Tournement Report: ECQ Hungary 2007

Praxis Seizure: Budapest, Spring 2007 March 31, 2007 53 players Budapest, Hungary There were 53 participants at the Hungarian ECQ for 2007. The number of foreign participants was an all-time low, at only 1 non-Hungarian player; however, the honor was immense to have Hajakawa Hidetoshi from Japan attend! About 13 people qualified for the EC (nobody was pre-qualified). Rank Name PrelimGW PrelimVP FinalVP 1 Tibor Holhos 3 11 4 2 Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy 2 9 1 3 Milan Horvath 2 6 4 Peter Korsos 2 6 5 Tamas Kovacs Istvan 1 7 6 Gyula Erdos 3 10 (GL) 7 Jozsef Gal 2 9 (GL) 8 Martin Major 1 6 9 Arnold Farkas 1 6 10 Tibor Morocz 1 6 11 Ferenc Vasadi 1 5,5 12 Zoltan Komora 1 5 13 Balazs Sebestyen 1 5 14 Istvan Mecseri 1 5 15 Richard Farkas 1 5 16 Gabor Endler 1 4 17 Zsolt Gonda 1 3 18 Gergo Gyarmati 1 3 18 Tamas Albeck 1 3 20 Jovan Pavlovics 1 3 21 Ferenc Borbely 0 3,5 22 Balazs Kaloczkai 0 3 22 Peter Vadasz 0 3 24 Csaba Greguss 0 2 24 Norbert Broda 0 2 24 Zsolt Cziraki 0 2 27 Mate Andrasi 0 2 28 Tamas Csepregi 0 2 29 Tibor Molnar 0 2 30 Marcell Varjasi 0 2 31 Attila Ferencz 0 1,5 32 Miklos Danis 0 1,5 33 Laszlo Koti 0 1 33 David Kriston 0 1 35 Balazs Palffy 0 1 35 Peter Erdodi 0 1 35 Ferenc Gego 0 1 35 Tibor Bayer 0 1 35 Károly Albeck 0 1 40 Sandor Vicha 0 1 40 Hajakawa Hidetoshi 0 1 40 Balazs Pahi 0 1 43 Gyöngyi Tünde Hidegfoldi 0 1 44 Robert Abonyi 0 0,5 45 Oliver Toth 0 0,5 46 Tamas Bank 0 0 47 Attila Suhajda 0 0 48 Eva Fejszes 0 0 49 Jozsef Kuminka 0 0 50 Krisztian Tivadari 0 0 50 Adam Walter 0 0 50 Tamas Hofer 0 0 53 Zoltan Ivanyos 0 0 Unfortunately two players (originally ranked #2 and #4) recieved a Game Loss penalty for incorrect decklists, and couldn't participate in the finals. This changed the scene a bit, allowing the original #6 and #7 players to play. The finals came to a quick conclusion thanks to the number of active decks present. Seating: Tibor Holhos (DOM OBF stealth-bleed) -> Milan Horvath (a toolboxish take on the weenie Saturday Night Special + Dragon Breath Roungs combo) -> Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy (playing Giovanni Powerbleed) -> Tamas Kovacs (Malkavian stealth-bleed) -> Peter Korsos (Tzimisce Wall). Tibor started the game straightforward bleeding Milan, who had two Intercept locations and so actually tried to block. I influenced out Andrea Giovanni, who started with an unfortunate bleed for 6 (which never connected thanks to Istvan's Archon Investigation), leaving me minionless for a few turns. Istvan seemingly had no difficulty to bypass Peter's Intercept, and he even removed the early Smiling Jack. Milan shot and Graverobbed Tibor's Count Ormonde, and spent most of his effort trying to fend off his predator. A bleed for 5 at 3 stealth was bounced all the way to Peter, who had to make the choice whom to send it to; he chose to send it back to his predator, thanks to which during my next turn I succesfully ousted Istvan. During his turn Tibor just managed to finished off Milan, apparently drawing just enough bleed to do it. I tried to play my game, and made it a point not to allow any permanent Intercept for my prey (using blocks and DI as needed to deprive him of this bothersome resource), and at the same time used Le Dinh Tho's special every turn on him. Although I never got through his transient Intercept, my efforts were enough to completely deny my prey his Intercept. Tibor managed to oust me (again, just barely; his hand clogged on stealth due to my no-blocks policy), and proceeded to quickly eliminate Peter, whose hand was full of wake cards, but at that point had no intercept comparable to the vast amount of stealth Tibor could dish out. The game was fun and brief, but all the better; Tibor gained a well-earned tournament win. Here's the winning deck: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 17, Max: 28, Avg: 5,58) ---------------------------------------------- 2 Gilbert Duane AUS DOM OBF 7 Malkavian 2 Mariel aus tha DOM OBF 7 Malkavian 2 Didi Meyers aus cel obf DOM 5 Malkavian 1 Zebulon aus dom pro OBF 5 Malkavian 1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian 1 Count Ormonde dom pre ser OBF 5 Followers of Set 1 Badr al-Budur cel dom qui OBF 5 Assamite 1 Ozmo dom obf AUS 6 Malkavian 1 Reverend Blackwood obf DOM THA 6 Tremere Antitribu Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (14 cards) 3 Blood Doll 4 Perfectionist 2 Sudden Reversal 1 Momentum`s Edge 1 Pentex Subversion 1 Anarch Troublemaker 2 Dreams of the Sphinx Action (18 cards) 15 Govern the Unaligned 3 Far Mastery Action Modifier (37 cards) 5 Seduction 12 Conditioning 4 Cloak the Gathering 4 Domain of Evernight 4 Faceless Night 4 Lost in Crowds 4 Spying Mission Reaction (17 cards) 9 Deflection 3 Wake with Evening`s Freshness 5 On the Qui Vive Combo (4 cards) 4 Swallowed by the Night Thanks to Gabor Balazs, the prince of Budapest for organizing and judging the event, and to Tibor Morocz for the additional support! ...and thanks for the attendance to all those, who showed up! :) -- Regards, Daneel

On 8 Apr, 23:54, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Unfortunately two players (originally ranked #2 and #4) recieved a Game > Loss penalty for incorrect decklists, and couldn't participate in the > finals. This changed the scene a bit, allowing the original #6 and #7 > players to play. This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic?

as...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1176103830.055048.206630 @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious cheating, the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification. I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were. DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <1176103830.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price > sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic? As noted in many other discussions about this in there here forum, many folks think this is an absurdly draconian rule (i.e. deck lists and penalty game loss due to typo). But if it works for them, well, there ya go. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6- D005E9.162...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > In article <1176103830.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price >> sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic? > > As noted in many other discussions about this in there here forum, many > folks think this is an absurdly draconian rule (i.e. deck lists and > penalty game loss due to typo). But if it works for them, well, there ya > go. > Ya know, as I've been giving the circumstances of this topic a recent think, I suspect that the problem lies in needing some further detail in the VEKN tourney rules as to how you go about using decklists... Here is all that we have to go on; VEKN Rules: 6.3. Constructed Deck Registration The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists each round. That last line is the only guide as to when and how to implement decklist checking, and its vague. It seems like a general habit has been developed, if decklists are used at all, the decklists of finalists are checked. This results in the inherently unfair situation, that clerical errors are penalized only _after_ the preliminary rounds are completed. Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error been discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of the finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him from participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a correction of decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2 GW, and some significant number of VPs. The same may have held true for Jozsef Gal, too, depending upon the round of discovery for the discrepancy. And this seems to come from the arbitrary determination someone made somewhere along the line that 'Reasonable'=5 when the finals and decklists are concerned. By this point in the tournament, a Game Loss penalty is IMO a much higher penalty than the Judge's Guide intends (since the Judge's Guide considers a generic "round" independent of which , as it is only being consistently applied for the Final Round. As a hypothetical, if a Judge could apply two different penalties; 1. Preliminary Round Game Loss, or 2. Final Round Game Loss Written out that way, it becomes clear that the latter is an incredibly stiff penalty (nearly as bad as a disqualification, IMO), whereas the first is certainly bad, but not insurmountable. The policy of checking finalists' decklists, only, creates just such an artificially high penalty, and only by virtue of the timing of implementation. For certain, Finalist decklist checks are, strictly speaking, a legal interpretation of the Rules, but that seems to me to be only because the rules are so vague on the subject. I think it would be really beneficial if some further detail were written into the VEKN Rules to prevent this from occuring (either by differentiating between GLs in prelims vs. finals in terms of penalty level, or by providing additional guidelines on implementing decklist checks). Choosing to implement this part of the VEKN Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game play. Done, now... sorry if I crushed somebody's soapbox ;-) Regards DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] I know it's not kosher nettiquette to just say "Yeah, what he said!", but I think this what you said needs saying a multiple number of times. Especially your last sentence - "exclude... on the basis of clerical skills, and not game play". It's like American Football's college championship series (the BCS), but worse. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

In article <Xns990DB07EED...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Choosing to implement this part of the VEKN > Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest > competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES > players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game > play. Yeah, I'd think that if these rules (i.e. deck list checks) were going to be used and then result in folks being excluded from the finals as a result, that either: A) The actual deck list/check rules should be written more comprehensively. or B) The deck checking should happen across the board and not right before the finals. Check everyone's deck before the first round, see if they match, and if they don't, make them fix them. And then check the finalists again before they hit the final round if you really want. The second option is much more of a pain in the ass, but if you are going to insist on deck lists and deck checks, you should do this in such a way as to not penalize folks too much for typos, and checking a deck right before the final round, discovering a typo, and then kicking someone out of the finals as a result seems like a really less optimal way to handle this sort of thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 9, 5:17 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error been > discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of the > finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him from > participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a correction of > decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2 GW, and some > significant number of VPs. The same may have held true for Jozsef Gal, > too, depending upon the round of discovery for the discrepancy. Wow. The way that the decklist checking has been implemented is REALLY screwed up, in light of that. John Eno

> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest > competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES > players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game > play. Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just before tournament be concentrated and change the list. Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond to the metagame. I don't know what's better.

In message <1176191997.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> writes: >Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that >difficult to write a correct list? (The following post is purely in the abstract, since I know nothing of the particulars of this tournament.) It depends, particularly if you're in a hurry because you didn't realise that it was going to be necessary and are scribbling it down in a few minutes when arriving later that expected for a tournament. Also, when taking notes on a deck, I've been known to put a mark in an ambiguous place on a deck listing by accident, or get two very similar cards confused. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example, if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics, because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. On the other hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I wouldnt punish him at all. is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the rules?

