[Case Study] Play to Win

Howdy, Before you say, "Argh, not another play to win thread!" and tune out - I'm not really intending this to dredge up any of the other threads' content. Where the concerns of those threads has been more or less entirely a series of hypotheticals, I'm hoping that this thread can bring us back to actual practice. In the spirit of Ira's request for 'case studies' as teaching aids for judges, and in the spirit of Derek's and my suspicion that actual actionable abuses of 'Play to Win' are few and far between and unsubtle when they occur, I wonder if judges who have actually enforced 'Play to Win' could post suitably anonymized transcriptions of their enforcement actions. No names, please, but it'd be nice to have a) the game state at the point of the ruling, in as much detail as is useful, b) the ruling, c) the thought process leading to the ruling and d) the effects of the ruling. Note that I'm mostly looking for cases where the ruling was that the player in question _wasn't_ Playing to Win and needed to somehow alter their play. Interesting cases where a ruling was called for and it was decided that the player was, in fact, conforming would probably be useful as well, and I can even supply one of those myself. (It was a while ago, so my memory is fuzzy, and I was not the judge.) Finals of a small tourney. Table was me (!Ventrue bleed) -> Samedi S&B -> Brujah A (vote/bleed) -> Brujah B (Euro/titled bruise) -> Brujah C (bruise); the combination of Samedi stealth bleed and Brujah B back-rush has already erased Brujah A. Brujah C is on the ropes with three vamps and something like 1-3 pool remaining - and he apparently has neither bleed nor rush in his deck, just combat. Brujah B is in decent shape, with minions along the lines of Pascek, Theo, and/or Donal and ten-ish pool. The Samedi have 2-3 minions up and Laptopped, and are in decent shape with the +6 pool, though they are generally vulnerable to my bleed. I am running low on pool (<10) - I haven't been foolish enough to block the Brujah, and so am steadily losing 2-3 pool per turn. I have something like Neally and Tanner and Stoddard out, and they are getting low on blood. Brujah B, on his turn, decides that the appropriate course is not for him to attempt to bleed out Brujah C (who has one untapped minion), but rather to cut a deal to split the table with him. He offers to erase my minions so that Brujah C can move forward more rapidly, take me and the Samedi out, and then concede the last two VP to him (Brujah B), making the table a 2/2/1 split. I find this plan objectionable, as it seems to me to be conceding a 'reasonable' chance at a 4 VP win. Further extenuating circumstances: Brujah B has spent significant effort every game that I have played with him attacking me no matter where I sit relative to him; Brujah B and Brujah C play in the same gaming group, which interacts only rarely with the local group. I call the judge. The judge argues, in essence, that Play to Win is unenforceable, so his ruling is not particularly germane. What is germane is the fact that I have left out, and which I had not considered: Brujah B was seeded first. Thus, he was still playing to win, as a 2/2 tie would break in his favor. Of course, Brujah B's own justifications were nowhere near that clear: he argued that he would lose too many minions trying to bleed out Brujah C to be effective against me. Given that he'd previously shown Deflection and seat-changing votes, and had a stealth bleed predator, and had chosen to sit as predator to Brujah C, this line of argument struck me as hysterical. Once the tiebreak had been pointed out, there was no longer any substance to my argument that Brujah B was giving away VP, and so play resumed with the deal in force. Brujah B Famed some one of my minions. I top-decked a few more Skin of Steel to go with the Rolling with the Punches already in my hand and fought Brujah B to a standstill. Brujah C was still going to need several Turns to bleed me out. The Samedi quietly bled the hell out of Brujah B (though I think it took two Turns), and then Brujah C. I conceded that I didn't have the bleed to go through the extra 12 pool before the Samedi took me out. Entirely predictable, really. (And one of the few cases I've seen where 'salmoning' might have actually worked.) Anyway, Brujah B was clearly not playing particularly well, but he was minimally playing to win, at least in terms of his argument (and probably in his mind as well). I think I would have to rule against myself. Other examples? Thanks, Alex

