > So, for instance, do you think that it's against the spirit of the > game for someone to unwrap a preconstructed starter deck and play it > in a tournament? I certainly don't want to stop him; but I think its more in keeping with the spirit of the game if he ultimately makes his own. That's why its called a "starter" -- its just to get you started. > What about someone who shows up to the tournament and > doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play and so > borrows someone else's deck? Why on earth do you suppose I would be opposed to that? > What about a new player who's not sure if > they want to get into VTES, and so borrows a deck from an established > player in order to try out the game? > Those are all examples of people > playing decks designed by someone other than themselves; I'm having a > really tough time seeing how any of them are against the spirit of the > game. (Which admittedly may be because I have no idea what "the spirit > of the game" actually is.) I never said they were "against the spirit of the game". I suggested, merely, that they were less in keeping with the spirit of the game than creating and playing one's own deck. This was not meant to deny that they can serve valuable functions. Okay?

On Aug 26, 4:51 pm, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26 aug, 18:01, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 26, 4:02 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > is the 'spirit of the game' requiring you to make up your own deck > > > instead of trying something someone else made up before you? > > > REQUIRED? I certainly never said so. I merely suggested that it was > > part of the "spirit of the game" to encourage and reward creativity to > > at least some extent; and I would not like to see this extent reduced. > > I do not state that you ever said 'required'. I'm asking a question. Well then the answer is "No". I do NOT think it is in "the spirit of the game" to make rules REQUIRING people to make original decks and FORBIDDING them from copying other decks. > Rewarding creativity has nothing to do with (either if you play with a > 'borrowed' deck concept or with one entirely made up by yourself) the > chance that something could be contested [...] It has plenty to do with it in the context under discussion: That of coming to a game session or tournament when you know there is a significant likihood that someone else will be playing the exact same deck as you. > [...] - for which is some cases the > penalty still seems quite harsh. As I recall that is the main reason > why change might be at hand. There are all sorts of ways the game can randomly screw you in totally harsh ways. The only reason to single out the contestation penalty is the belief that it serves no valuable function. I am suggesting that that might not be the case. > > > Isn't the 'spirit' of all games to have fun? Isn't fun the main > > > purpose of any game we play? Isn't the word 'game' an indication to > > > this? > > > Yes, but I did not refer to the "spirit of all games" but to the > > spirit of a particular game. > > Your "yes" implies to me that you agree on my statement about 'fun'. > 'A particular game' falls under the category 'all games'. So what are > you stating here? When I say "the spirit of the game of V:tES" I am talking about something more specific than some general "spirit of fun" that causes kids to enjoy monopoly. I am talking about the things that distinguish V:tES from other games, from the perspective of those who happen to prefer V:tES. > > > And if it is, how is playing a deck you've found on the TWDA less fun > > > (for anyone involved in the game it's played in)? > > > Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to goal of using > > what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being creative. > > Fair enough. But please consider that borrowing a deck can also > contribute to ultimately being creative. There's a learning process in > there as well; I'm not convinced that you can see that. Did I not just say exactly that? That when I play another's deck, i do so so I can learn, and thereby ultimately be creative? And is this not consistent with what I said about creativity being "more" in the spirit of the game, since it is the ultimate goal? > I'm not arguing with anyone. We're having a discussion about a > possible upcoming change in the rules of this game we all seem to > play. I am trying to make you see that borrowing a deck/concept > (something not so much in the spirit of the game according to you) can > also contribute to creativity. Well, I think you can give that up now, because I said that borrowing a deck could contribute to creativity before you did. > It still doesn't change the fact that > an unwanted contesting sometimes is punished too harsh. Lots of things in the game can randomly screw you. The only justification I can see for the idea that the contestation penalty is "too harsh" is that the contestation rule does not serve a valuable function. Otherwise, its just part of the excitement. Personally, I'm far more scared of Pentex Subversion. > I'll be a little more specific then: in whatever specific context it > may be, how you seem to think that the severity of the contesting-rule > 'enforces' people to come up with their own unique deck (preferrably > designed by themselves) is beyond me. It causes people to think twice about playing a specific deck, when they have specific reason to believe that someone else at the play session, or at the tournament, will be playing that exact same deck. > Especially since it has nothing > to do with the fact that the penalty for contesting still seems too > harsh to many, including myself. Sure. Nothing to do with it; if you are of the opinion that the pros should never be balanced against the cons.

How about we all agree that the spirits of this game, like almost every other game are: - enjoyment/amusement - highly alcoholic beverages Your own personal choices for enjoyment/amusement may include success, being out with people you like, mercilessly crushing your opponents and gloating over your prowess or just proving that combo XYZ can be done reliably (although it probably won't win anything more than the Funky Trick Pony Prize at a tournament). This is also similar for your choice of beverages: you all have a favourite and reasons for it. Ongoing fueds and flame wars over "Where is 'spirit of the game' defined in the book and what is its definition?" is singularly unproductive. Clearly for some, enjoyment = success (no success = no enjoyment) for others enjoyment = diversity, enjoyment = showing my trick deck works, enjoyment = getting massively hammered with friends... oh and we play some cards too. I think it is good development for players to become more expert at developing their own decks. It teaches, by experience, many aspects of the actual playing of the game (often because you suddenly find you have to negotiate like a BANDIT to get this deck to work). So it's not an "end of its own" to have players make their own decks, it's part of helping them be better players... and you don't just put a 3 yr old on an Isle of Mann racing bike... trikes, then bicycle with training wheels... then later they get on the Sprint Bikes. So give them a deck-list of yours that runs smoothly but maybe isn't "simple" after they know the game a bit. And before they know the game, hand them a Bleed'n'Bash or a S&B Cheese-Bleed... I'm sure you all know what I mean.

On Aug 26, 8:35 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ongoing fueds and flame wars over "Where is 'spirit of the game' > defined in the book and what is its definition?" is singularly > unproductive. It was not a discussion I was particularly interested in having. I am rather regretting ever having used the phrase.