Joscha wrote: >> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest >> competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES >> players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game >> play. > > Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that > difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar > cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it > one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that > kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just > before tournament be concentrated and change the list. > Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. check a random sample after letting people know _before_ the first round that if they get checked, and they fail, they'll get a game loss for the first round? That'd put a bee up my butt to make me make sure i got my decklist right if i was a player. and _then_ check the finalists decks when it gets to there. but use your judgement. like, "hey, your deck list says you have an extra Haven Uncovered, but it's not in your deck", i would put that down to someone else grabbed it while picking up their cards during a previous round, and i'd find the card and fix it. if, however, it was something like "hey, you have 2 Fear of Mekhets in your deck that aren't on the list, and that Arika deck everyone's been talking about all day that swept all three prelim games is also in the final. umm...sorry mate, but i have to DQ you." > Maybe the > best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have > to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond > to the metagame. I don't know what's better. erm, accept that some people might try to cheat. not every tournament will actually have cheaters, and not all cheaters will only cheat by tweaking decks between rounds. I'd like to think a good judge would use judgement, and just do their best to make sure everything looks like it would look if we played in a perfect world where no one would even think of cheating, rather than decidedly DQing *every* decklist infraction. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Apr 10, 3:59 am, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that > difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar > cards together and write their number on a paper. Sure. It isn't that difficult to write a correct list. But you also can lose cards, accidentally leave cards in your box, leave a Haven Uncovered on someone, write "scouting mission" as opposed to "spying mission", or whatever. Or just change your deck at the last second and forget to adjust the list. > Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the > best solution is to play without decklists at all. It probably is. I have never in my life been to a tournament that required deck lists. Ever. In playing competetive VTES for, like, 12 years. Anywhere. And never have I felt as if my opponents were going to cheat as a result. > But then you have to accept cheating through the tournament and > deckchanging to respond to the metagame. I don't know what's better. I don't know that I actually have to accept that. Do you honestly think that *that* many people are changing their decks in mid tournament? Really? Given the situation at hand--the guys that got DQed from the final had already turned in deck lists. Do you think they specifically and intentionally changed their decks *after* turning in deck lists? Knowing that if they got into the finals, their decks would be checked against their lists? Does it really seem likely that they intentionally changed their decks in mid tournament? I mean, yeah, ok, it is certainly *possible*. But it strikes me as wildly unlikely. So the end result is that these guys get DQed from the finals due to a clerical error. Which seems kind of extreme. I know this has come up before (again and again), but do folks really think that there are so many people out there who are going to change their decks mid tournament that deck lists are helpful? And even if they think they are helpful: A) People can be DQed for clerical errors. B) If folks know that they only are going to get checked if they get into the finals, what is to stop them from changing their decks until they get in the finals, and then changing it back? C) Folks can cheat in many, many other ways that have nothing at all to do with deck changing. If you are so worried about cheating, how do you stop folks from other forms of cheating? Why laser focus on this one, yet not, like, force everyone to count their opponent's pool at the start of each game or make sure a judge observes whenever someone moves their pool when they are bled? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree, there is a difference between writing "3 Faceless Night, 2 Cloak the Gathering" and having 2 Faceless Night and 3 Cloak the Gathering int he deck (or write "3 Facless Night, 2 Cloak the Catering"). Or suddenly having 4 Entracement in the deck when deckchecked before the final, when there was only 2 Entrancement in the decklist, and *ooops* there are three ally-based decks in the final. If the tournament rules really are this insane, I suggest they are rewritten. I would go f********* if I got a game loss in a final due to a typo. (As a side note: At this weekends swedish ECQ there was no deckchecks, and this was ANNOUNCED prior to the tournament. Very weird, but surely better than ejecting somebody just because of him being bad at spelling or counting his cards.)

"Alias" <ransom...@seznam.cz> wrote in news:1176196547....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 10, 7:26 am, "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 9, 5:17 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error >> > been >> > discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of >> > the finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him >> > from participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a >> > correction of decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2 >> > GW, and some significant number of VPs. The same may have held >> > true for Jozsef Gal, too, depending upon the round of discovery >> > for the discrepancy. >> >> Wow. The way that the decklist checking has been implemented is >> REALLY screwed up, in light of that. >> >> John Eno > > in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't > know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example, > if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics, > because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not > enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. But, what you describe here is not "decklist error, penalty-game loss". You are describing "Cheating, penalty-disqualification". There is a seperate set of judge's guidelines and rules for this, irrespective of the fact that a decklist check was the means by which the offense was discovered... Had Daneel discovered cheating, I know he would have applied the correct penalty (with glee, even ;-). > On the other > hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I > wouldnt punish him at all. > is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the > rules? This is what I'm pushing for here, for further development of the guidelines. I don't blame anyone for the way in which they've chosen to implement the decklist checks. I'm just looking for some extra wording to address this somewhat accidental result of creating an artificially high penalty for what is usually a minor transgression. When we find a discrepancy (unfairness, overpowered, etc.) in the game's cards, we push for change to address that discrepancy. I'm just doing that here with the tournament rules. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in news:1176191997.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > >> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of >> honest competition, since they more often than not exclude the >> _proven_ best VTES players of the tournament, on the basis of >> clerical skills, and not game play. > > Hmm, that's really a good point. Thanks. :-) > On the other hand is it really that > difficult to write a correct list? I'll counter your question with a question. What do you consider an appropriate (fair) penalty for an error in a decklist? I'd accept a preliminary round game loss as being an appropriate penalty, but in practice that is not how this section of the rules is being implemented. > You just have to order similar > cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it > one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that > kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just > before tournament be concentrated and change the list. What does this have to do with playing VTES? If I happen to be bad at this kind of thing, but great at VTES, is is fair or appropriate that I be excluded from the finals on the basis of these skills? > Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the > best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have > to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond > to the metagame. I don't know what's better. Just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea... If you're really concerned about cheating through deck changes, a more effective (and expedient) system would be to have the Judge hold all decks between rounds, and provinding proxies the few times when player resources are left behind after an oust. Instead of a decklist (or in addition to), you would come to the tournament with a box with your name on it. Its a lot easier to implement a system which prevents this sort of cheating, than it is to even check a limited number of decklists. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:461b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au: > Joscha wrote: >>> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of >>> honest competition, since they more often than not exclude the >>> _proven_ best VTES players of the tournament, on the basis of >>> clerical skills, and not game play. >> >> Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that >> difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar >> cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it >> one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that >> kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just >> before tournament be concentrated and change the list. >> Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. > > check a random sample after letting people know _before_ the first > round that if they get checked, and they fail, they'll get a game loss > for the first round? That'd put a bee up my butt to make me make sure > i got my decklist right if i was a player. > > and _then_ check the finalists decks when it gets to there. but use > your judgement. like, "hey, your deck list says you have an extra > Haven Uncovered, but it's not in your deck", i would put that down to > someone else grabbed it while picking up their cards during a previous > round, and i'd find the card and fix it. I agree. This should be a specific example in the rules. > if, however, it was something like "hey, you have 2 Fear of Mekhets in > your deck that aren't on the list, and that Arika deck everyone's been > talking about all day that swept all three prelim games is also in the > final. umm...sorry mate, but i have to DQ you." > Again again again. Please don't conflate these two issues. They are totally separate. The continued mixing of the two is part of why we have excessive penalties being applied for typos. A decklist error on its own is not evidence of cheating. Cheating is horrible. Cheating is bad. If you catch a cheater, punish them as Cheaters. DISQUALIFY CHEATERS, and report them as such. The fact that you catch them through their decklist does NOT mean you are supposed to apply a deck error-game loss. If we separate the catching of cheaters from the checking of decklists, then it becomes more clear that decklist checks (again, without associated evidece of cheating) are being over-penalized. Decklist error alone != cheating, as you've made clear by your two examples above. Decklist error, plus other evidence may = cheating. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On 10 Apr., 16:20, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On the other hand is it really that > > difficult to write a correct list? > > I'll counter your question with a question. What do you consider an > appropriate (fair) penalty for an error in a decklist? I'd accept a > preliminary round game loss as being an appropriate penalty, but in > practice that is not how this section of the rules is being implemented. If it is just an writing error I'd give no penalty at all. Why should I give a GL in preliminary rounds because he listed Earth Meld instead of Earth Swords or something like that. If the minions in the crypt cannot use the cards it is clearly a writing error. Spying Mission and Scouting Mission in a deck with dom/obf is a huge problem, because someone could have reacted to a deflection-heavy or interceptheavy metagame. That is cheating (DQ). If it is in a dem/obf- deck it is no problem, because it is clearly a mistake. If one Haven Uncovered (or Disarm, Pulled Fangs, Derange and so on) is missing (or are added) I'd try to find it at the other player's decks (or return it to the owner). For me missing cards are no problem, the changed and the added cards are, if they are not clearly nonsense. <Given the situation at hand--the guys that got DQed from the final had <already turned in deck lists. Do you think they specifically and <intentionally changed their decks *after* turning in deck lists? <Knowing that if they got into the finals, their decks would be checked <against their lists? Does it really seem likely that they <intentionally changed their decks in mid tournament? It doesn't seem likely to me that they intentionally changed it. BECAUSE they know they get checked and DQed for a mistake. If you change that penalty to a softer consequence people might try to change decks in tournament brakes and state it was only a writing error. We (in Germany) don't play with deck lists in small tourneys. We demand for them in important events like Championships or Qualifiers. There the urge to cheat could be higher because of what you can achieve. Nobody cares for somebody who cheats with cards in a 10- person meeting with your friends. If you go to an important event you know you have to have a decklist with you, which has to be 100% right. > Just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea... If you're really concerned about > cheating through deck changes, a more effective (and expedient) system > would be to have the Judge hold all decks between rounds, and provinding > proxies the few times when player resources are left behind after an oust. > Instead of a decklist (or in addition to), you would come to the tournament > with a box with your name on it. That could do the trick. As an organizer you have to face the responsibility for many decks though, some of them worth 100+ Dollars.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:22:05 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious > cheating, > the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification. > > I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were. Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the former wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change control are bound to get lost every now and then), and later the card was found mingled in someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on the missing registration of the Lifes. Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the decklist), and was GL-ed based on this. Concerning the points made... I think it's easy to see the reasoning why a final GL is too harsh for a clerical error. Although I'm probably among the more organized players, and haven't yet made any errors in decklists, I fully understand that typos and errors in counting can happen to everyone, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to lose the chance to play in the finals because of a typo. Therefor I'm not very married to the idea of decklists myself. However, there are a number of counterarguments to be made, even in tournaments where the decklists are only checked before the finals. My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation (remember, issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then you are basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations. Saying that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less equal to saying "you can change 3 cards for the final". Same goes with all types of transgressions. Especially since in a tournament of sufficient size there is little reason to change anything on one's deck before reaching the finals, as until then there is probably zero knowledge of the opponents decks. I'm still not too happy about GLing players for clerical mistakes, however, I'm not sure how to reasonably go about having decklists if there is no consequences for a discrepancy. One possibility is to look at the decklist and have the player restore it fully, with no penalty issued (though this may encourage illegible decklists). Another is to simply drop having decklists at all, and assume that the harm done by disqualifying a player who makes an honest mistake is more than the benefit from the deterrent factor of players knowing that their decklists will be checked. -- Regards, Daneel