Hey Alex, In my opinion, this is a great case study topic because it comes up very infrequently, but when it does, the judge's ruling is extremely significant. These are the perfect things to practice and explore in a case study - low likelihood, high consequence rulings. First, and most importantly, finalists are assumed to be playing to win. That is, whatever they do (even if it's ousting themselves from the beginning), they are considered to be playing to win. I use the word "assume" above in the mathematical proof sort of meaning - it is simply true. LSJ has patiently elaborated on this in a previous thread. The following post is the most relevant, but I found the whole thread to be enlightening: http://tinyurl.com/49gu5 So, I'll change the case study to a preliminary round and respond with my thoughts accordingly. > Finals of a small tourney. Remember, play to win doesn't really effect the finals, since finalists are always playing to win no matter what they do. This took me a little while to comprehend and internalize, and it's significant. In a prelim round, I would take Brujah B to the side, and find out his true intentions and thoughts. Maybe he was planning on some seat switching votes, or breaking his word, or something like that. Maybe he was just offering the deal to throw off Brujah C. If Brujah B claimed to me that he would consider breaking his word if Brujah C looked weak, or might call a seat switching vote, it would be extremely difficult for me to claim that he wasn't playing to win. I would surely let him play as he wished in that case. Note: the player could lie to the judge about his intentions, and there's not much the judge can do about that. In that regard, if players are willing to lie to judges, the play to win rule becomes much less enforceable. In the case of Brujah C, I would also have to be convinced that Brujah C has no reasonable chance to win, because Brujah C is also giving up the GW by making this deal. I'd have a similar conversation with Brujah C, and see what his intentions were. Perhaps Brujah B would say to me that he truly wanted to honor the deal, and wouldn't seat switch. In that case, I'd only let him make the deal if he claimed that he really didn't have a reasonable (5%) chance of getting a GW, and I was convinced of that. From the limited information available, I probably wouldn't let him make such a deal. I figure he probably has at least 5% chance of getting a GW from the situation you described. I would let the player discuss this point with me and explain why he had no hope, and perhaps I would be pursuaded. Then again, perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong - perhaps their intentions for keeping or not keeping the deal don't matter. Does that matter? I'm not sure. I think I have to assume their intentions are to keep the deal, and in that case, is the deal legal to make? It's only legal to make a deal like that if both of them no longer have a reasonable chance at a GW. If either one had a reasonable chance at a GW, I should prevent them from making the deal. Regardless, even if I disallowed the table splitting deal at that time, I almost certainly wouldn't mandate any specific plays. I wouldn't force him to bleed or do anything. With the Fame, I might ask him to clarify how putting Fame on your vampire was helping him play to win without a deal in place. I would ask for such a clarification in private, and I'd probably add time to the clock if it took longer than 2 minutes for all this discussion. As a judge, I am *extremely* reluctant to dictate specific plays, or even prohibit specific plays. I'm slightly more willing to prohibit deals if they obviously go against play to win. > The Samedi quietly bled the hell out of Brujah B (though I > think it took two Turns), and then Brujah C. If Brujah B was playing Euro Brujah, then perhaps it was his plan to bounce bleeds. > Other examples? I have a decent one, but I'll post it separately in this thread when I have more time. Ira

> In the spirit of Ira's request for 'case studies' as teaching aids for > judges, and in the spirit of Derek's and my suspicion that actual > actionable abuses of 'Play to Win' are few and far between and > unsubtle when they occur, I wonder if judges who have actually > enforced 'Play to Win' could post suitably anonymized transcriptions > of their enforcement actions. No names, please, but it'd be nice to > have a) the game state at the point of the ruling, in as much detail > as is useful, b) the ruling, c) the thought process leading to the > ruling and d) the effects of the ruling. German Qualifier, 2nd round. 3 players left, plenty of time. Player A has 1 VP and plays obf-pre with AUS-bounce, not to be ousted soon. Player B has no VP's, !malk stealthbleed with AUS-bounce, not to be ousted soon. Player C (me) has 1 VP, Qadir-bloat-n-AR, 2 ARs in play, not in that good health, but will survive at least some turns, in hope to finally draw his miniontaps. I would say chances to win were about 40-40-20 Player A proposes a deal that would give B a VP, and A the table. B agrees. I call the judge. the Judge agrees that B's chances are above reasonable and forbids the deal. Player A then proposes a 2-2-1 deal with player B, the judge forbids this for the same reasons. player A then proposes to help B oust me and then fight it out. I nor the judge can think of a reason why he shouldn't. and so it happens. B wins the game (by topdecking a wake) I think the judge made the right decisions in this case. W

On 22 Jul 2004 01:25:10 -0700, Wouter Kuyper wrote: >player A then proposes to help B oust me and then fight it out. I nor >the judge can think of a reason why he shouldn't. and so it happens. That's not a deal IMO as B isn't expected to do anything he wouldn't otherwise want to do. Why do you suppose A really wanted help B rather than himself? I'm guessing that it was spite because you got the judge to rule against his deal. Andrew