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? > > I think the CURRENT rule, if left in place, might continue to > discourage the so-called "team attack" phenomenon described by Haze. Since the conduct is unprovable, there's no basis upon which to say that the current contestation rule discourages said conduct. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > I would also competition rather than cooperation is in the "spirit of > the game". Which is why it looks bad when 3 players from the same > town show up at a tournament all playing the same deck. When the Atlanta crew, four or five of them I think, all brought Imbued decks to the same tournament at the 2007 NAC, no one said anything nor cared that they did such a thing. Are you saying that it "looked bad" and that the other players should have complained? If they all beat the crap out of one another when they meet at a table, and play fairly and well, who cares if they brought the same deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 26, 7:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried to express that it was more in keeping with the "spirit of the > game" if the rules permit, reward and encourage creativity and > originality of deck construction -- perhaps I should also say > "variety" -- , at least to the extent of preventing players from > knowingly bringing the same deck to the same game session or > tournament. But you've yet to say why you feel that way, which is what I keep asking you. Why do you think it's anti-VTES, or against the spirit of the game, or less in keeping with the spirit of the game, or whatever functionally similar phrase you feel like deploying, if multiple players knowingly bring the same deck to the same game session or tournament? Why should creativity and originality of deck design and deck variety trump their opposites? None of them have anything to do with actual at-the-table play. > The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility that > the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in V:tES is > because of the severity of the contestation penalty. Okay. You're wrong about that. The team attack phenomenon doesn't happen in VTES because in VTES, unlike in dueling games where that phenomenon does occur, deck construction isn't more important than player skill when it comes to winning games. Copying decks isn't going to change that. > > What about someone who shows up to the tournament and > > doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play and so > > borrows someone else's deck? > > Why on earth do you suppose I would be opposed to that? Because that player is playing a deck that he didn't design. That's anti-VTES (or insert current phraseology here), according to what you've claimed so far. > I never said they were "against the spirit of the game". I suggested, > merely, that they were less in keeping with the spirit of the game > than creating and playing one's own deck. That's a pretty fine semantic hair to split. "Against" and "less in keeping with" are functionally the same. I'm happy to go with the latter if it's more likely to get you to actually answer the question of why you feel like borrowing a deck design is less in keeping with the spirit of the game than designing your own deck, though. John Eno

John Whelan wrote: > Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: >> John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Johann von Doom wrote: >>>> You've not yet stated any actual reasons for why you think >>>> deck-copying is bad or somehow against the spirit of the game. >> >>> Yes I did. >> >> What? No. You've said that you don't like it. You haven't said >> why you don't like it. > > This is getting out of hand. I never said I disliked deck copying, > or was against deck copying, or wanted to ban deck copying. |John Whelan wrote: |> But I would not consider it a good sign if players started showing |> up at the same tournament playing the exact same deck. "I would not consider it a good sign" = "I dislike". >> The only thing even like any explanation of how you've >> arrived at the conclusion that "self-designed > other-designed" >> is your issue with some kind of team attack thing, which doesn't >> happen in VTES and so doesn't matter to this discussion. > > The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility > that the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in > V:tES is because of the severity of the contestation penalty. Which, since by your own words none of this can be proved, seems to be a useless endeavor. :( >> What about someone who shows up to the tournament and >> doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play >> and so borrows someone else's deck? > > Why on earth do you suppose I would be opposed to that? |John Whelan wrote: |> It is more in keeping with the spirit of the game if each player |> comes with his own unique deck (preferably one that he designed |> himself). This says that you'd be opposed to someone borrowing a deck which they didn't design themselves. But there's that undefinable "spirit of the game" again. >> What about a new player who's not sure if they want to get into >> VTES, and so borrows a deck from an established player in order >> to try out the game? Those are all examples of people playing >> decks designed by someone other than themselves; I'm having a >> really tough time seeing how any of them are against the spirit >> of the game. (Which admittedly may be because I have no idea what >> "the spirit of the game" actually is.) > > I never said they were "against the spirit of the game". You just did, right up there! :) > I suggested, merely, that they were less in keeping with the > spirit of the game than creating and playing one's own deck. > This was not meant to deny that they can serve valuable > functions. Okay? No, not really. You don't really expect us to believe that when you say "Not in the spirit of the game" that that isn't the same thing as "Against the spirit of the game", do you? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 26, 10:12 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? > > > I think the CURRENT rule, if left in place, might continue to > > discourage the so-called "team attack" phenomenon described by Haze. > > Since the conduct is unprovable, there's no basis upon which to say > that the current contestation rule discourages said conduct. The conduct is not unprovable.

On Aug 26, 10:31 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility that > > the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in V:tES is > > because of the severity of the contestation penalty. > > Okay. You're wrong about that. The team attack phenomenon doesn't > happen in VTES because in VTES, unlike in dueling games where that > phenomenon does occur, deck construction isn't more important than > player skill when it comes to winning games. Copying decks isn't going > to change that. Folks, the reason the "Team Attack Phenomenon" happens in MtG and not in VTES is because in MtG, prize-sharing deals aren't expressly forbidden by the tournament-organizing body and in VTES they are. The team-attack thing is about maximizing a team's chances to get *a* winner and spreading that wealth around a little better among the skilled braintrust. John Eno's point about play skill vs. deckbuilding has some effect on the effectiveness of netdecking, as does John Whelan's point about contestation, but neither of those has anything to do with what's going on in the team-attack strategy at the upper level of M:tG (where, often, the players are highly skilled - after all, you don't want to put someone on the team who's not pulling their weight - and the deck often has trouble against itself even if it's good against the metagame). At least, that's (again) my understanding of that sort of thing from the competitive MtG folks I know/knew. - D.J.

On Aug 26, 10:49 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > This is getting out of hand. I never said I disliked deck copying, > > or was against deck copying, or wanted to ban deck copying. > |John Whelan wrote: > > |> But I would not consider it a good sign if players started showing > |> up at the same tournament playing the exact same deck. > > "I would not consider it a good sign" = "I dislike". "I would not consider X a good sign" does not equal "I dislike Y" > > The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility > > that the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in > > V:tES is because of the severity of the contestation penalty. > > Which, since by your own words none of this can be proved, > seems to be a useless endeavor. :( I never said the "team attack" phenomenon could not be proved. I do not assume the (observed) so-called "team attack" phenomenon is necessarily collusive. > >> What about someone who shows up to the tournament and > >> doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play > >> and so borrows someone else's deck? > > > Why on earth do you suppose I would be opposed to that? > |John Whelan wrote: > > |> It is more in keeping with the spirit of the game if each player > |> comes with his own unique deck (preferably one that he designed > |> himself). > > This says that you'd be opposed to someone borrowing a deck > which they didn't design themselves. As already clarified, it does NOT mean that. X is more Y than Z, is not the same Z is not Y. > No, not really. You don't really expect us to believe that when you > say "Not in the spirit of the game" that that isn't the same thing as > "Against the spirit of the game", do you? Did I say that that deck borrowing was "not in the spirit of the game"? If so, I hereby retract it. I merely consider it less in the spirit of the game than constructing one's own deck.