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:11:13 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't >> know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example, >> if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics, >> because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not >> enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. > > But, what you describe here is not "decklist error, penalty-game loss". > You are describing "Cheating, penalty-disqualification". There is a > seperate set of judge's guidelines and rules for this, irrespective of > the fact that a decklist check was the means by which the offense was > discovered... Had Daneel discovered cheating, I know he would have > applied the correct penalty (with glee, even ;-). Ok, I see I have a reputation to defend. :) I wasn't judging the event, just merely playing. But more importantly, I'm never glad to issue any penalties on tournaments, especially not penalties concerning sportsmanship. I generally prefer if all players play in a fully sportsmanlike manner, and there's so much love in the air, that you find it difficult to announce a bleed. :-) Well, maybe not that much love, but for me VtES is still a game I play with friends, for fun. I pretty much like to keep the game fair and - if possible - enjoyable to all. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in news:optqkvmj...@news.chello.hu: Thanks for the reply, Daneel... > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:22:05 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious >> cheating, >> the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification. >> >> I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were. > > Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and > had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the > former wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change > control are bound to get lost every now and then), and later the > card was found mingled in someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on > the missing registration of the Lifes. > OK. I know you weren't the judge, but do you know if anything more was investigated? Was the deck list 88 cards, plus the 2 LitC (implying a forgotton entry), or was the deck 92 cards, and thus illegal? Given the 'generic' nature of LitC, I wouldn't tend to see this as a GL-worthy offense (what in-game advantage stands to be gained from two LitC, if it were a change, and not merely an omission?), but your judge was operating well within the guidelines. > Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the > decklist), > and was GL-ed based on this. > Hmm. Sounds like some number of RKs were listed, but the deck contained one more than the decklist. I'd probably have corrected the decklist (or the deck, if illegal), and issued a warning. But, as I've learned from Johannes, it is tough, if not impossible, to issue differential rulings for similar infractions and not have it look like preferential treatment, _especially_ with respect to the finals. This GL was most probably unavoidable, in light of the penalty that Gyula received. Thanks again for the info... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Daneel wrote: > My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation > (remember, issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then you are > basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations. Saying > that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less equal to > saying "you can change 3 cards for the final". Same goes with all types of > transgressions. Especially since in a tournament of sufficient size there > is little reason to change anything on one's deck before reaching the > finals, as until then there is probably zero knowledge of the opponents > decks. Daneel states quite clearly a mentality that is to assume that every single person is cheating at all times unless proven otherwise. The issue we're having is that the American mentality is to assume that every single person is playing fairly at all times unless proven otherwise. This is a fundamental law & order philosophical sticking point. > Another is to simply drop having > decklists at all, and assume that the harm done by disqualifying a player > who makes an honest mistake is more than the benefit from the deterrent > factor of players knowing that their decklists will be checked. > That's the philosophical point behind "Innocent until Proven Guilty". More importantly, there's no compelling reason to believe that *anyone* whose decklist had a mismatch just before the final was cheating without previously knowing if their decklist matched before round 1. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Apr 10, 11:49 am, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > It doesn't seem likely to me that they intentionally changed it. > BECAUSE they know they get checked and DQed for a mistake. If you > change that penalty to a softer consequence people might try to change > decks in tournament brakes and state it was only a writing error. (you realize that you are responding to 2 different people in your post, right? I wrote what you are responding to here, and Dave wrote most of what else you were responding to...) In any case, yeah, someone might try and change decks in the tournament in the face of softer penalties. But in all likelyhood, most people won't. 'Cause it is stupid to cheat, and most folks just aren't going to do so. And if someone is inclined to cheat, if you stop them from cheating by checking to see if they changed their decks, they'll just cheat in some other way that you can't so easily prevent. But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical error. Why is that worth it? > We (in Germany) don't play with deck lists in small tourneys. We > demand for them in important events like Championships or Qualifiers. > There the urge to cheat could be higher because of what you can > achieve. It could be, sure. But in all likelyhood, for most people, it probably isn't. People aren't more likely to cheat in a large tournament if they aren't likely to cheat in a small tournament. 'Cause cheating is stupid, and most folks just aren't going to do it. And the ones that are willing to cheat at all will find a way to cheat, even with deck checks and all. > If you go to an important event you know you have to have a decklist with you, > which has to be 100% right. And if you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut in your card box when you pull your deck out to start the tournament and never notice? Is it acceptable to be DQed from the finals for such an incredibly minor and inconsequental infraction? -Peter

On Apr 10, 5:15 am, "Alias" <ransom.st...@seznam.cz> wrote: > in the light of what? In light of someone being kicked out of the finals due to a clerical error. > how could you judge what was right, if we don't > know anything specific about that decklist error? I don't understand this question. The people who organized the tournament obviously knew what was specifically wrong with the decklist. The fact that *the way they chose to implement decklist checking* resulted in someone being kicked ouf the finals is sucktastic. It's got nothing to do with what the specific errors were. > I mean, for example, > if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics, > because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not > enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. On the other > hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I > wouldnt punish him at all. Again: it's got nothing to do with what the specific errors were, and everything to do with how the judge(s) chose to implement decklist checking. > is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the > rules? Apparently, it was. John Eno

On Apr 10, 9:15 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote: > I agree, there is a difference between writing "3 Faceless Night, 2 > Cloak the Gathering" and having 2 Faceless Night and 3 Cloak the > Gathering int he deck (or write "3 Facless Night, 2 Cloak the > Catering"). Or suddenly having 4 Entracement in the deck when > deckchecked before the final, when there was only 2 Entrancement in > the decklist, and *ooops* there are three ally-based decks in the > final. No, there's not. If the judge(s) had implemented decklist checking in a fairer manner, they would have caught the totally theoretical cheater you're referring to here, and two players wouldn't have been kicked out of the finals for clerical mistakes. > If the tournament rules really are this insane, I suggest they are > rewritten. I would go f********* if I got a game loss in a final due > to a typo. Totally agreed. That's what I was referring to as being incredibly crappy. > (As a side note: At this weekends swedish ECQ there was no deckchecks, > and this was ANNOUNCED prior to the tournament. Very weird, but surely > better than ejecting somebody just because of him being bad at > spelling or counting his cards.) Good for them! John Eno

On 10 Apr, 19:16, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and > had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the former > wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change control are bound > to get lost every now and then), and later the card was found mingled in > someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on the missing registration of > the Lifes. > > Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the decklist), > and was GL-ed based on this. And this judge is alive today?

On 10 huhti, 22:17, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no > intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical > error. Agree. Some people will write the deck lists in very late (like night before tournament) and occasionally in very tired or even drunken state. They shouldn't be overly punished for minor mistakes. Even in big tournaments, nobody should be right away DQed because of missing cards like Haven uncovered or Disarm. In recent EC's side tournament, one finalist was DQed because of mistake in the deck list. I don't know what was wrong with the deck, but deck lists for finalists were gathered after three preliminary rounds. At that point, all the finalists could have changed most of their decks and wrote the changes to deck lists. In this kind of case, it is difficult for judges to prove even actual cheating (like adding 2 Fear of Mekhets). Let the people play the game. Feed the real cheaters to Setites.

Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here, since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic several years ago. Looks like they didn't change at all since the times when V:TES was a game of Wizards. Actually, the penalties' meaning is quite different, though. In Magic, typical tournament is 4-6 Swiss rounds, and each round can have up to 3 games, so the term "Game Loss" is much less a penalty than in VTES. The VTES "Game Loss" is closer to the Magic "Match Loss", but as long as we're playing only 3 rounds, it's even more harsh. Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. When a player writes "Scouting Mission" instead of "Spying Mission", and there is no Dominate in his deck, this is a clerical error. If a player wrote 11 Giant's Blood (instead of 1), it's a clerical error. If some cards are missing, it isn't. The decklist is the most important document of a player. Its existence should force players to forget about the "last changes" made upon the deck scouting, the "sideboarding" and similar things. A good judge should make deckchecks at least sometimes, and the tournament rules recommend the judge to check the legality of all decklists during the first round - at least, you can check number of cards (60-90), number of vampires (12+) and existence of banned cards. You can also notice the most obvious clerical errors (like the mentioned 11 Giant's Bloods). You can also ask your players to count and write the number of cards in their libraries, and then check whether your number correspond to theirs or not. The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the deck all the time. It's like a passport or driving license. A document issued to Adam Baker will not work if you are Adam Maker - so why a decklist with 6 Governs should work for a person with 5 Governs? You may wonder why the penalty for Illegal Deck and Illegal Decklist is so harsh, but I don't. Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to the decklist. Yes, some cards like Haven Uncovered are usually played on the other player's minions, so they can be lost - but, again, each player is responsible for collecting them after each game. No excuses here! After all, in Magic cards are often moved between the main deck and the sideboard, but the penalty for "Procedural Error: Failure to De-Sideboard" is still the same - Game Loss. Considering that Game Loss in VTES means much more than in Magic, I wouldn't probably issue it in a small tournament, but ECQ with 53 players is not a small tournament! In Magic terms, it should be REL 3 or 4 (REL stands for Rules Enforcement Level). Current Magic Penalty Guidelines recommend to issua a GL for Illegal Decklist and Illegal Deck at all RELs, but a few years ago they recommended Match Loss at higher RELs, which is close enough to the GL in VTES. I've issued such Match Loss at the Russian Nationals to a player with 59 cards in his decklist. Yes, I know that Magic is a different game, but who said that VTES players should not be as organized as Magic players are? All that said, a judge should do his best to discover deck problems BEFORE finals. Check all decklists during the first round - I've found countless errors during such checks. Make the deckchecks. A good way is asking all players to count their cards at the beginning of round 2 and compare the values with your results during the decklist checking. You should examine the decks with differences immediately, and so on. But if the problem was encountered only prior to the final round, a judge really should issue Game Loss. On Apr 10, 3:57 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 3:59 am, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that > > difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar > > cards together and write their number on a paper. > > Sure. It isn't that difficult to write a correct list. But you also > can lose cards, accidentally leave cards in your box, leave a Haven > Uncovered on someone, write "scouting mission" as opposed to "spying > mission", or whatever. Or just change your deck at the last second and > forget to adjust the list. In all these cases you DESERVE a Game Loss, at least at the large tournament. Check your decklist twice prior to passing it to the judge, make sure that your deck corresponds to your decklist, count the number of cards after each round. Not difficult at all. > > Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the > > best solution is to play without decklists at all. > > It probably is. I have never in my life been to a tournament that > required deck lists. Ever. In playing competetive VTES for, like, 12 > years. Anywhere. And never have I felt as if my opponents were going > to cheat as a result. I guess that stakes weren't high enough for cheating, eh? :) I'm also quite sure that many persons *willing* to cheat with their decks could remain uncatched in these 10 years. Playing without decklist is like a country without any documents! This is typical for the anarchic and criminal countries. > > I know this has come up before (again and again), but do folks really > think that there are so many people out there who are going to change > their decks mid tournament that deck lists are helpful? And even if > they think they are helpful: > > A) People can be DQed for clerical errors. Missing cards are NOT clerical errors. It's too easy to cheat with "forgetting" Fear of Mekhet, for instance, if you don't expect IC/ Justicars in the next round. So, the recommended penalty is GL, which is right. Once I've issued a GL to my friend's wife - she wrote "22 Lands" instead of "22 Mountains" in her decklist. Though both my friend and his wife later pretended that it was a clerical error, actually it wasn't: with "22 Lands" in your decklist you can put ANY lands in your deck, which is a way to the potential cheating. Writing "Scouting Mission" instead of "Spying Mission" IS a clerical error, if it's obvious that Scouting Mission cannot be in that deck. > B) If folks know that they only are going to get checked if they get > into the finals, what is to stop them from changing their decks until > they get in the finals, and then changing it back? Surely, a good judge should try to discover the possible problems ASAP. And he should inform the players that he can make a deckcheck in EACH round. > C) Folks can cheat in many, many other ways that have nothing at all > to do with deck changing. If you are so worried about cheating, how do > you stop folks from other forms of cheating? Why laser focus on this > one, yet not, like, force everyone to count their opponent's pool at > the start of each game or make sure a judge observes whenever someone > moves their pool when they are bled? > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge. First time the judge may believe that it was unintentional, second time he will DQ the cheater. Yours, Ector