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com... > Hey Alex, > > In my opinion, this is a great case study topic because it comes up > very infrequently, but when it does, the judge's ruling is extremely > significant. These are the perfect things to practice and explore in > a case study - low likelihood, high consequence rulings. > > First, and most importantly, finalists are assumed to be playing to > win. That is, whatever they do (even if it's ousting themselves from > the beginning), they are considered to be playing to win. I use the > word "assume" above in the mathematical proof sort of meaning - it is > simply true. This is going to be kind of a tangent from the case study topic, but I don't think I agree with this. In my opinion, finalists are by no means exempt from the "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" part of the tournament rules that says "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)." Yes, finalists will normally be playing to win (or maximize their final standing) because there is no advantage to doing otherwise. But that doesn't mean they can do otherwise for spite's sake, or on the basis of other player's VEKN ratings, etc, just because they're in the finals. They still may not collude or bribe each other. My reading of Scott's posts on this topic is that finalists are assumed to be playing to win because they normally shouldn't have any reason to do otherwise. If they *are* doing otherwise, their possible motives should still be examined, because there *are* rules against throwing games, even in the finals. Josh gone again

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<ecevf0tmb0qere6ia...@4ax.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Could be it, but i played against the guy before, and i doubt that. I think he just gave himself more chance with me out of the way. If i had drawn my poolgain i might have won that table indeed, so i think it was wise of him to do so. W

Hey Joshua, > In my opinion, finalists are by no means exempt from the > "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" part of the tournament rules > that says "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the > goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking > certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall > tournament standing, etc.)." I agree that finalists must still behave in a sportmanlike way. > They still may not collude or bribe each other. Agreed. > My reading of Scott's posts on this topic is that finalists are assumed > to be playing to win because they normally shouldn't have any reason to > do otherwise. If they *are* doing otherwise, their possible motives > should still be examined, because there *are* rules against throwing > games, even in the finals. What about ousting yourself? LSJ said pretty explicitly that it shouldn't be prevented assuming no other violations like collusion, etc. Specifically this post: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=HRgkc.4291%24Xj6.68503%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net and the response "Pathological, but no." That whole post shows how a greater degree of play-to-win freedom is given to finalists that's not given to players in a preliminary round. Here's another example: I'm in 5th place in the tournament, and the final round is about to start. I need to leave in 10 minutes. If I don't sit down at the final table, the best I can do is 6th place (at least, I think that's the way it works now.) The current V:EKN rating system also encourages being at the final table. So, I sit down, and then I immediately oust myself. I'm not colluding with anyone, but I'm also not actively trying to win. Should the judge prohibit this behavior? In a preliminary round, absolutely. In a final round, I previously believed that the judge should prohibit it, but LSJ's post above states clearly (to me at least) that the judge should NOT prohibit it. Also, I'm unclear whether or not the player, knowing he must leave in 10 minutes, is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct. For a preliminary round, yes. For a final round, I think not, since that player is basically allowed to play however he wants, whatever "gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of winning." [LSJ, in the post referenced above.] Finally, as a judge, I would double check that the player didn't tell anyone else that he had to leave, because otherwise it could be collusion. Then again, maybe in that case it would be better to have a 4 player final, and still have the 5th place person place 5th? Also, does it change the situation any if the player's time limit is 30 minutes, or 60 minutes, or 110 minutes? Ira