On Aug 26, 11:11 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Folks, the reason the "Team Attack Phenomenon" happens in MtG and not > in VTES is because in MtG, prize-sharing deals aren't expressly > forbidden by the tournament-organizing body and in VTES they are. The > team-attack thing is about maximizing a team's chances to get *a* > winner and spreading that wealth around a little better among the > skilled braintrust. Sure, that's a factor, but it can hardly be the only one. If it were, it would merely insure that, when the "team attack" phenomenon occurs, nobody openly admits to any agreement to split prizes, making the phenomenon (depending on how you define it) harder to prove. In addition to the factors mentioned by myself and John Eno, there's also, I suppose, the fact that stakes tend to be lower in V:tES.

D.J. wrote: > Folks, the reason the "Team Attack Phenomenon" happens in MtG and > not in VTES is because in MtG, prize-sharing deals aren't expressly > forbidden by the tournament-organizing body and in VTES they are. Nope, totally wrong. Speaking as a former TAP giver and receiver, prize splitting has NOTHING to do with it. The reason you can have TAP in Magic events is because they match equally-ranked players within each successive round, so you're able to bring several anti-X-Deck to a tournament where you expect to see several of the X-Deck, and when they meet and cancel each other out, your one teammate with his Y-Deck-Which-Is-Suceptible-To-An-X-Deck is able to rank higher than expected. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? >> >>> I think the CURRENT rule, if left in place, might continue to >>> discourage the so-called "team attack" phenomenon described by Haze. >> >> Since the conduct is unprovable, there's no basis upon which to say >> that the current contestation rule discourages said conduct. > > The conduct is not unprovable. |John Whelan wrote: |> But since it is unreasonable to expect such "collusion" to be provable, ... ? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 26, 10:31 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:11 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I tried to express that it was more in keeping with the "spirit of the > > game" if the rules permit, reward and encourage creativity and > > originality of deck construction -- perhaps I should also say > > "variety" -- , at least to the extent of preventing players from > > knowingly bringing the same deck to the same game session or > > tournament. > > But you've yet to say why you feel that way, which is what I keep > asking you. I've done the best I can. Sorry. > Why do you think it's anti-VTES, or against the spirit of the game, or > less in keeping with the spirit of the game, or whatever functionally > similar phrase you feel like deploying, [....] I do not consider those functionally similar. If you refuse to acknowledge my distinctions and clarifications, it seems to me that you are deliberately refusing to understand my meaning. > [...] if multiple players knowingly > bring the same deck to the same game session or tournament? Because I value originality and variety. > Why should > creativity and originality of deck design and deck variety trump their > opposites? No reason, if you do not value those things. > None of them have anything to do with actual at-the-table > play. Sure. Table-play is also an aspect of the game. > > The whole point of this discussion is to suggest the possibility that > > the reason the "Team Attack" phenomenon does NOT happen in V:tES is > > because of the severity of the contestation penalty. > > Okay. You're wrong about that. The team attack phenomenon doesn't > happen in VTES because in VTES, unlike in dueling games where that > phenomenon does occur, deck construction isn't more important than > player skill when it comes to winning games. Sure. That's may be a factor too. There is also the factor that DJ just mentioned > > > What about someone who shows up to the tournament and > > > doesn't have a deck of their own to play, but wants to play and so > > > borrows someone else's deck? > > > Why on earth do you suppose I would be opposed to that? > > Because that player is playing a deck that he didn't design. Not according to my constant, repeated ongoing attempts to clarify my meaning, which you continue to refuse to accept. > That's > anti-VTES (or insert current phraseology here), according to what > you've claimed so far. Not according to my constant, repeated ongoing attempts to clarify my meaning, which you continue to refuse to accept. > > I never said they were "against the spirit of the game". I suggested, > > merely, that they were less in keeping with the spirit of the game > > than creating and playing one's own deck. > > That's a pretty fine semantic hair to split. Sorry. > "Against" and "less in keeping with" are functionally the same. Not according to my understanding of the English language. > I'm happy to go with the > latter if it's more likely to get you to actually answer the question > of why you feel like borrowing a deck design is less in keeping with > the spirit of the game than designing your own deck, though. Because, according my totally arbitrary and unprovable and totally made up definition of "spirit of the game of V:tES" , the "spirit of the game of V:tES" includes valuing creativity, variety and originality to at least some extent. I am a bit mystified as to why any player who did not value these things, to at least some extent, would choose to play V:tES as opposed to some other game. But apparently, some such people do exist. Are you happy yet, or are you going to keep asking me that question?

On Aug 26, 11:52 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>>> So you want rules in place which discourage unprovable conduct? > > >>> I think the CURRENT rule, if left in place, might continue to > >>> discourage the so-called "team attack" phenomenon described by Haze. > > >> Since the conduct is unprovable, there's no basis upon which to say > >> that the current contestation rule discourages said conduct. > > > The conduct is not unprovable. > |John Whelan wrote: > > |> But since it is unreasonable to expect such "collusion" to be provable, As already clarified, when I referred to the "team attack" phenomenon, I did not assume the phenomenon necessarily involved illegal collusion, or define the phenomenon as necessarily involving illegal collusion

On Aug 26, 10:20 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > When the Atlanta crew, four or five of them I think, all brought > Imbued decks to the same tournament at the 2007 NAC, no one said > anything nor cared that they did such a thing. Are you saying that > it "looked bad" and that the other players should have complained? Sorry. I wasn't there, so I cannot help you. I do not know enough about the situation to analyze it.