On Apr 10, 10:17 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > In any case, yeah, someone might try and change decks in the > tournament in the face of softer penalties. But in all likelyhood, > most people won't. 'Cause it is stupid to cheat, and most folks just > aren't going to do so. And if someone is inclined to cheat, if you > stop them from cheating by checking to see if they changed their > decks, they'll just cheat in some other way that you can't so easily > prevent. But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no > intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical > error. Why is that worth it? This is a completely faulty logic. Make crimes more difficult, and most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes. Make crimes more easy, and you will get more criminals, since getting money (or VPs) with crimes is much easier than without them. Please, don't consider the judges (and VEKN Officials that issued the Penalty Guidelines) stupid. A badge "we are armed" is intended to frighten possible criminals, as well as the judge's warning: "I will make deckchecks, and everyone having illegal deck or decklist can get a Game Loss". And it really works: people learn to write their decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their decklists. > > People aren't more likely to cheat in a large tournament if > they aren't likely to cheat in a small tournament. 'Cause cheating is > stupid, and most folks just aren't going to do it. And the ones that > are willing to cheat at all will find a way to cheat, even with deck > checks and all. Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway, let's make his life easier? :) There are ALWAYS some people that want the victory too much. Sometimes they even don't realize that they cheat. I had several such players. > > If you go to an important event you know you have to have a decklist with you, > which has to be 100% right. > > And if you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut in your card box when > you pull your deck out to start the tournament and never notice? Is it > acceptable to be DQed from the finals for such an incredibly minor and > inconsequental infraction? > If you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut, you will get GL. If not accidentally, DQ. Adopt the shuffling that should allow you to count cards at the time (dividing to 6 piles, for instance), and you will immediately notice the decreased number. You MUST play the whole tournament with the same deck. Failure is really a big enough "crime" for a GL. Yours, Ector

In article <1176245123.8...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here, > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic > several years ago. Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself? > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like "Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss penalty? > If some cards are missing, it isn't. Again. Happens all the time. Either accidentally left a card in the deck box. Or I diablerized a vampire with a Magnum and accidentally left the gun in my deck last game--both me and the other guy are now playing with illegal decks. Should we be given a game loss of a judge discovers this before we do? > The decklist is the most important document of a player. Well, assuming there is a deck list in the first place. As noted, I have never been at a VTES tournament in my life that required a deck list. Ever. Anywhere in the US. At any size tournament, from 5 players to 50+ players. And have never felt that one was necessary. And never felt that somehow my opponents were going to cheat as a result. Or have felt that *I* was going to cheat as a result. It is very possible that, as Gregory mentioned above, that it is a cultural difference that will never result in folks from the US and folks from Europe seeing eye to eye on this issue. But maybe not. > The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the > deck all the time. Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous? > You may wonder why the penalty for Illegal Deck and Illegal Decklist is so > harsh, but I don't. No, I wonder why anyone cares in the first place. > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" > against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a > legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to > the decklist. And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt? I don't want you to actually answer any of these. I just want you to realize that if someone is intent on cheating, they are going to find a way to cheat, deck list or card sleeve or whatever. So why assume that *everyone* is trying to cheat all the time and make the 98% of players who have no intention of cheating jump through stupid hoops to try and catch the 2% of players who are probably going to find a way to cheat anyway? > In all these cases you DESERVE a Game Loss, at least at the large > tournament. Check your decklist twice prior to passing it to the > judge, make sure that your deck corresponds to your decklist, count > the number of cards after each round. Not difficult at all. It is also not difficult at all to run a tournament with no deck lists and no deck checks at all. I go to them all the time. And never feel the need to cheat. Nor do I feel the fear that my opponents are cheating. And the tournaments work just fine. > Playing without decklist is like a country without any documents! > This is typical for the anarchic and criminal countries. Remember where I called your thinking "crack addled"? Yeah, that again. > Missing cards are NOT clerical errors. It's too easy to cheat with > "forgetting" Fear of Mekhet, for instance, if you don't expect IC/ > Justicars in the next round. So, the recommended penalty is GL, which > is right. I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them. Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast, vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating. > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are > going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge. No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification, they'll just cheat in some other fashion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 11, 2:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here, > > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and > > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic > > several years ago. > > Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I > mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself? To get beat for what? Everybody can compare the rules and understand the similarity himself. The philosophy of the penalties is completely the same. The only difference is meaning of GL, but I've already mentioned it. > > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this > > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. > > That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after > a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like > "Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of > y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I > accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn > in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I > intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss > penalty? If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if you forget your card in another player's library. If you ride too fast, will you create a accident? Not necessarily, but the police officer will make you pay for the POTENTIAL accident. Absolutely the same thing here. Though I admit that GL may be too harsh for some cases, it may be appropriate at the large tournaments. > > Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many > people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so > desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth > punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to > hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous? I know some players that are really "that desperate to win". Aren't we all playing to win? Nobody talks about "punishing 98% of the players" - it's just adopting the serious attitude to your deck and your decklist. Even the young Magic players quickly learn that these things are very important, and I cannot see why VTES players cannot do the same. > > > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" > > against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a > > legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to > > the decklist. > > And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked > cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the > game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are > bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt? Marked cards: other players will eventually report this. 31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this is nearly impossible here. Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during shuffling. Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched. Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the obvious attempts to the judge. And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals will always find a way to do their crimes :) > > I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them. > Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast, > vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once > and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no > amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating. Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic. > > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are > > going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge. > > No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or > accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on > your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks > engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny > minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification, > they'll just cheat in some other fashion. And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. Everyone can do it once or twice, but he will eventually be catched if he will continue. The same thing with cheating in any CCG. Yours, Ector

In article <1176246929.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > This is a completely faulty logic. Make crimes more difficult, and > most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes. Make crimes more > easy, and you will get more criminals, since getting money (or VPs) > with crimes is much easier than without them. We aren't talking about *crime*, we are talking about potential cheating in a recreational card game. As it is highly likely that the vast majority of players simply neither have the inclination or intention of cheating, why assume that they do? > Please, don't consider the judges (and VEKN Officials that issued the > Penalty Guidelines) stupid. I don't consider judges stupid. I consider draconian rules that exist to treat all players as cheaters, as opposed to treating all players as not cheaters, stupid. > And it really works: people learn to write their > decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their > decklists. And playing without any deck lists at all really works too. And doesn't automatically presume that your player base is unscrupulous to begin with, as it isn't really necessary. > Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway, > let's make his life easier? :) Again, not talking about crime. And sure, you can invent all the ways in the world to make a cheater's life harder. But why saddle all the honest players (who are easily the vast majority of players) with extra hoops to jump through when it isn't really necessary? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1176248552....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if > you forget your card in another player's library. But the high likelyhood is that I am not cheating. Why assume that I am? > Marked cards: other players will eventually report this. You saw the part where I specifically said I didn't want you to actually answer those questions, right? > And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. Sure. And yet still, the vast majority of people in the world aren't stealing stuff from the shop. Or whatever. Most folks don't cheat at VTES. Even if they aren't afraid of being caught. It isn't the fear of punishment that keeps people from cheating at cards. It is that they aren't inclined to do so in the first place. 'Cause it is stupid to cheat at cards. It is likely that this discussion is bound to veer way off course into the inherent nature of man or some such foolishness. But I am really beginning to buy completely into Gregory's theory that this is simply a cultural issue (i.e. in the US, folks are socialized to inherrently think others are on the up and up unless they prove otherwise, where in other cultures, folks may be socialized to inherrently think folks are criminals unless they prove otherwise) that isn't likely to be resolved. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 10, 7:42 pm, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I > > mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself? > > To get beat for what? I'll volunteer for this. This isn't the Magic newsgroup, Ector. Stop talking about the wrong fucking game. It makes you look like a moron. In case that wasn't clear enough: Do not bring up Magic on this newsgroup. There's got to be at least one other newsgroup out there on which you can talk about Magic if you want to. This newsgroup isn't the place for it. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] As you wish. You may simply skip all references to Magic in my posts (in this thread), but the sense will remain the same. Absolutely the same. I just wanted to explain the philosophy of these penalties in detail. Each sport game has its rules, and players must obey the rules. It's really sad to know that VTES players are so badly organized and trained - and they are mostly mature men and women! Thus, training them is the local judge's responsibility. I always require the decklists from my players, and nobody even complains about that - even the most anarchic "roleplayers". Rules are not stupid, and if everyone will follow them, no problems will arise. Yours, Ector