Here is another example from a Final. I'm not sure if the ruling should be different for a final or not, given Joshua's good points about unsportsmanship conduct rules still applying (perhaps.) Meth A (1st Seed) !Toreador weenie/embrace vote w/ Foundation Exhibit Meth B (3rd Seed) Tzim intercept combat Meth C (5th Seed) !Malk/Malk stealth bleed w/ fortitiude Meth D (4th seed) Ahrimanes toolbox vote Meth E (2nd seed) 2nd tradition/animalism block long range combat The game was very slow overall. Meth D was getting pretty frustrated because the one turn he tapped out, Meth C bled for a lot and would otherwise do nothing. Meth E would block everything that Meth D did. Meth A couldn't take any actions safely because otherwise he'd be blocked (Maris Strek was controlled by Meth E.) Meth B bled for 1 a bunch and Meth C never blocked. With about 20-25 minutes left, Meth C offers to do nothing to Meth D for several turns (I think 3) so that Meth D could tap out "safely" and would have the chance oust Meth E. In return, Meth D would oust himself if his own oust attempt failed. I think the turn limits were nebulous and not specific, but both Meths seemed to be OK with that and willing to keep the deal. Meth D makes a valiant attempt for a couple of turns, but Meth E apparently has an endless supply of untaps and 2nd traditions. Meth A, who is seeded first, really just wants the game to go to time. He tries to convince Meth D not to transfer out, because on his turn, he could call votes that hurt Meth E. Meth D sticks around for another turn. Meth A doesn't call any votes on his turn. There is about 1 minute left. Meth B plays revelations at basic, discards a Confusion from Meth C's hand. Maybe bleeds for 1. Ends his turn. Meth C bleeds for 2, putting Meth D at 4 pool, and ends his turn. About 30 seconds left. Meth D wants to oust himself, and transfers out. Objection from Meth A. Judge is called over with 13 seconds left on the clock, and time is stopped. Judge rules that Meth D is allowed to transfer out because he's following a legally made deal, and also because it's the final. Time resumes, Meth A is understandably upset, and tells Meth E, who has been diligently trying to kill Meth A the whole game, that he'll oust himself on his turn. Meth E, with three untapped minions to Meth A's 3 pool, bleeds for one and ousts Meth A just before the buzzer. Meth A had an untapped minion, and a telepathic misdirection in hand. The Judge rules that Meth A could allow himself to be ousted because it was the finals, even though he was obviously not playing to win. Had Meth A stayed alive, he would have placed 2nd. By allowing himself to be ousted, he placed 4th. I'm not sure where to draw the line between poor play (i.e. not blocking or bouncing) and willingly getting ousted. I think in a prelim round, I wouldn't have allowed Meth A to let himself be killed as he did. In the finals, I think that I would rule just as the Judge ruled, and that is Meth A is allowed to do what he wants. From observation, I believe the primary motivation from Meth A was an emotional reaction to having the tournament win stolen away from him, and he wanted to regain some control over the situation, even if that meant giving the win to someone else. He didn't care at all about the difference between 2nd or 4th; it was all-or-nothing. As a note, the prize structure was also that way - 1st place got 20 boosters, everyone else got nothing. Furthermore, I'm not sure if there's a difference in this case between transferring oneself out, and allowing oneself to get bled out. There is a slight difference, but not much. My rulings as a judge in the case wouldn't have been any different. It's not like Meth A made a calculated decision to spite Meth E by preventing him from cycling stealth or a Contingency Planning; Meth A actively wanted to die, and could have lived at least one more round if he desired. Ira

Ira <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: >> In my opinion, finalists are by no means exempt from the >> "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" part of the tournament rules >> that says "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the >> goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking >> certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall >> tournament standing, etc.)." > > I agree that finalists must still behave in a sportmanlike way. > >> They still may not collude or bribe each other. > > Agreed. Except as provided in http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html [VEKN JG 161], of course. >> My reading of Scott's posts on this topic is that finalists are >> assumed to be playing to win because they normally shouldn't >> have any reason to do otherwise. If they *are* doing otherwise, >> their possible motives should still be examined, because there >> *are* rules against throwing games, even in the finals. > > What about ousting yourself? LSJ said pretty explicitly that it > shouldn't be prevented assuming no other violations like collusion, > etc. Specifically this post: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HRgkc.4291%24Xj6.68503%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net > > and the response "Pathological, but no." That whole post shows how a > greater degree of play-to-win freedom is given to finalists that's not > given to players in a preliminary round. > > Here's another example: > I'm in 5th place in the tournament, and the final round is about to > start. I need to leave in 10 minutes. If I don't sit down at the > final table, the best I can do is 6th place (at least, I think that's > the way it works now.) The current V:EKN rating system also > encourages being at the final table. > > So, I sit down, and then I immediately oust myself. I'm not colluding > with anyone, but I'm also not actively trying to win. Should the > judge prohibit this behavior? In a preliminary round, absolutely. In > a final round, I previously believed that the judge should prohibit > it, but LSJ's post above states clearly (to me at least) that the > judge should NOT prohibit it. If I was judging at that final table where you ousted yourself because you had to leave in X minutes and then tried to claim 5th place in the tournament + prize support, I'd put you down as the 5th place finalist, give your prize support to the person in 6th place, and report you to WW as a "Disqualification without prize for severe Unsportsmanlike conduct" [VEKN JG 20]. You could have it out with LSJ and Robert Goudie from there. > Also, I'm unclear whether or not the player, knowing he must leave in > 10 minutes, is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct. For a preliminary > round, yes. For a final round, I think not, since that player is > basically allowed to play however he wants, whatever "gives you the > best bang for your buck in terms of winning." [LSJ, in the post > referenced above.] I'd love to hear how outsing yourself gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of winning. ;) > Ira Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree with the judge. > > Time resumes, Meth A is understandably upset, and tells Meth E, who > has been diligently trying to kill Meth A the whole game, that he'll > oust himself on his turn. Meth E, with three untapped minions to Meth > A's 3 pool, bleeds for one and ousts Meth A just before the buzzer. > > Meth A had an untapped minion, and a telepathic misdirection in hand. > > The Judge rules that Meth A could allow himself to be ousted because > it was the finals, even though he was obviously not playing to win. > Had Meth A stayed alive, he would have placed 2nd. By allowing > himself to be ousted, he placed 4th. i would call this bad sportsmanship and disallow it. i think. but this comes awfully close to "you have to play your telepathic". so i wouldn't know how to handle this. but this is no longer about playing to win i think. W