On Aug 26, 11:53 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Because, according my totally arbitrary and unprovable and totally > made up definition of "spirit of the game of V:tES" , the "spirit of > the game of V:tES" includes valuing creativity, variety and > originality to at least some extent. Petitio principii for the win. > I am a bit mystified as to why > any player who did not value these things, to at least some extent, > would choose to play V:tES as opposed to some other game. Because deck construction and actually playing VTES are only related in that the former needs to be done before the latter can be done (but there's no need for them to be done by the same person, or for people not to like one and not the other). > Are you happy yet, or are you going to keep asking me that question? I can't argue with petitio principii, so yeah, I'm done here. I'd thought you actually had a point larger than expressing your personal likes and dislikes, given the title of the thread. John Eno

On Aug 27, 1:18 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd > thought you actually had a point larger than expressing your personal > likes and dislikes, given the title of the thread. I would have thought that my use of the word "should" would have alerted you to the possibility that statements of value might be involved. Not to mention the question mark. If you disagreed with me, I think it would have been simpler to say "I disagree with you: I don't believe the game should encourage or reward creativity, variety or originality at all." But perhaps it is against your religion to unprovable express personal opinions of that nature. Or perhaps don't actually disagree with me.

[ quoted text not captured ] So when you said "Which is why it looks bad when 3 players from the same town show up at a tournament all playing the same deck" you didn't really mean it looks bad? Ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 27, 2:31 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> When the Atlanta crew, four or five of them I think, all brought > >> Imbued decks to the same tournament at the 2007 NAC, no one said > >> anything nor cared that they did such a thing. Are you saying that > >> it "looked bad" and that the other players should have complained? > > > Sorry. I wasn't there, so I cannot help you. I do not know enough > > about the situation to analyze it. > > So when you said "Which is why it looks bad when 3 players from > the same town show up at a tournament all playing the same deck" > you didn't really mean it looks bad? Ok. Wrong. I endorse neither of these statements you seem so desperate to attribute to me.

John Whelan wrote: > Johann von Doom invisibleking...@gmail.com wrote: >> I'd thought you actually had a point larger than expressing >> your personal likes and dislikes, given the title of the thread. > > I would have thought that my use of the word "should" would have > alerted you to the possibility that statements of value might be > involved. Not to mention the question mark. "A reason Apples SHOULD be valued by society?" KevinM: "It is more in keeping with the spirit of valuing food if each diner comes with his own unique dish (preferably one that he created himself)." Antagonist: "Kevin, what do you mean by 'the spirit of valuing food' ?" KevinM: "What I mean is that, if even two diners come with a similar dish, then the experience of eating is lessened for all. If several diners know that each other are coming to the feast, then it makes sense that each of them would bring a different dish, in order to promote diversity in taste, smell, options, and overall enjoyment of the feast. I also believe that if the diners that know that each other are coming choose to make the same dish then they are guilty of making the feast less-fun for everyone, and this behavior should be discouraged." It took you 14 replies within this thread, kicking and screaming, to essentially answer the question I just answered, and my example is just as "arbitrary" as yours was. I (and vonDoom, probably) just don't understand when someone starts a topic and is then unwilling, unable, or uninterested in defining his terms of discussion to those who have asked for such definitions. > If you disagreed with me, I think it would have been simpler to say > "I disagree with you: I don't believe the game should encourage or > reward creativity, variety or originality at all." But perhaps it > is against your religion to unprovable express personal opinions of > that nature. Or perhaps don't actually disagree with me. Nice red herring, there. I think it would have been simpler for YOU to have just defined your term(s) than to have fought kicking and screaming for a day- and-a-half to the point where your discussion has been totally lost in the wake of your refusal to define your terms. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No need to be desperate about something you did. It's right there, in black-and-white, for all to see. That's why I said "when you said". I guess this conversation is over. Sigh. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 27, 2:54 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 27, 2:31 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>>> When the Atlanta crew, four or five of them I think, all brought > >>>> Imbued decks to the same tournament at the 2007 NAC, no one said > >>>> anything nor cared that they did such a thing. Are you saying that > >>>> it "looked bad" and that the other players should have complained? > > >>> Sorry. I wasn't there, so I cannot help you. I do not know enough > >>> about the situation to analyze it. > > >> So when you said "Which is why it looks bad when 3 players from > >> the same town show up at a tournament all playing the same deck" > >> you didn't really mean it looks bad? Ok. > > > Wrong. I endorse neither of these statements you seem so desperate > > to attribute to me. > > No need to be desperate about something you did. It's right there, > in black-and-white, for all to see. That's why I said "when you said". I never denied the quoted part. The part outside the quotes is what I denied.

I think that if it were in the "spirit of the game" to reward creativity or variety then we would contest archetypes or deck types. Because when 5 people are at the same table and every single one of them has S&B with bounce there's no much variety there, and I've seen it, more than once. Well, yeah, maybe one of them has Korah and Dolphin Black in it, the other has Lord Fianna and Morel and the other has Jason the World's Voice and Quentin King, etc, etc, but for the most part they're just playing Kindred Spirits, Telepathic Misdirection, Eyes of Chaos and lots of stealth. The "team attack" has to do more with an attitude than it does with 3 players bringing the same deck to a tournament, because many players already do so but with different vampires. Why? Because that archetype wins tournaments. Maybe we don't like it but it happens and if we are willing to punish people that brings the same vampire to a tournament even if they are doing different things with it or using different disciplines then we would be punishing the same creativity that the rule supposedly exists to reward, encourage, etc. And all because, maybe, just maybe, they are bringing the same deck, and because maybe, just maybe they didn't come up with the idea but copied it from somewhere. I've seen players doing "team attack" playing entirely different decks to help each other get to the finals not because they "share" the prizes right away but because it is better to have their friend having those cards that are easier to borrow or trade from or just because they're friends. And we don't see anything punishing them, not even this rule whose existence would be justified by this anti-team attack nature. For all of this, IMHO this isn't a very good reason for not having the rules changed.

Kevin M. wrote: > It took you 14 replies within this thread, kicking and screaming, > to essentially answer the question I just answered, and my example > is just as "arbitrary" as yours was. All statements of value, and even all statements of fact, are ultimately unprovable. You knew this when you started this charade.