On Apr 11, 2:55 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176246929.697115.111...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > We aren't talking about *crime*, we are talking about potential cheating > in a recreational card game. As it is highly likely that the vast > majority of players simply neither have the inclination or intention of > cheating, why assume that they do? WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"??? When it comes to the ECQ level, it's a sport game. No "recreation" at this level, but a fierce competition. That's why rules enforcement must be stronger at such events, and that's why GL is appropriate here. Besides, I don't consider VTES a "recreational" game at ANY level. It isn't Munchkin. And I like it for being a wonderful sport game. > > I don't consider judges stupid. I consider draconian rules that exist to > treat all players as cheaters, as opposed to treating all players as not > cheaters, stupid. When you go to the supermarket, you can see the security man (detective or such) that should consider the possibility of stealing of you. Everyone knows that he exists, and everyone knows the punishment for stealing - and that actually prevents a lot of crimes. When you go to the tournament, everyone knows that the judge exists, and he must consider the possibility of cheating. It's his job. Everyone knows the rules, so avoiding the penalties isn't very difficult. > > And it really works: people learn to write their > > decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their > > decklists. > > And playing without any deck lists at all really works too. And doesn't > automatically presume that your player base is unscrupulous to begin > with, as it isn't really necessary. Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make the players more serious and more responsible. They make judging much easier. And, yes, they also help to prevent possible cheating AND unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament. > > Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway, > > let's make his life easier? :) > > Again, not talking about crime. And sure, you can invent all the ways in > the world to make a cheater's life harder. But why saddle all the honest > players (who are easily the vast majority of players) with extra hoops > to jump through when it isn't really necessary? > Actually, those "hoops" HELP those players most of the time. If all players will train to ALWAYS count their cards and ALWAYS check their deck & decklist before registering, they will avoid such problems as "leaving the Coven", "forgetting about Fear of Mekhet" and so on. If you don't cheat, you will want to play the same deck in all rounds. So do it, very carefully, and you will never get any penalties. Yours, Ector

On Apr 11, 3:16 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176248552.828279.21...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if > > you forget your card in another player's library. > > But the high likelyhood is that I am not cheating. Why assume that I am? Because it's a part of a judge's job. He must consider the POSSIBILITY of cheating of any player. He doesn't have to talk about this, sure, but he must think about this. And in any case like this, he should think according to the following pattern: 1). Do I believe that player cheated? If yes, DQ him. 2). Do I believe that player's improper behaviour could possibly lead to the cheating (or can be a well-masked cheating)? If yes (and in most cases it's so), apply the recommended penalty (GL in this case). 3). If the player's behaviour could not possibly lead to the cheating, a small penalty should be issued (warning, for instance). This is a niche of "clerical errors" and similar things. > > > And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. > > Sure. And yet still, the vast majority of people in the world aren't > stealing stuff from the shop. Or whatever. Most folks don't cheat at > VTES. Even if they aren't afraid of being caught. It isn't the fear of > punishment that keeps people from cheating at cards. It is that they > aren't inclined to do so in the first place. 'Cause it is stupid to > cheat at cards. > And it's stupid to steal in shops. But there are still people who do this. And there are security men who must prevent such behaviour, even in USA. Isn't it stupid to blow up airplanes? But some people do it, and there are guardians to prevent this. As well, I cannot believe that all VTES players are angels that are genetically incapable of cheating, and there are judges to prevent such behaviour. Nothing to complain about, they just do their job. And if you try to go onto the airplane with your old trusted .44 Magnum, you are going to have serious problems - as well as if you try to play an incomplete deck in VTES tournament. You know the rules, you know their sense, and obeying them isn't that difficult. Yours, Ector

In message <1176269967.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >As you wish. You may simply skip all references to Magic in my posts >(in this thread), but the sense will remain the same. Absolutely the >same. I just wanted to explain the philosophy of these penalties in >detail. So long as you keep trying to force V:TES to fit your Magic experience, no, the sense won't remain. Just as you got many things about rewinding V:TES wrong because you tried to force it into a Magic-shaped box, you'll get vast numbers of things about when and how to penalise players for potential cheating wrong if you try to treat V:TES as though it were Magic. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

atomweaver írta: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in news:optqkvmj...@news.chello.hu: > >> [ quoted text not captured ] Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not corrected his list. Jozsef had a hangover when wrote his list. Sure they are not cheated, but this is a sensitive issue here... It has a past, almost since the first EC finals... where some of the finalist had a wrong decklist too. So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they got that, and not a DQ. But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. Gabor Balazs VEKN Prince of Budapest

On 11/04/2007 Daneel wrote: > My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation > (remember, > issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then > you are > basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations. > Saying > that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less > equal to > saying "you can change 3 cards for the final". Or you make sure they've submitted their decklists _before_ round 1. and then not only issue a tracked warning, but make them correct their deck to match their list, as required. Then they haven't gotten their free "3 card swap" for the final (as you undo their swaps), plus they get a warning. And, as always, if as a judge you judge them to be cheating rather than making a clerical error (you know, using your judgement), you can still issue a GL or DQ if you want. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On 11/04/2007 atomweaver wrote: > Decklist error alone != cheating, as you've made clear by your two > examples above. > > Decklist error, plus other evidence may = cheating. I agree. My apologies for not stating _why_ i thought the judge was issuing a DQ in my second example. I indeed meant to illustrate the difference between a decklist error, and someone who was cheating, that was found out through checking the deck list. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 11, 10:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot > to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not > corrected his list. This is an unbelievable sloppiness of him. Does he know the rules ("If the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the decklist.") or not? I guess not. Should the judge perform a deckcheck in round 1 and discover the difference, he would play the rest rounds without the Heart, even if the judge would spare him and not issue GL. You need to train your players better! > So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As > somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they > got that, and not a DQ. The judge did his job as it's recommended in the VEKN Judges' Guidelines. No need for excuses here. > But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for > the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. WHAT??? I cannot believe my eyes. Do I really read these words??? Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments, even small ones. You should make your players got accustomed to filling them correctly, and you will never have such problems again. You have to make the regular deckchecks to enforce the discipline and organization. You should check all decklists during the first round to find the most obvious bugs ASAP. If you have no time or staff to perform deckchecks, try counting the number if cards during that first round checking and ask your players to count cards in their prey's libraries at the beginning of round 2. This will minimize the chances of encountering the problem before the finals. No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot >> to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not >> corrected his list. > This is an unbelievable sloppiness of him. Does he know the rules ("If > the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the > deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to > reflect the decklist.") or not? I guess not. Should the judge perform > a deckcheck in round 1 and discover the difference, he would play the > rest rounds without the Heart, even if the judge would spare him and > not issue GL. You need to train your players better! > >> So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As >> somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they >> got that, and not a DQ. > The judge did his job as it's recommended in the VEKN Judges' > Guidelines. No need for excuses here. > >> But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for >> the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. > WHAT??? I cannot believe my eyes. Do I really read these words??? > > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments, > even small ones. Not true. VEKN rules: "may" If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks be checked "each round". > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists.

On Apr 11, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments, > > even small ones. > > Not true. > > VEKN rules: "may" > > If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks > be checked "each round". OK, they may not be actually recommended, but, IMHO, they should be recommended, as they're recommended in Magic. Judging a tournament without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you agree? > > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. > > Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists. Maybe. But if we aren't talking about sport, then we should also forget about judges and penalties, right? :) Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as a "recreation game". Yours, Ector

> No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. IMHO a card game cannot be considered a sport. VTES is a game. It is a fun, serious competitive game at times, but still it's a game. Then again, I've always had trouble with golf being considered a sport as well...go ahead flame away :) I consider both to be enjoyable games of skill, but if the activity itself isn't enough physical exertion to make you sweat (playing cards without air-conditioning in the summer doesn't count) then it really can't be considered a sport. Now to get back on topic for a second; I do agree that rules exist for a reason and dislike playing with people that intentionally disregard the rules (especially play to win). I have no problem making a decklist if it is required for a tournament, but I do not agree that it is a prerequisite for a serious game of VTES. But if decklists are going to be used to verify deck contents I think it could be done in a better manner than only checking decks prior to the finals. If decklist checks are going to be done, have it as part of the registration process. Check all decks when the decklist is turned in. Then do a few random (or targeted if you suspect deck changing) checks (whatever time permits) at the beginning of each round. This way you can catch the accidents and clerical errors up front instead of kicking people out of the finals and you also show that you are serious about people not changing decks during the tournament if that happens to concern your playgroup. jon

Ector wrote: > On Apr 11, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists. > Maybe. But if we aren't talking about sport, then we should also > forget about judges and penalties, right? :) No. > Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as > a "recreation game". "sport game", cute. I agree. Not mandating decklists is compatible with that.

On Apr 11, 1:57 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"??? Yep, 'cause that is what it is. One that folks take seriously, which is fine, but it is still a recreational past-time. > When it comes to the ECQ level, it's a sport game. No "recreation" at this > level, but a fierce competition. Fierce competiton is fine. Just because it is firece competition doesn't mean that folks are more likely to cheat if they aren't inclined to cheat otherwise. Again, I have been to many, many qualifier tournaments. And none of them had deck lists or deck checks. And I suspect that no one took this as liscence to cheat. > Besides, I don't consider VTES a "recreational" game at ANY level. It > isn't Munchkin. And I like it for being a wonderful sport game. That's you. When Bridge becomes an Olympic sport, you might have an argument. But till then, not so much. > When you go to the supermarket, you can see the security man > (detective or such) that should consider the possibility of stealing > of you. I don't shop in supermarkets that have security men or detectives. > Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make the > players more serious and more responsible. No they don't. I go to plenty of tournaments with plenty of serious responsible players. Who don't provide deck lists. > They make judging much easier. I judge plenty of tournaments, and never once have I felt that having a deck list would have made my life easier. Many times, I have felt that having a deck list would make my life as a judge harder. > And, yes, they also help to prevent possible cheating AND > unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for > instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's > decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament. 'Cause someone is going to play Tragic Love Affair? > Actually, those "hoops" HELP those players most of the time. If you want to look at the world like this, go ahead. It strikes me as bordering on insanity, but that is me. -Peter

On Apr 11, 2:13 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > And it's stupid to steal in shops. But there are still people who do > this. And there are security men who must prevent such behaviour, even > in USA. Isn't it stupid to blow up airplanes? But some people do it, > and there are guardians to prevent this. And this is where the discussion stops being sane. Yes. People commit crime. But do you arrest everyone, put them all in jail, and then make them prove they are innocent to get out of jail? > As well, I cannot believe that all VTES players are angels that are > genetically incapable of cheating, and there are judges to prevent > such behaviour. I don't think all VTES players are angels that are genetically incapable of cheating. But I do think that the vast majority of players are not inclined to cheat, and so it is foolish to impliment draconian measures to stop a small minority of players from cheating when the vast majority of players are not planning on cheating in the first place.