Hey Kevin, > If I was judging at that final table where you ousted yourself because you > had to leave in X minutes and then tried to claim 5th place in the > tournament + prize support, I'd put you down as the 5th place finalist, > give your prize support to the person in 6th place, and report you to WW > as a "Disqualification without prize for severe Unsportsmanlike conduct" > [VEKN JG 20]. You could have it out with LSJ and Robert Goudie from > there. If this happened in a prelim round, I'd agree with a severe penalty. But we're talking about the final round, for which the 5th place player has already earned his spot. LSJ previously said that no finalist would oust himself from the beginning of the game: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3473466833d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=rnpkc.7258%24Xj6.114601%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net This seems to me to be a case where the finalist really does want to oust himself, but isn't breaking any rule other than play-to-win. And since finalists are ASSUMED to be playing-to-win, it's impossible for that finalist (who is ousting himself) to not be playing-to-win. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? LSJ, given this situation of a finalist wanting to oust himself, would you prohibit it under the sportsmanship rules, or would you allow it to happen because the finalist is assumed to be playing to win? > I'd love to hear how outsing yourself gives you the best bang > for your buck in terms of winning. ;) If I play and oust myself, I come in 5th and I get a better rating. If I don't play at all, I come in 6th and get a worse rating. 5th is better than 6th. Note: I could be wrong about the rankings of a finalist who opts not to play in the final, but I'm pretty sure the 6th seeded person will place higher than the 5th seeded person after the tournament is over. Ira

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com... > But we're talking about the final round, for which the 5th place > player has already earned his spot. LSJ previously said that no > finalist would oust himself from the beginning of the game: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3473466833d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=rnpkc.7258%24Xj6.114601%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net > > This seems to me to be a case where the finalist really does want to > oust himself, but isn't breaking any rule other than play-to-win. And > since finalists are ASSUMED to be playing-to-win, it's impossible for > that finalist (who is ousting himself) to not be playing-to-win. Obviously, if he's got some other out-of-game consideration (like not having allocated the appropriate amount of time for the tournament), then that out-of-game consideration may be causing him to violate the play to win rule, and the infraction should be corrected, as always. > LSJ, given this situation of a finalist wanting to oust himself, > would you prohibit it under the sportsmanship rules, or would you > allow it to happen because the finalist is assumed to be playing to > win? If he's not playing to win, I'd expect the judge to correct the illegal play. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com>... (snip) > Judge rules that Meth D is allowed to transfer out because he's > following a legally made deal, and also because it's the final. > > Time resumes, Meth A is understandably upset, and tells Meth E, who > has been diligently trying to kill Meth A the whole game, that he'll > oust himself on his turn. Meth E, with three untapped minions to Meth > A's 3 pool, bleeds for one and ousts Meth A just before the buzzer. > > Meth A had an untapped minion, and a telepathic misdirection in hand. > > The Judge rules that Meth A could allow himself to be ousted because > it was the finals, even though he was obviously not playing to win. > Had Meth A stayed alive, he would have placed 2nd. By allowing > himself to be ousted, he placed 4th. Well, I've been judge to one tournament only, which means I have no experience at all. Although I am very insecure about having something to offer to this debate, I felt like saying something about this example. I can understand why Meth A is upset, but I don't feel like I would ever allow him to let himself be ousted like that. If things go wrong for me, should I be allowed to behave like that, just because I'm in the finals? I would like to know what you folks think about this, but for me it feels so wrong. (snip) > From observation, I > believe the primary motivation from Meth A was an emotional reaction > to having the tournament win stolen away from him, and he wanted to > regain some control over the situation, even if that meant giving the > win to someone else. That's my point... That's an emotional reaction, and because of that reaction he fell into unsportmanlike behavior, in my opinion... > He didn't care at all about the difference > between 2nd or 4th; it was all-or-nothing. As a note, the prize > structure was also that way - 1st place got 20 boosters, everyone else > got nothing. As a judge, I don't think 2nd is the same as 4th. I feel like enforcing the players to rank as high as possible, even 1st is not possible anymore. And I regard the prize as an off-game issue, so it should not influence players' in-game decisions. Thanks for the debate. I hope I could express myself well here, whithout sounding too harsh.. =) Cheers, Luiz