Ome wrote: > I think that if it were in the "spirit of the game" to reward > creativity or variety then we would contest archetypes or deck types. No need to be an absolutist. If the "spirit of the game" were to promote creativity or variety "to some extent" then it might follow that we would contest some things (like vampires and other unique cards), but not others (like archtypes and decktypes). > Because when 5 people are at the same table and every single one of > them has S&B with bounce there's no much variety there, and I've seen > it, more than once. Well, there is SOME variety there, though perhaps not the sort you (or I) would prefer to see. If there isn't, the severe penalties attached to contestation will start to take its toll. > Well, yeah, maybe one of them has Korah and > Dolphin Black in it, the other has Lord Fianna and Morel and the other > has Jason the World's Voice and Quentin King, etc, etc, but for the > most part they're just playing Kindred Spirits, Telepathic > Misdirection, Eyes of Chaos and lots of stealth. Sure. The sheer number of vampires, plus the grouping rule, increases one's ability to play very nearly the "same deck" without contesting. > The "team attack" has to do more with an attitude than it does with 3 > players bringing the same deck to a tournament, because many players > already do so but with different vampires. Why? Because that archetype > wins tournaments. I understood the term to be referring to something that does NOT normally happen in V:tES -- not merely 3 different players who happen to play the same archtype.

On 27 aug, 01:33, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 26, 4:51 pm, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 26 aug, 18:01, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 26, 4:02 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > is the 'spirit of the game' requiring you to make up your own deck > > > > instead of trying something someone else made up before you? > > > > REQUIRED? I certainly never said so. I merely suggested that it was > > > part of the "spirit of the game" to encourage and reward creativity to > > > at least some extent; and I would not like to see this extent reduced. > > > I do not state that you ever said 'required'. I'm asking a question. > > Well then the answer is "No". I do NOT think it is in "the spirit of > the game" to make rules REQUIRING people to make original decks and > FORBIDDING them from copying other decks. > > > Rewarding creativity has nothing to do with (either if you play with a > > 'borrowed' deck concept or with one entirely made up by yourself) the > > chance that something could be contested [...] > > It has plenty to do with it in the context under discussion: That of > coming to a game session or tournament when you know there is a > significant likihood that someone else will be playing the exact same > deck as you. > > > [...] - for which is some cases the > > penalty still seems quite harsh. As I recall that is the main reason > > why change might be at hand. > > There are all sorts of ways the game can randomly screw you in totally > harsh ways. The only reason to single out the contestation penalty is > the belief that it serves no valuable function. I am suggesting that > that might not be the case. > > > > > Isn't the 'spirit' of all games to have fun? Isn't fun the main > > > > purpose of any game we play? Isn't the word 'game' an indication to > > > > this? > > > > Yes, but I did not refer to the "spirit of all games" but to the > > > spirit of a particular game. > > > Your "yes" implies to me that you agree on my statement about 'fun'. > > 'A particular game' falls under the category 'all games'. So what are > > you stating here? > > When I say "the spirit of the game of V:tES" I am talking about > something more specific than some general "spirit of fun" that causes > kids to enjoy monopoly. I am talking about the things that > distinguish V:tES from other games, from the perspective of those who > happen to prefer V:tES. > > > > > And if it is, how is playing a deck you've found on the TWDA less fun > > > > (for anyone involved in the game it's played in)? > > > > Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to goal of using > > > what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being creative. > > > Fair enough. But please consider that borrowing a deck can also > > contribute to ultimately being creative. There's a learning process in > > there as well; I'm not convinced that you can see that. > > Did I not just say exactly that? That when I play another's deck, i > do so so I can learn, and thereby ultimately be creative? And is this > not consistent with what I said about creativity being "more" in the > spirit of the game, since it is the ultimate goal? > > > I'm not arguing with anyone. We're having a discussion about a > > possible upcoming change in the rules of this game we all seem to > > play. I am trying to make you see that borrowing a deck/concept > > (something not so much in the spirit of the game according to you) can > > also contribute to creativity. > > Well, I think you can give that up now, because I said that borrowing > a deck could contribute to creativity before you did. > > > It still doesn't change the fact that > > an unwanted contesting sometimes is punished too harsh. > > Lots of things in the game can randomly screw you. The only > justification I can see for the idea that the contestation penalty is > "too harsh" is that the contestation rule does not serve a valuable > function. Otherwise, its just part of the excitement. Personally, > I'm far more scared of Pentex Subversion. > > > I'll be a little more specific then: in whatever specific context it > > may be, how you seem to think that the severity of the contesting-rule > > 'enforces' people to come up with their own unique deck (preferrably > > designed by themselves) is beyond me. > > It causes people to think twice about playing a specific deck, when > they have specific reason to believe that someone else at the play > session, or at the tournament, will be playing that exact same deck. > > > Especially since it has nothing > > to do with the fact that the penalty for contesting still seems too > > harsh to many, including myself. > > Sure. Nothing to do with it; if you are of the opinion that the pros > should never be balanced against the cons. Let's drop the whole "spirit of the game" thing here. I don't want this to turn into a lets-bash-John-for-using-a-silly-phrase-we-all- have-a-different-definition-for-in-our-heads discussion. So we'll keep in mind the intentions behind the phrase, but I'll stop nitpicking over the symantics. I agree with you that when you copy a deck from, for example, the TWDA, for use in a tournament, there's a chance that you will encounter the exact same deck, and you cannot blame anyone but yourself when this other person ends up contesting you at the same table at least once that tournament. I also agree with you that there are all sorts of ways the game can randomly screw you (in totally harsh ways). You give an example of being more afraid of Pentex Subversion - when used against you, you could be totally screwed. Now see the difference in these situations: someone plays Pentex Subversion. You respond by playing a Sudden Reversal. You end up 'not- being-screwed'. If you are VERY afraid of Pentex Subversion, you play with 10 or more Suddens, or Washes, or whatever. If you don't bring any, you KNOW that Pentex will screw you. Or I attend a tournament, with a totally unique deck that I made up all by myself. It includes Ur Shulgi, because I finally found a concept that makes playing this guy worthwhile (I am deliberately naming a Vampire that does not seem to see play very often). Then fate decided that my predator made up another unique concept, made his own unique deck with it, but unfortunately, although playing a different deck and a different strategy, his crypt also includes Ur Shulgi. We end up contesting, and are both screwed. THIS is the situation why the contesting issue MIGHT need some change in rules. There is NO way in which I could have been more prepared to anticipate on this situation. It's bad luck. Different from the furst situation I described. It has nothing to do with creativity anymore - we both have been very creative in the given example, and are still totally screwed. That's why I disagree with your ideas of why contesting SHOULD have a heavy penalty. It's not always this harsh, but this kind of situation is what started the discussion in the first place. And also: > > Fair enough. But please consider that borrowing a deck can also > > contribute to ultimately being creative. There's a learning process in > > there as well; I'm not convinced that you can see that. > > Did I not just say exactly that? That when I play another's deck, i > do so so I can learn, and thereby ultimately be creative? And is this > not consistent with what I said about creativity being "more" in the > spirit of the game, since it is the ultimate goal? and: > [...] I said that borrowing > a deck could contribute to creativity before you did. ---> No, you did not.