On Apr 11, 3:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote: > But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for > the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. It can't hurt to try it out--again, I'm yet to hear of any tournament in the US using deck lists (it seems likely that some have happened, but not such that anyone notices), and they always work out fine. Have a big qualifier or something, don't have deck lists, and see what happens. If it turns out to result in ramapant cheating, then require deck lists next time. If not, try it again. -Peter

On Apr 11, 6:23 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > You need to train your players better! See, this here is indicating a significant (and recurring) error in your judgement. Players are not to be "trained", as they are cognizant grownups (assuming 18+) who are going to do what they are going to do. Judges are not at tournament to "train" people. They are there to facilitate an event and make sure it runs well. > Look, decklists are needed. Except that tournaments run all over the world, all the time, without decklists. And they run fine. And likely have no more cheating than they would if deck lists were required. So to state that they are "needed" is a wild overstatement. > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. Fair enough. Luckily, VTES isn't a serious sport then. It is a game. People take it seriously, which is good. But it is a recreational game none the less. -Peter

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176288182....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 11, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all >> > tournaments, even small ones. >> >> Not true. >> >> VEKN rules: "may" >> >> If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" >> of decks be checked "each round". > OK, they may not be actually recommended, but, IMHO, they should be > recommended, as they're recommended in Magic. I've got tremendous issues with a comment like _that_... for obvious reasons > Judging a tournament > without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the > decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you > agree? > Indeed, I do not. As a means of preventing cheating, decklists are sketchy and inconsistent. As this latest example illustrates, the over- penalization of clerical errors is the more common result of the current way decklist checks are being implemented. A vastly better preventative measure against cheating would be to have an "impound" for all decks between rounds. How can Tell me, what other "highly competitive sport game" would disqualify its best participants from the finals of a tournament (specifically after allowing them to participate in the bulk of the event), on the basis of errors on their admission form? DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Apr 11, 6:43 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Judging a tournament > without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the > decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you > agree? I don't agree, no. A) Requiring deck lists is an imposition upon players, and is not at all unlikely to chase the less committed players away. And makes the judges life more difficult, in that he needs to collect deck lists and check them regularly. B) Deck lists and deck checks certainly make changing your deck between rounds easier, but as that doesn't actually help you that much (you have played in a VTES tournament, right? You realize that you don't know what kind of deck you are going to be sitting next to till you sit down, correct? And as such, "sideboarding" or "cheating" by changing your deck isn't really likely to help you in any given situation, right?) the advantage to doing so is incredibly minimal. And it is still easy to cheat in a myriad of other ways that aren't prevented by deck lists. If someone really wants to cheat, they are gonna cheat. But luckily, the vast majority of folks playing in a VTES tournament aren't gonna cheat in the first place. > Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as > a "recreation game". I like VTES as a highly competetive game too. But that doesn't mean I think deck lists are necessary at tournaments. -Peter

In message <1176286992.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >This is an unbelievable sloppiness of him. Does he know the rules Oh, the irony. >Look, decklists are needed. The vast number of tournaments that survive happily without them suggests that they're not necessary everywhere. They can also cause significant complications in a number of situations - multi-judge tournaments, for example, may leave some players feeling that the game is spoiled when a judge-player knows the exact contents of their deck.[0] In a multi-deck tournament, for small numbers of players, one thing that some players like to do is tweak the deck they're playing in between rounds: "Oh, I wonder what this deck would look like if I took these ten cards out, and put these ten in." If you want decklists for such a tournament (posterity, say), some players will be in the situation of having to scribble in between rounds, which is quite the worst time to have them do this. Additionally, not every tournament can even cope with decklists and deck checking properly. Having judged quite a number of reasonably large tournaments as the only judge, 3 rounds + final can take a LONG time to play. It's 8 hours, plus probably another half hour to an hour of faff in between rounds (allowing players who timed out to go and get a drink or have a toilet break, if nothing else), and registration at the start adds extra time too. Adding a check of more than a very small number of decks can cause vast, vast problems in terms of time - and more time is not something V:TES wants to take. What is actually needed is people who understand that V:TES is V:TES, and not Magic. >No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO. V:TES isn't a sport. Never has been, never will be. [0] Even if you take steps to try to prevent this happening - such as trying to make sure from the seating plans that Judge A will never sit at the same table as Player Z, so they inspect the deck - this can still happen. For example, drops may force a change of table layout, and the two players may, of course, find themselves in the final together. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 10, 6:42 pm, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 11, 2:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here, > > > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and > > > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic > > > several years ago. > > > Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I > > mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself? > > To get beat for what? Everybody can compare the rules and understand > the similarity himself. The philosophy of the penalties is completely > the same. The only difference is meaning of GL, but I've already > mentioned it. You should get beaten for being completely unreasonable, as in outside the realm of science and into the realm of alchemy. This is where you have spontaneous transmuted the action of someone accidentally scooping up the Coven, which happens to to float around the table, into cheating. Unbelievable! Yet you will state here that you are saving the world by doing so. > > > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this > > > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. > > > That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after > > a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like > > "Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of > > y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I > > accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn > > in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I > > intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss > > penalty? > > If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if > you forget your card in another player's library. If you ride too > fast, will you create a accident? Not necessarily, but the police > officer will make you pay for the POTENTIAL accident. Absolutely the > same thing here. Though I admit that GL may be too harsh for some > cases, it may be appropriate at the large tournaments. My first inclination would be to say, "Are you SERIOUS?", but apparently you are, which is borderline insane. I find cards in my decks that aren't mine all the time, both in casual play and in tournaments. Usually, I just announce "hey is <player X> missing <card X> that I got last round when I <diablerized/graverobbed/took control of>", then that person says, "Gee, thanks you're right". I then hand them that card which they put back in their deck (shuffle deck), I then draw another card. AMAZING! > > Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many > > people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so > > desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth > > punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to > > hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous? > > I know some players that are really "that desperate to win". Aren't we > all playing to win? > Nobody talks about "punishing 98% of the players" - it's just adopting > the serious attitude to your deck and your decklist. Even the young > Magic players quickly learn that these things are very important, and > I cannot see why VTES players cannot do the same. You've got to be kidding me! What color is the sky in your world, Green or Purple? > > > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" > > > against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a > > > legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to > > > the decklist. > > > And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked > > cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the > > game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are > > bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt? > > Marked cards: other players will eventually report this. > 31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this > is nearly impossible here. > Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the > other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during > shuffling. > Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool > there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched. > Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the > obvious attempts to the judge. > And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals > will always find a way to do their crimes :) Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games. Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID. > > I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them. > > Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast, > > vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once > > and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no > > amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating. > > Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking > really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic. Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games. Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID. > > > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are > > > going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge. > > > No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or > > accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on > > your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks > > engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny > > minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification, > > they'll just cheat in some other fashion. > > And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. Everyone > can do it once or twice, but he will eventually be catched if he will > continue. The same thing with cheating in any CCG. What sort of morons do you play with? Really.... Let me repeat again.... Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games. Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <1176296247.3...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Apr 11, 1:57 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: >> WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"??? >> And, yes, they also help to prevent possible cheating AND >> unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for >> instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's >> decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament. > >'Cause someone is going to play Tragic Love Affair? That, and it assumes that players intent on cheating will cheat in an egregiously stupid manner. "Hey, I just happen to have one of the hosers no-one plays in my deck and my prey is hosed by it!" The vast majority of V:TES players I've played with and judged are *not* that stupid. Not even close. [ quoted text not captured ]

gab...@gmail.com wrote in news:1176276713.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Wait a minute. Lets be clear, please. The rules allow for a whole spectrum of solutions (Verbal Warning, Formal Warning, Game Loss, Disqual, Disqual without Prize) at the Judge's discretion, considering the specific circumstances of the infraction. The fact that the 'default' penalty was applied doesn't mean that other solutions were not available. The EC finals is in no way a precedent for other, different circumstances regarding decklist errors. From your description above (errors due to a last minute change witnessed by others, and, ahem ;) a mind-set not compatible with accurate clerical duties) it seems like a finals-GL was frankly a bit excessive. But again, I don't blame the judge, I blame the lack of guidelines in the rules... > As > somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they > got that, and not a DQ. By your description above, its seems apparent that duplicity was not even contemplated by either party. I'm not seeing why a Disqual was contemplated even for a second, here. Again, I'll consider this more evidence that clarification and additional written guidelines are absolutely required in this section of the rules. > But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for > the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. > That's one option. Even without my crusade for change, simply a different strategy for decklist checks could be sufficient. How's this for a different definition of 'Reasonable' wrt decklist checks? Decklist checks: Before each of the three preliminary rounds, 15% of the field of players will be randomly selected for decklist checks. All errors discovered will result in issuing a formal warning penalty, and the correction of the deck's contents to reflect the decklist (assuming said decklist is legal). Before the finals, all finalist decks will be submitted to the Head Judge. Decks will be checked against decklist contents, and if errors are discovered, a formal warning will be issued, and the deck contents will be corrected to reflect what is written in the decklist (assuming said decklist is legal). [In the case of illegal decklists, the judge will use his discretion to adjust contents to make a legal deck.*] The Head Judge will set up the Finals table, once the players have chosen their seating order. No player may make contact with his deck before being seated for the start of the final round. An additional 5 minutes is allowed for shuffling between seating and the start of the finals. There. The above achieves Perfect prevention of cheating in the finals through changes to deck contents. No one can cheat through card changes in the finals (unless they try to so under the scrutiny of the Judge during the 5 minute shuffling period), as they will know their decks will be checked and adjusted to reflect the decklist submitted at the start of the tourney. No clerical errors will result in someone not being able to play either (unless they already had a multitude of warnings in the prelims), although they will rightly be forced to play with a perhaps sub-optimal deck. [*] This part needs further work, I recognize... Consider the brackets a place-holder for a better defined policy. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176245123.862196.205240 @w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here, > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic > several years ago. Looks like they didn't change at all since the > times when V:TES was a game of Wizards. > Actually, the penalties' meaning is quite different, though. In Magic, > typical tournament is 4-6 Swiss rounds, and each round can have up to > 3 games, so the term "Game Loss" is much less a penalty than in VTES. > The VTES "Game Loss" is closer to the Magic "Match Loss", but as long > as we're playing only 3 rounds, it's even more harsh. > Interesting. I'd propose yet another possible option; a formal intermendiate penalty between Warning and Game Loss should be added to the Judge's Guide, to provide added flexibility; Victory Point Loss, and make that the default penalty for 102 Deck Error - Illegal Deck (legal Decklist). 4-6 swiss rounds of 2-3 games yields in Magic yields a potential number of Magic games roughly equivalent to the total number of VPs a player could earn in 3 prelim rounds of a VTES tourney (about 13- 15). > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. When a > player writes "Scouting Mission" instead of "Spying Mission", and > there is no Dominate in his deck, this is a clerical error. If a > player wrote 11 Giant's Blood (instead of 1), it's a clerical error. > If some cards are missing, it isn't. In fact, the second player listed one less Reunion Kamut than was present in his (legal) deck. That is a clerical error. >snip rest There is, as others have said, a draconian attitude towards the participation in Magic tournaments that I would like to see NOT encroach upon the VTES tournament scene. The fact that VTES is a game involving significant multi-player social interaction in part requires that the environment be somewhat favorable to dialogue. Strict adaption of M:tG style tournament enforcement taints that significantly. Whats more, such heavy-handed measures in VTES with respect to deck errors are less necessary, owing to the fact that individual cards play a lesser role in the overall strength of a VTES deck vs. a Magic deck. Better to steal freely what works from MtG, with a closer eye towards what one needs to preserve to make VTES appealing and functional. The simple fact that something works for MtG doesn't make it automatically right for VTES. DZ AW