Howdy Ira, > Here is another example from a Final. I'm not sure if the ruling > should be different for a final or not, given Joshua's good points > about unsportsmanship conduct rules still applying (perhaps.) > > Meth A (1st Seed) !Toreador weenie/embrace vote w/ Foundation Exhibit > Meth B (3rd Seed) Tzim intercept combat > Meth C (5th Seed) !Malk/Malk stealth bleed w/ fortitiude > Meth D (4th seed) Ahrimanes toolbox vote > Meth E (2nd seed) 2nd tradition/animalism block long range combat Why on earth did Meth A choose to sit there? Between two interceptors seems like a really bad choice for him. I'm guessing he didn't know what he was getting into? Not that it's relevant to the rulings. > The game was very slow overall. With every player most likely fielding some intercept (except maybe the Malks), and at least two serious intercept combat decks, this hardly seems surprising. Sounds like several players could benefit from reading Derek's writings on winning with intercept... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree. The deal was either legal or not at the time it was made. No one objected then - it's too late now. Honoring a legal deal is legal. And that Meth A is calling a judge after not upholding his end of the other deal takes serious chutzpah. > Time resumes, Meth A is understandably upset, and tells Meth E, who > has been diligently trying to kill Meth A the whole game, that he'll > oust himself on his turn. Meth E, with three untapped minions to Meth > A's 3 pool, bleeds for one and ousts Meth A just before the buzzer. > > Meth A had an untapped minion, and a telepathic misdirection in hand. > > The Judge rules that Meth A could allow himself to be ousted because > it was the finals, even though he was obviously not playing to win. > Had Meth A stayed alive, he would have placed 2nd. By allowing > himself to be ousted, he placed 4th. I guess C called the judge? He's the only one (other than A) who suffers by A's play: Before: C (1), A (2), E (3), B (4), D (5) After: E (1), C (2), B (3), A (4), D (5) Meth C certainly has a case. Meth A will earn a half-point more and a higher final placement by defending himself, unless something wacky happens. He cannot argue that his position is lost. I don't see how his play is 'sportsmanlike' either. Spite is more or less the opposite of sportsmanlike. Now if A had time to make a deal to split the winnings with E for self-ousting, I guess that'd be legal, though it'd still suck IMO... > I'm not sure where to draw the line between poor play (i.e. not > blocking or bouncing) and willingly getting ousted. I think in a > prelim round, I wouldn't have allowed Meth A to let himself be killed > as he did. A has already shown serious chutzpah, but I guess I don't see him having the cojones to sit there and tell a judge that he just couldn't play any better... Especially not after making the final. This is where the 'unsubtle' bit factors in. Meth A can try to grey the issue all he wants, but I just don't see any competent judge buying an incompetence defense here. > In the finals, I think that I would rule just as the Judge ruled, and > that is Meth A is allowed to do what he wants. From observation, I > believe the primary motivation from Meth A was an emotional reaction > to having the tournament win stolen away from him, and he wanted to > regain some control over the situation, even if that meant giving the > win to someone else. This sounds like an astute analysis of the psychology. But 'playing to exercise control over the outcome' is not the same as 'playing to win'. In fact, it's the opposite in this case. I don't really understand the 'presumed playing to win' theory you have extracted from LSJs posts on the subject, though I can see where it comes from. Perhaps, though, LSJ just meant to point out the difference between prelims, where one could possibly play 'to the final' rather than 'to win', and the final, where you can't play 'to the final' anymore? Otherwise, I don't know how to reconcile intentional losing play with a presumption that everyone is playing to win. > He didn't care at all about the difference > between 2nd or 4th; it was all-or-nothing. As a note, the prize > structure was also that way - 1st place got 20 boosters, everyone else > got nothing. Yuck. I guess there were still ratings, but many players don't care about them. The interaction between this prize structure and 'play to win' is not good. In prelims you play for the GW, then VP, then nothing. Here, in a practical sense, you play for the GW, then nothing; VPs short of a GW are meaningless, and eliding 'no GW' with 'lost position' becomes reasonable. I can see how this would cause mutations of 'play to win'. It might be worth rethinking the prize structure in the future. Thanks for the example(s), Alex