On Aug 27, 2:26 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you disagreed with me, I think it would have been simpler to say "I > disagree with you: I don't believe the game should encourage or > reward creativity, variety or originality at all." As a historical footnote, I did directly disagree with the main thrust of your argument, in my first post in the thread: On Aug 25, 6:14 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > As much as I'm not a fan of copying other peoples' decklists myself, > it's just as "in keeping with the spirit of the game" to do so as to > play a deck you design yourself. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] I assume you are a "fan" of V:tES, in some sense. If you are not a "fan" of copying other people's decklists, then I presume you are MORE a fan of making your own, to some extent, for otherwise you could hardly be a "fan" at all. So far, we are in the same boat. Do you imagine your and I to be somehow out of the loop in the V:tES, a pair of quirky mavericks, who, unlike most players, enjoy making their own decks? So there seems to be agreement to that extent. Moreover, we both agree that copying other people's decklists can serve valuable purposes in the game and is not necessarily to be frowned upon. You seem to have misunderstood this in the past, but I HOPE you are finally willing to acknowledge the clarification. So there seems to be agreement to that extent. I'm not sure where you think the disagreement is, unless you are merely disagreeing with my choice of words and refusing to understand my meaning. If you DO have different values, regarding the game, then it seems to me at this point it would make sense to acknowledge that we have no common ground to base a discussion about the game.

On Aug 27, 2:08 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure where you think the disagreement is, unless you are > merely disagreeing with my choice of words and refusing to understand > my meaning. Your meaning is that creativity in deckbuilding should be rewarded more than a lack of creativity in deckbuilding. I don't agree. John Eno

Mark wrote: > Let's drop the whole "spirit of the game" thing here. Please! > I agree with you that when you copy a deck from, for example, the > TWDA, for use in a tournament, there's a chance that you will > encounter the exact same deck, and you cannot blame anyone but > yourself when this other person ends up contesting you at the same > table at least once that tournament. Sure. But I do not think it is in THAT context that the severity of the contesting rule will discourage copying. The context where copying is a disincentive, will be the context where you copy the decklist of someone from your area who you are likely to meet in local games, or when you know that you and that person will be playing in the same tournament. Personally, it is more fun for me to make my own deck. It is also more fun for me to see a variety of decks being played by other players. For this purpose, it is no skin off my nose how other members of my playgroup construct their decks, as long as they don't copy EACH OTHER. I don't care if another player got his "new deck" off the TWDA archives, as long as the deck is new to ME and the rest of the other players. > I also agree with you that there are all sorts of ways the game can > randomly screw you (in totally harsh ways). You give an example of > being more afraid of Pentex Subversion - when used against you, you > could be totally screwed. > > Now see the difference in these situations: someone plays Pentex > Subversion. You respond by playing a Sudden Reversal. You end up 'not- > being-screwed'. If you are VERY afraid of Pentex Subversion, you play > with 10 or more Suddens, or Washes, or whatever. If you don't bring > any, you KNOW that Pentex will screw you. > Or I attend a tournament, with a totally unique deck that I made up > all by myself. It includes Ur Shulgi, because I finally found a > concept that makes playing this guy worthwhile (I am deliberately > naming a Vampire that does not seem to see play very often). Then fate > decided that my predator made up another unique concept, made his own > unique deck with it, but unfortunately, although playing a different > deck and a different strategy, his crypt also includes Ur Shulgi. We > end up contesting, and are both screwed. I'm still not impressed by the comparison. It seems to me that I could put 12 copies of Sudden Reversal in my Ur-Shulgi deck (or, to use the example I prefer, my Lucretia deck), and STILL get Pentexed due to not drawing any of them, and this would STILL be more likely than having the vampire contested. > THIS is the situation why the contesting issue MIGHT need some change > in rules. There is NO way in which I could have been more prepared to > anticipate on this situation. It's bad luck. Different from the furst > situation I described. They don't seem that different to me, especially if you factor in the bad luck of not drawing sudden reversals. > It has nothing to do with creativity anymore - we both have been very > creative in the given example, and are still totally screwed. That's > why I disagree with your ideas of why contesting SHOULD have a heavy > penalty. It's not always this harsh, but this kind of situation is > what started the discussion in the first place. It is cheating, slightly, to use fatties in your example, and then claim that it is a totally random screw and nothing can be done to prevent the contesting. Obviously, a player COULD choose to play mid- caps; or low-caps. Perhaps contesting is still too harsh in that context, but that is where the argument should focus. Seems to me that, IF the severity of the contestation rule does serve a valuable function, then the occasional random screw is a small price to pay.

[ quoted text not captured ] My meaning is that I believe the game, currently, rewards creativity to some extent and in some contexts; and rewards copying to some extent and in some contexts; and that I don't want to see that balance altered in favor of less creativity.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's well and good, but the game doesn't reward creativity any different than resourcefulness as far as deck building goes, nor should it try to distinguish between them (as that is impossible), nor do any of the current proposals for rules changes affect the balance between creativity and resourcefulness.

[ quoted text not captured ] John, you are a sad, pitiable individual. Enjoy your nonexistence.