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176246929.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 10, 10:17 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no >> intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical >> error. Why is that worth it? > This is a completely faulty logic. Make crimes more difficult, and > most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes. Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists? You can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing GLs or DQs. Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and announce that you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted list before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter your deck's contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!) play with any errors present in their decklist. DZ AW

On Apr 11, 6:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Ector wrote: > > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments, > > even small ones. > > Not true. > > VEKN rules: "may" > > If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks > be checked "each round". In a 53-person tournament, is 0 a reasonable number? -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Howdy, Ector wrote: > Rules are not stupid, and if everyone > will follow them, no problems will arise. I just wanted to excerpt this out, as it 1) was a very frightening attitude to me, and 2) really seems to encapsulate the clash of culture - more effectively, I think, than the 'innocent until proven guilty' (or not) framing. The assertion appears to be 'No rule is (ever) stupid, and, further, if we all follow rules unquestioningly, everyone will be better off.' This is totalitarian thinking at its most essential; it raises the stakes over the familiar (Western) cliche 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide', as it seeks to validate authority to the highest degree possible. I find it fairly astonishing that anyone, even or especially someone who has presumably directly experienced life in a totalitarian state, would endorse this line of argument. On the actual subject of decklists: I guess I agree that decklists shouldn't be such a hurdle, and are a reasonable check against cheating. OTOH, they are clearly an inconvenience as well, and the implementation of checking seems to leave something to be desired. It is a tradeoff (rather analogous to the security checking now in force at US airports - it inconveniences everyone, some very greatly, for limited benefit). The real question is whether the inconvenience is worth the benefit. Alex

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:55:09 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists? You > can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing GLs or > DQs. > Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and announce > that > you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted list > before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter your > deck's > contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!) play > with any errors present in their decklist. Dave, you *do* realize that this way you would be only preventing specific changes countering specific decks, and are giving the flexibility to have a different deck for the Finals than the preliminary rounds? Like, it happened for a while with the local metagame (and can still be the case more or less) that Walls were disproportionally overrepresented in the finals. You had like 10% of the players play Walls, but in the finals you had typically 2 Walls (40%). Knowing this you might pack more bounce, Delaying Tactics and Secure Haven against active decks for the preliminary rounds, and revert to a more tap-out deck for the finals. There is a possibility that no wall will make the finals, but chances are, you will be better off playing a slightly different deck for the finals in a mostly predictable way. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in news:optqmzns...@news.chello.hu: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:55:09 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists? >> You can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing >> GLs or DQs. >> Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and >> announce that >> you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted >> list before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter >> your deck's >> contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!) >> play with any errors present in their decklist. > > Dave, you *do* realize that this way you would be only preventing > specific > changes countering specific decks, and are giving the flexibility to > have a different deck for the Finals than the preliminary rounds? > There I go again, assuming that Judges have an ounce or two of sense, Judgement, and discretion. :-) You're right, of course, it reverses the cheating scenario from one of altering deck contents to accomodate known opponents into altering decklist contents against an attempt at predicting what will be present at the finals table. In that reveral, though, you end up with cheating through guesswork, and that makes it an unlikely method for smarter cheaters to take. As Peter is fond of pointing out, there are a myriad of ways to cheat, I think since this change leaves the cheating up to guesswork at what will be in the finals, its still at least better than the current system... > Like, it happened for a while with the local metagame (and can still > be the > case more or less) that Walls were disproportionally overrepresented > in the finals. You had like 10% of the players play Walls, but in > the finals you had typically 2 Walls (40%). Knowing this you might > pack more bounce, Delaying Tactics and Secure Haven against active > decks for the preliminary rounds, and revert to a more tap-out deck > for the finals. > Yeah, I anticipated this in a "tidied up" post I just submitted before seeing this post. The "gray areas" of variation against decklist content needs to be better defined for Judges in general, that doesn't change under this scenario, either, I suppose. Decklist manipulations like you describe above should be caught and penalized for the cheating it is... DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] but what if it results in rampant cheating, but you don't notice, because there weren't any decklists to check to help spot it? -- salem would rather hope it doesn't, though

In article <461d5267$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > but what if it results in rampant cheating, but you don't notice, > because there weren't any decklists to check to help spot it? Well, then you are no worse off than before--if there was going to be rampant cheating, there will still be rampant cheating even if you got deck lists. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments, > even small ones. The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. 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

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > A badge "we are armed" is intended to frighten possible > criminals, as well as the judge's warning: "I will make > deckchecks, and everyone having illegal deck or decklist > can get a Game Loss". So your intent is to frighten players? I see. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make > the players more serious and more responsible. You have no evidence to prove this unsubstantiated claim. > They make judging much easier. You forgot to add "...for me." > And, yes, they also help to prevent possible > cheating AND unneeded discussions. You have no evidence to prove this unsubstantiated claim, and you are a weak judge if you actually believe that decklists help you to make judgements. Perhaps decklists *are* necessary for you, then. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Looks like my past Magic judging > experience is going to help me here, HINT: If you don't learn from past experiences, you are doomed to repeat those errors. > A good judge should make deckchecks at least sometimes, > and the tournament rules recommend the judge to check the > legality of all decklists during the first round [...] The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. > The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the > deck all the time. It's like a passport or driving license. The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" against > possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing > a legal decklist [...] The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. > After all, in Magic [...] You're repeating... <sigh> [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Even the young Magic players You're repeating... <sigh> > Marked cards: other players will eventually report this. > 31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this > is nearly impossible here. > Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the > other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during > shuffling. > Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool > there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched. > Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the > obvious attempts to the judge. > And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals > will always find a way to do their crimes :) So all players are criminals? I see. > Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking > really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic. You're repeating... [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > OK, they may not be actually recommended, but, IMHO, they > should be recommended, as they're recommended in Magic. You're repeating... <sigh> > Judging a tournament without decklists is much more > difficult than judging it with the decklists, No, it isn't, unless you are a weak judge and actually believe that decklists help you to make judgements. Perhaps decklists *are* necessary for you, then. > and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you agree? No, unless you are a weak judge and actually believe that decklists help you to make judgements. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Nothing to complain about, they just do their job. > You know the rules, you know their sense, and > obeying them isn't that difficult. And trying to imply that the VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules say that decklists are forced by judges "just do[ing] their job" and that decklists are "you know[ing] the rules,... obeying them isn't that difficult" makes you a liar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Each sport game has its rules, and players must obey the rules. The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. > It's really sad to know that VTES players are > so badly organized and trained [...] It's really sad to know that a liar like you can't learn from his past errors and not repeat them. > Thus, training them is the local judge's responsibility. > Rules are not stupid, and if everyone > will follow them, no problems will arise. The VEKN Tournament Rules http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones." You are a liar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Enough. Please stick to constructive comments.

On Apr 11, 3:23 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote: > > But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for > > the next ECQ, or greater tournaments. > > WHAT??? I cannot believe my eyes. Do I really read these words??? > > Look, decklists are needed. Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully: 1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES judging.) 2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or higher level than ECQ.) In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide. Since I consider LSJ to be the best VTES judge (by definition), I think it's reasonable to follow his example. Ira

On Apr 12, 8:23 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I > wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully: I have no time and no intention to answer to all that stupid stuff I've read in the other messages, but as long as your message is civilized, it deserves an answer. > 1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly > strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is > more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and > are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging > in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience > creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES > judging.) Can you tell me how the good tournament organization and good self- discipline (writing a decklist and ensuring that the deck is the same in each round) prevent the game from being "more relaxed"? It's very simple, and even my completely disorganized players (they tend to be late for an hour or more, for instance) are already accustomed to this. > > In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is > not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide. What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count them? Moreover, my players often bring the printed decklists - aren't we all using deckbuilding programs? And if the player decides to change the deck at the last moment, he can fix the printed list in a minute. Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of cards at the beginning of the round? My players just ask their decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you determine whose is the card without the decklists? Several players could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and some of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their decks. > 2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require > decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not > require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even > at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or > higher level than ECQ.) I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a serious sport. When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? It's almost the same as if the Pope would run the Easter events without the cross. At least in my eyes. No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. Holy shit, my 10- years-old players filled the decklists without any complains! My current VTES players fill them even at the tournaments with 10 players! D&D Miniatures tournaments require the proper warband sheets, too! How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, but if LSJ himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT anymore, and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future. This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. A Hungarian judge issued a penalty according to the rules, so why would anyone complain about this? A good sportsman should think: "Those players are obviously should train better to avoid being penalized for such violation of the rules", but there are no good sportsmen here. Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical errors" and so on - instead of learning by example. Please look at the current VEKN Judge's Guidelines. ----------------------------------------------------------- 102. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist) Definition: This penalty applies to tournaments in which decklists are being used. This penalty applies to players who have misplaced cards from their deck or have cards from a previous game in their deck. <....skipped...> **** The contents of the main deck do not match the decklist. **** Philosophy: The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the decklist. If the judge can determine with complete confidence that the deck/decklist discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player is using an all Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed on the decklist instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide to fix the decklist instead. A warning should be issued in this case. Penalty: Game loss, and then be instructed to make any changes necessary to make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist. The changes must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue in the tournament. ------------------------------------------------------------ Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? It's absolutely clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit. It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? Why can anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? Careful tracking of your deck is your RESPONSIBILITY as a player at serious event. Failure to restore the deck to its original status (as stated in the decklist) is a dangerous behaviour that's potentially disruptive to the event, without even talking about the possible cheating, and it MUST be penalized. I can agree that GL may be too harsh penalty, but not at the highest- level events like ECQ or Nationals where all participants are supposed to be the best sportsmen available. And note that even without GL the guilty player would be forced to restore the deck to reflect the decklist. The rule also describes what is the "clerical error", and what isn't. "Campground Hunting Ground" instead of "Zoo Hunting Ground" is a clerical error, 6 Reunion Kamuts instead of 5 isn't. According to the rule, extra RK should be removed from the deck EVEN if the judge decides to issue a warning instead of GL. I must also note that GL in the finals is still very, very different from the DQ, since DQ should lead to the further investigation by VEKN officials and the investigation usually leads to BANNING the guilty player for some period of time. Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of trying to change their playstyle. If the road police officer would issue you a fine for driving too fast, would you try to change the laws? Would you demand to remove the road policemen from the streets? Or to take their radars away, so they couldn't measure your driving speed? I guess not, since this would be extremely stupid. But players actually DO assault the good judge for issuing the RIGHT penalty, they are actually trying to change the rules, and they SERIOUSLY advice to remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play undetectable!!! And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour. He is responsible to protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty talks. "The law is harsh, but it's the law". When the good judges become subjects of such pressure, it's impossible to enforce the rules anymore. But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost, and nothing to do here for me. Yours, Ector

> > Look, decklists are needed. > > Except that tournaments run all over the world, all the time, without > decklists. And they run fine. And likely have no more cheating than > they would if deck lists were required. So to state that they are > "needed" is a wild overstatement. If there are no decklists, you cannot be sure than there is no cheating. All those tournaments might be full of players who change their decks before the Finals. If there is a decklist, you cannot know if a player who has a decklist problem cheats or not, but you can be sure that a player whose deck and decklist match each other doesn't change.