Hey Alex, > Why on earth did Meth A choose to sit there? Between two interceptors > seems like a really bad choice for him. I'm guessing he didn't know > what he was getting into? Right. > Sounds like several players could benefit > from reading Derek's writings on winning with intercept... There were excellent players sitting at that table. All them made it to the finals, so clearly they were doing something right. > No one objected then - it's too late now. I disagree. It's not too late to object, though objecting when it was originally made would be better. But a Judge can always be called over, and I wouldn't automatically dismiss the claim "because it's too late." > And that Meth A is calling a judge after not upholding his end > of the other deal takes serious chutzpah. We can make the case study whatever we want, but just for clarity on what actually happened, Meth A never promised that he'd do anything, he just presented some possibilities, and some logic why Meth D shouldn't oust himself. > I guess C called the judge? The judge was called over when Meth D wanted to oust himself. In the ensuing discussion, Meth A clarified that he could also oust himself if he wanted. It all came up at once. > I don't really understand the 'presumed playing to win' theory you > have extracted from LSJs posts on the subject Really? I thought LSJ was explicit. I provided the base-case of not playing to win (i.e. ousting oneself from the outset), and LSJ said that a judge shouldn't stop it. I provided the URL earlier, and I'll link it again because that's easier than trying to paraphrase: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:LSJ+pathological+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad&selm=HRgkc.4291%24Xj6.68503%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net&rnum=1 Then again, LSJ's recent response in this thread seems to contradict it. I'm sure it doesn't actually contradict, I just don't understand why not. I'm going to give up for a while, because honestly I'm totally confused about what LSJ really wants us to do. It seems to me that it should be simple, but I feel like I can't get a straight answer; conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if LSJ feels like he's given a straight answer 10 times in a row, and I'm just an idiot for not getting it. LSJ, it's frustrating that you're unwilling to give case studies, because I so strongly believe that it's the best way to learn good decision making for grey areas. For instance, you could state how you would rule in the several cases presented in this thread. That would be more enlightening to me than your recent, correct, precise, and concise statements. I know you work really hard for us, and I appreciate it deeply. I just wish you'd give the case studies a try, because it'd be a really good time-to-benefit ratio for you and for us. Ira, who is tired

I appear to be resurrecting a thread that everyone else has decided to let die. Sorry if no one else wanted to see Return Of Zombie Thread II: Play To Eat Brains. :-) "Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com... [Alex Broadhead wrote] > > No one objected then - it's too late now. > > I disagree. It's not too late to object, though objecting when it > was originally made would be better. But a Judge can always be called > over, and I wouldn't automatically dismiss the claim "because it's too > late." Yes, I would agree with you on that, Ira. And on the case-study question regarding D wanting to uphold his deal and self-oust, I would also probably say that D *can* uphold the bargain and self-oust just before time if he wants to, although in my personal opinion he is harming his own position by doing so and would be better off not self-ousting. :-) I could go on to claim that Meth D has put himself into the position of being nothing but a tool for Meth C, and is now (presumably unintentionally) playing to lose. But it sounds like Meth D would claim that he has no reasonable chance to win (or earn any more VPs) without making the deal with C. Again I might disagree; if you can be patient and stick around longer, you almost always have *some* reasonable chance of improving your position. But I would probably prefer not to make D play the way I would play, instead of the way he would play, as a judge. > > I don't really understand the 'presumed playing to win' theory you > > have extracted from LSJs posts on the subject > > Really? I thought LSJ was explicit. I provided the base-case of not > playing to win (i.e. ousting oneself from the outset), and LSJ said > that a judge shouldn't stop it. I provided the URL earlier, and I'll > link it again because that's easier than trying to paraphrase: Here's a shorter link to that thread: http://tinylink.com/?3M751ZKrgy My interpretation of LSJ's answers there is not that finalists can do whatever they want. It's that they are assumed to be playing to win in the absence of evidence to the contrary, since they should have no incentive to do otherwise. That's why it's "pathological" for a finalist to oust himself as soon as he sits down. I'm not sure why he went on to say "but no" after using the word pathological, but in that last post in the thread, he wrote "Because he wouldn't do it, that's why. It's a faulty premise. It needs no special regulating." To me, that means that the immediate self-oust is not explicitly prohibited only because it should never happen: there should normally be no reason for a finalist to oust himself as soon as he sits down, because he cannot benefit from doing so. If there *is* some out-of-game consideration that is leading him to do such a thing, he *can* be violating the sportsmanship rules, and that *can* be corrected by the judge. That's my interpretation, at least. > LSJ, it's frustrating that you're unwilling to give case studies, > because I so strongly believe that it's the best way to learn good > decision making for grey areas. For instance, you could state how you > would rule in the several cases presented in this thread. That would > be more enlightening to me than your recent, correct, precise, and > concise statements. I know you work really hard for us, and I > appreciate it deeply. I just wish you'd give the case studies a try, > because it'd be a really good time-to-benefit ratio for you and for > us. I agree that this would be useful to us judges. I think he's not willing to do it because he feels that no newsgroup-post case study can sufficiently specify everything about a game, in the level of detail that would be available to an actual judge "on the ground". But I have to agree with you that if the level of detail that can be put down in words is sufficient for lawyers, it ought to be sufficient for us too. :-) Josh who is also tired, but has at least had some coffee this morning