LSJ wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > My meaning is that I believe the game, currently, rewards creativity > > to some extent and in some contexts; and rewards copying to some > > extent and in some contexts; and that I don't want to see that balance > > altered in favor of less creativity. > > That's well and good, but the game doesn't reward creativity any different than > resourcefulness as far as deck building goes, [...] I disagree. The game, in its current form, and in part by its very nature, does indeed reward these things in different degrees. One factor is that the player who relies on what has worked before may find his strategy more likely to be anticipated to varying degrees, or "metagamed against" or whatever. Another is the fact that each player must generally construct decks out of his own collection. This limits his ability to construct decks based on other people's collections. (Arguably, the PURPOSE of this rule is to tempt players to buy more cards, but it still has other effects). Finally, a player who DOES find the cards necessary to construct another person's deck may be selling himself short, by ignoring opportunities that his own collection presents, or by ignoring variations in the local playgroup metagame or local tournament metagame. > [...] nor should it try to distinguish between them (as that is impossible), [...] I'm not sure what sort of proposal you are arguing against; but I doubt anyone has proposed it. > [...] nor do any of the current proposals for > rules changes affect the balance between creativity and resourcefulness. Maybe true, depending on what you mean by those categories. However, any reduction of the severity of the contesting rule will likely affect local play groups. If we re-define "creativity" to mean "creativity and/or resourcefulness in constructing decks original to the local playgroup" as distinct from "imitating each-other's decks", then that balance will indeed be affected. It can also affect the tournament scene. Suppose one of the members of this local playgroup, having found a way to abuse a card from the latest card-set, secretly comes up with what he believes to be an uber- powerful deck design, with which he plans to make a surprise splash at the next tournament. His fellow players (the only ones so far in on the secret) are less likely to join him in going to the tournament with the same deck, in part because they fear contesting at the tournament, and in part because, again due to the danger of contesting, they never got around to putting the deck together in the context of their local playgroup. I don't think we should ignore the potential effect of rules changes on local playgroup behavior. Local playgroups are the core of the game, and the basic source from which tournament players are derived.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. I wrote, "Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to goal of using what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being creative," where "it" refers to playing a deck I got from the TWDA.

John Whelan wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> My meaning is that I believe the game, currently, rewards creativity >>> to some extent and in some contexts; and rewards copying to some >>> extent and in some contexts; and that I don't want to see that balance >>> altered in favor of less creativity. >> That's well and good, but the game doesn't reward creativity any different than >> resourcefulness as far as deck building goes, [...] > > I disagree. The game, in its current form, and in part by its very > nature, does indeed reward these things in different degrees. If player A develops, on xer own and in isolation, a deck whose composition is denoted with Z while at the same time player B finds a description of a deck online with a card list and then builds that deck such that its composition is also Z, and they both study the decks they have built and play them well, then for all the game can tell, they're playing the same decks. The game will reward neither of them more favorably than the other.

[ quoted text not captured ] We seem to be talking past each other. When I say "the game rewards" I have an idea of "the game" that is very broad and all-encompassing and extends beyond a single game session. When you say "the game does not reward" you apparently have a much narrower conception of "the game," which perhaps could be personified as an observer at a game session who neither knows nor cares how the players came to be seated at the table with the particular decks they are playing. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

On 27 ago, 03:07, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ome wrote: > > I think that if it were in the "spirit of the game" to reward > > creativity or variety then we would contest archetypes or deck types. > > No need to be an absolutist. If the "spirit of the game" were to > promote creativity or variety "to some extent" then it might follow > that we would contest some things (like vampires and other unique > cards), but not others (like archtypes and decktypes). Sure, then even with the same vampires, and no contestation rule, there will be variety. > Well, there is SOME variety there, though perhaps not the sort you (or > I) would prefer to see. If there isn't, the severe penalties attached > to contestation will start to take its toll. > Yeah, always is, at least "some variety", rule or no rule. That severe penalty does not happen if they play with almost the same deck but non-unique cards and different unique vampires, with nearly identical discipline spread and capacity. > Sure. The sheer number of vampires, plus the grouping rule, increases > one's ability to play very nearly the "same deck" without contesting. Yes. Increases the oportunity to be less creative, if you want, but do it with different vampires and no penalty, right? My point is you can be less creative or varied in your deck builds and never be penalized for it. And then you can be really creative about what your deck does and get penalized harshly for using a vampire that someone else decided to use that same day. This is exactly the same discussion of other threads: the problem is that the penalty is random, and it can punish you no matter how creative you were, or how good of a player you are. And if you think that a rule that generally encourages people to just use weenies or midcaps and never fatties, in order to lessen that penalty, favors creativity; I think you're wrong.

On 27 aug, 21:05, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mark wrote: > > Let's drop the whole "spirit of the game" thing here. > > Please! > > > I agree with you that when you copy a deck from, for example, the > > TWDA, for use in a tournament, there's a chance that you will > > encounter the exact same deck, and you cannot blame anyone but > > yourself when this other person ends up contesting you at the same > > table at least once that tournament. > > Sure. But I do not think it is in THAT context that the severity of > the contesting rule will discourage copying. The context where > copying is a disincentive, will be the context where you copy the > decklist of someone from your area who you are likely to meet in local > games, or when you know that you and that person will be playing in > the same tournament. So inconclusion: your whole rant isn't even about the fact that contesting might need some attention because of a too harsh punishment when it occurs, but just about that you don't want people, who are likely to meet eachother or even know eachother, willingly play the same deck? Cool. Good luck on your crusade. > Personally, it is more fun for me to make my own deck. It is also > more fun for me to see a variety of decks being played by other > players. For this purpose, it is no skin off my nose how other > members of my playgroup construct their decks, as long as they don't > copy EACH OTHER. I don't care if another player got his "new deck" > off the TWDA archives, as long as the deck is new to ME and the rest > of the other players. Yes, you don't want people that know eachother copy eachothers deck and play it on a table that you sit at. Clear to me now. > > I also agree with you that there are all sorts of ways the game can > > randomly screw you (in totally harsh ways). You give an example of > > being more afraid of Pentex Subversion - when used against you, you > > could be totally screwed. > > > Now see the difference in these situations: someone plays Pentex > > Subversion. You respond by playing a Sudden Reversal. You end up 'not- > > being-screwed'. If you are VERY afraid of Pentex Subversion, you play > > with 10 or more Suddens, or Washes, or whatever. If you don't bring > > any, you KNOW that Pentex will screw you. > > Or I attend a tournament, with a totally unique deck that I made up > > all by myself. It includes Ur Shulgi, because I finally found a > > concept that makes playing this guy worthwhile (I am deliberately > > naming a Vampire that does not seem to see play very often). Then fate > > decided that my predator made up another unique concept, made his own > > unique deck with it, but unfortunately, although playing a different > > deck and a different strategy, his crypt also includes Ur Shulgi. We > > end up contesting, and are both screwed. > > I'm still not impressed by the comparison. It seems to me that I > could put 12 copies of Sudden Reversal in my Ur-Shulgi deck (or, to > use the example I prefer, my Lucretia deck), and STILL get Pentexed > due to not drawing any of them, and this would STILL be more likely > than having the vampire contested. You're not impressed by the comparison because you miss the point. But that's okay. I can take it one step further, as a last (and probably futile) attempt: Play a deck of 90 cards. Put in 84 Sudden Reversals. Pentex won't hurt you. Now describe to me a situation where I can make 100% sure that my Ur- Shulgi won't get contested. And don't come up with discussing in advance what deck you want to play, and the lay out the exact contents before all other players, because that's not what people tend to do when going to a tournament. I suspect your answer here would be 'be creative', or 'be more creative', based on your other posts, but I still don't buy that. > > THIS is the situation why the contesting issue MIGHT need some change > > in rules. There is NO way in which I could have been more prepared to > > anticipate on this situation. It's bad luck. Different from the furst > > situation I described. > > They don't seem that different to me, especially if you factor in the > bad luck of not drawing sudden reversals. I already know that they don't seen different to you. You already stated that in the same post. I still think that's because you miss the point. Maybe you don't want to see it. But again: that's okay. It's bad luck in the first place if you get contested. Unless your friends willingly play the same deck on the same table. And even then, luck is a factor. > > It has nothing to do with creativity anymore - we both have been very > > creative in the given example, and are still totally screwed. That's > > why I disagree with your ideas of why contesting SHOULD have a heavy > > penalty. It's not always this harsh, but this kind of situation is > > what started the discussion in the first place. > > It is cheating, slightly, to use fatties in your example, and then > claim that it is a totally random screw and nothing can be done to > prevent the contesting. Obviously, a player COULD choose to play mid- > caps; or low-caps. Perhaps contesting is still too harsh in that > context, but that is where the argument should focus. It's not cheating. I don't claim anything. You CAN'T willingly do anything to prevent contesting. And the whole argument IS about contesting being punished too harsh. Using fatties in examples illustrates best the severity of the punishment in case of a contest. Examples are to illustrate things. Stealing a million dollars from a bank is just as bad as stealing just one. Both situations describe the same illegal activity. Your whole comment there is obsolete. Maybe even a bit childish. Leave out the 'maybe'. > Seems to me that, IF the severity of the contestation rule does serve > a valuable function, then the occasional random screw is a small price > to pay. Okay. And you don't want your friends to copy decks from eachother, lest they might end up sitting at the same table with you. Got it.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, I'm sorry. I see it now. I had to read between the lines to see you state that borrowing a deck contributes to creativity there. Or did I have to use the letters from that statement to form a whole new sentence? Let's see: "M y e i 's less fu f me; least su a to g al of s ng hat I l n n pursui of th fu of ult ma el bein reati e," --> borrowing a dec an ontribute to reativity Missing a K and two C's there. Yes, I know, I am an asshat. But I think it's not cool to make false statements.

Mark wrote: > On 28 aug, 02:43, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark wrote: > > > On 27 aug, 01:33, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] I said that borrowing > > > > a deck could contribute to creativity before you did. > > > > > ---> No, you did not. > > > > Yes. I wrote, "Maybe it's less fun for me; or at least subordinate to > > goal of using what I learn in pursuit of the fun of ultimately being > > creative," where "it" refers to playing a deck I got from the TWDA. > > Oh, I'm sorry. I see it now. I had to read between the lines to see > you state that borrowing a deck contributes to creativity there. The meaning of the word "it" was evident from context of what I was responding to. > Or did I have to use the letters from that statement to form a whole > new sentence? If you misunderstood the first time, all you had to do was accept my clarifications of my meaning. I have now clarified twice, and you are being extremely ill-natured about it. > Yes, I know, I am an asshat. No argument there. > But I think it's not cool to make false statements. So, you are still calling me a liar? What else do you think I could have possibly meant? Or are you quibbling, in this context, about the difference between borrowing a deck and getting a deck from the TWDA? If so, I think it hardly matters to the underlying concept.

Mark wrote: > On 27 aug, 21:05, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark wrote: > > > Let's drop the whole "spirit of the game" thing here. > > > > Please! > > > > > I agree with you that when you copy a deck from, for example, the > > > TWDA, for use in a tournament, there's a chance that you will > > > encounter the exact same deck, and you cannot blame anyone but > > > yourself when this other person ends up contesting you at the same > > > table at least once that tournament. > > > > Sure. But I do not think it is in THAT context that the severity of > > the contesting rule will discourage copying. The context where > > copying is a disincentive, will be the context where you copy the > > decklist of someone from your area who you are likely to meet in local > > games, or when you know that you and that person will be playing in > > the same tournament. > > So inconclusion: your whole rant [...] Who's ranting? I'm just trying to answer your increasingly hostile and ill-natured questions. > [...] isn't even about the fact that > contesting might need some attention because of a too harsh punishment > when it occurs, but just about that you don't want people, who are > likely to meet eachother or even know eachother, willingly play the > same deck? I don't consider it a problem currently. However, I started this thread because I had a thought that a reduction in the severity of the contesting rule might influence the behavior of local play-groups in this way. If you don't agree that it would have this effect, you could say so. If you don't care one way or another, then I suppose we have nothing to discuss. If you are not interested, that is fine. Go find another thread to participate in, and let this one die.

[ quoted text not captured ] > participate in, and let this one die.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Will do sir. At least I admit being an asshat.