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04072...@posting.google.com... hi again Ira, > Here's another example: > I'm in 5th place in the tournament, and the final round is about to > start. I need to leave in 10 minutes. If I don't sit down at the > final table, the best I can do is 6th place (at least, I think that's > the way it works now.) The current V:EKN rating system also > encourages being at the final table. > Also, I'm unclear whether or not the player, knowing he must leave in > 10 minutes, is engaging in unsportsmanlike conduct. For a preliminary > round, yes. For a final round, I think not, since that player is > basically allowed to play however he wants, whatever "gives you the > best bang for your buck in terms of winning." [LSJ, in the post > referenced above.] I think this is unsportsmanlike, yes. Whatever gives you the best bang for the buck in terms of winning is still subject to being a good sport, and sitting down for a final that you can only play ten minutes of is not fair (IMO) to the other players. > Then again, maybe in that case it would be better to have a 4 player > final, and still have the 5th place person place 5th? Hmm. I wouldn't be inclined to go this route. I would probably prefer to drop the "has to leave in 10 minutes" player from the finals (he might place 6th for the ratings system, I'm not sure if what happens in these cases is well-defined). > Also, does it change the situation any if the player's time limit is > 30 minutes, or 60 minutes, or 110 minutes? Good question. I think that in principle, it does not: if a player knows ahead of time that he cannot participate in the full potential length of the final game, he should not sit down for just part of it. On the other hand, I would be somewhat sympathetic to the 110-minute time limit, in that there is a somewhat reasonable chance that the game could be over (or at least over for that particular player) by that time. Still, I think it's probably best for players not to sit down for the finals if they wouldn't be able to play the whole thing. (Hopefully I've addressed the other part of your post in my other post to this thread - it didn't seem like there was anything more for me to say about the general "play to win" case in response to this post.) Josh always believes in the heart of the cards

> I appear to be resurrecting a thread that everyone else has decided to > let die. Sorry if no one else wanted to see Return Of Zombie Thread II: > Play To Eat Brains. :-) MMMmmmm.... Brains..... > that means that the immediate self-oust is not explicitly prohibited > only because it should never happen: there should normally be no reason > for a finalist to oust himself as soon as he sits down, because he > cannot benefit from doing so. If there *is* some out-of-game > consideration that is leading him to do such a thing, he *can* be > violating the sportsmanship rules, and that *can* be corrected by the > judge. Ah... That makes sense to me, and I like it. Common sense dictates that it's against the sportsmanship rules to self-oust at the beginning of the finals anyway. I understand what LSJ was saying now (which is consistent with the other stuff he wrote later); thank you for the translation/interpretation. > I agree that this would be useful to us judges. I think he's not > willing to do it because he feels that no newsgroup-post case study can > sufficiently specify everything about a game, in the level of detail > that would be available to an actual judge "on the ground". I also believe that is one of his primary reasons. I'm even willing to concede the point that it would be too tedious (or impossible) to write down as many details as you'd have during an actual game. So what? Assume we only get limited information; LSJ could still provide many relevant and helpful case studies. When the students wanted more information, they could ask the relevant questions; even that clarification-question-asking process would be enlightening. Ira