On 12 apr, 09:59, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of > my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a > serious sport. duh...Serious sport. Laughable. >When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that > only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional > players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But > LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? It's almost the > same as if the Pope would run the Easter events without the cross. At > least in my eyes. You need new eyes then... > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. Holy shit, my 10- > years-old players filled the decklists without any complains! My > current VTES players fill them even at the tournaments with 10 > players! D&D Miniatures tournaments require the proper warband sheets, > too! How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious > tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, but if LSJ > himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT anymore, > and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future. Why don't you quit? > This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's > Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was > supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. ??? No, it was based on the ground rules of Magic tournements. Never before has V:TES been a 'serious sport' >A > Hungarian judge issued a penalty according to the rules, so why would > anyone complain about this? A good sportsman should think: "Those > players are obviously should train better to avoid being penalized for > such violation of the rules", but there are no good sportsmen here. You're always asking people to be polite and now you're making group attacks? Nice.... > Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and > this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical > errors" and so on - instead of learning by example. Yes, because the Great Ector can read minds through the internet. <snip> > Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? It's absolutely > clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't > tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit. > It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? Because it doesn't address WHY deck lists are good for tourneys. And - in most cases- a warning should suffice. >Why can > anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a > Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? Because you can't control everything. Fr.ex: I played The Coven and get ousted. Do I have to stay until the coven is removed from the game? Or can I just say, give it back to me after this game. Say that we forget it. Next game, I'm playing with an illegal deck (-1 Coven) and someone else is likely playing with an illegal deck (+1 Coven) How does that equal to 2 GLs? >Careful > tracking of your deck is your RESPONSIBILITY as a player at serious > event. Failure to restore the deck to its original status (as stated > in the decklist) is a dangerous behaviour that's potentially > disruptive to the event, without even talking about the possible > cheating, and it MUST be penalized. why? Cheating must be punished, not possible cheating. > I can agree that GL may be too harsh penalty, but not at the highest- > level events like ECQ or Nationals where all participants are supposed > to be the best sportsmen available. And note that even without GL the > guilty player would be forced to restore the deck to reflect the > decklist. Unless it's an obvious typo in the decklist.... >The rule also describes what is the "clerical error", and > what isn't. It doesn't, it gives an example. >"Campground Hunting Ground" instead of "Zoo Hunting > Ground" is a clerical error, 6 Reunion Kamuts instead of 5 isn't. Depends, IMO. If someone has a decklist that says that his deck is 90 cards and has 6 Reunion Kamut and the actual deck is 89 cards and has 5 RK. Is it Clerical? or obvious cheating? or has he lost a card? > According to the rule, extra RK should be removed from the deck EVEN > if the judge decides to issue a warning instead of GL. Unless the deck list is obviously in error.... > I must also note that GL in the finals is still very, very different > from the DQ, since DQ should lead to the further investigation by VEKN > officials and the investigation usually leads to BANNING the guilty > player for some period of time. QUE? > > Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players > (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of > trying to change their playstyle. If the road police officer would > issue you a fine for driving too fast, would you try to change the > laws? Would you demand to remove the road policemen from the streets? > Or to take their radars away, so they couldn't measure your driving > speed? I guess not, since this would be extremely stupid. But players > actually DO assault the good judge for issuing the RIGHT penalty, they > are actually trying to change the rules, and they SERIOUSLY advice to > remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play > undetectable!!! Yes, of course, we are all cheaters who want to change te rules to cheat even easier. Go the fuck back to Magic. Idiot. > > And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour. He is responsible to > protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty > talks. "The law is harsh, but it's the law". When the good judges > become subjects of such pressure, it's impossible to enforce the rules > anymore. I weep for you, if that's your word view. And if the players you play with are like that: get some new friends. >But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without > decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody > considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost, > and nothing to do here for me. No problem. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[ quoted text not captured ] Also not true. You can only check that if you do deck checks during play. There are ways enough to change your deck right before play and restore it right after it.....

coincoi...@hotmail.com writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Decklists do not, and cannot, stop cheating. All they do is they stop *one kind* of cheating. If a player really wants to cheat to win, would he really be so stupid he couldn't think of any other ways of cheating? A real life example: lots of computer games, music and movies have copy protection. Has that stopped piracy for good? Or have people simply found out other ways to extract the copyrighted material? -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of > my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a > serious sport. > But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without > decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody > considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost, > and nothing to do here for me. > > Yours, > Ector Well, you have now learned an important lesson: you can't always get your own way. You posted some good stuff, and I'll miss that. Feel free to come back, if you ever want to discuss non-serious-sporting VTES. Goodbye, no hard feelings from me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 12, 1:32 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > > Well, you have now learned an important lesson: > you can't always get your own way. I don't even have "my own way" in this case. I'm a judge, and I follow the rules. Judges are the keepers of the order, and when there are no order around, judges are simply not needed :) > You posted some good stuff, and I'll miss that. Feel free to come back, if > you ever want to discuss non-serious-sporting VTES. > Thanks. There are good people here. I would miss them. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > On Apr 12, 1:32 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) > wrote: >> Well, you have now learned an important lesson: >> you can't always get your own way. > I don't even have "my own way" in this case. I'm a judge, and I follow > the rules. Judges are the keepers of the order, and when there are no > order around, judges are simply not needed :) The absence of decklists is not the same as "no order". We still play a very serious, competitive game with no decklists.

As you all know by now, I'm not a tourney player. But nevertheless, I strongly believe in the need for clear rules and strict enforcing of those rules when playing competively, in order to ensure optimal game- quality. Not just in games like this, but sports as well. So here's my 2 cents: For what it's worth, I agree with Janne on the point that decklists don't stop cheating, only one form of cheating. I do think, however, that any measures possible to stop a possible way of cheating should be enforced. To go with his copy protection thing: just because there's other ways to break the law, doesn't mean we should just abandon all laws. That would be the worst possible thing to do. Same with VTES: we must try and do anything we can, and issue as many laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead. That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or reacting to that. I agree strongly with Ector on this: players should look after their decks. I mean, come on, how hard is it to count (and re-count) the amount of cards in your deck after a game?! How hard is it to double- check the card-names and amounts you've written down on a form? We're talking about being able to correctly write down, and check, what 102 game cards you have with you. It will take you 3 minutes max to make absolutely sure everything is in order, so what's the problem? The "Haven Uncovered-thing" can easily be resolved by keeping your cards in sleeves that have coloured backs. You can spot a cards that's not yours (and find the deck it's supposed to be in) instantly just by turning your decks over. If it so happens two players use the same colour sleeves, that's just more incentive to count and re-count after a game. Again, how hard is it to do this? I think that failing to do a few simple things like filling in a form correctly and making sure your deck is in order means you're either cheating, or incredibly lazy/sloppy. In both cases I think you shouldn't complain if you get DQ'd. F1 drivers get DQ'd if their car is not in order. Soccer players cannot enter the field if their outfit is not in order, or if they're not on the team list. Boxers cannot enter a match if they're too heavy. So they make sure everything is ok beforehand, as they know no possible excuse will make things different. It's perfectly normal for any competition to have such rules. Teeka

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176364764.795047.267130 @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 12, 8:23 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I >> wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully: > I have no time and no intention to answer to all that stupid stuff > I've read in the other messages, but as long as your message is > civilized, it deserves an answer. > >> 1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly >> strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is >> more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and >> are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging >> in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience >> creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES >> judging.) > Can you tell me how the good tournament organization and good self- > discipline (writing a decklist and ensuring that the deck is the same > in each round) prevent the game from being "more relaxed"? It's very > simple, and even my completely disorganized players (they tend to be > late for an hour or more, for instance) are already accustomed to > this. > >> >> In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is >> not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide. > What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of > paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count > them? I think you mis-understand here. By 'hassle', I believe ira meant the hassle of extra time spent by the judge (not the players) in decklist checking, which has an apparent effect of over-penalizing clerical errors, and a minor impact, if any, on cheating overall. > Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do > if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of > cards at the beginning of the round? My players just ask their > decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player > would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you > determine whose is the card without the decklists? This happens in tournaments without decklists... frequently even. The Judge investigates, solicits information from the Archon (to find prior opponents) and from the players, and uses his Judgement to find out where the card belongs. I've never heard of a complaint with the results of that process. Ever. > Several players > could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and some > of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their decks. > Since decks are typically built to an even number of cards (80 or 90), the answer is typically blatantly obvious from a fast deck count. >> 2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require >> decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not >> require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even >> at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or >> higher level than ECQ.) > snip [ quoted text not captured ] The problem is not in the rule, but in the lack of further definition of the Judge's discretion in implementing the rule. Also, the point which started this all, there is almost no, as you call them, "orders" for how decklist checks should be implemented, and the traditional method that's been developed by the field, paired with a severe default penalty, is resulting in the over-penalization of clerical processes. "I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for the last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that you spelled you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days ago. We must insist that you withdraw from the Tour..." > It's absolutely > clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't > tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit. > It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? Why can > anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a > Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? Quite simply, Ector, VTES players take a stronger hand in determining what rules are fair, just because other games' processes may or may not apply appropriately to our own game. In Magic, were some random player to raise a point which he thought was unfair, and _really_ try to get things changed, there would be nothing but ridicule for his efforts, as all of the rules processes operate internally within WotC. Not so for VTES players, the tournament rules are the VEKN rules, not the White Wolf rules, and when unfairness is discovered, you can post here, make your case, and possibly motivate a positive change in the game. It is that exact process that results in the positive refinement of borrowed rules into an infrastructure more appropriate for VTES... snip rest, I think I addressed this in the new thread. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Apr 12, 3:59 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of > paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count > them? It is a hassle to write a deck list and count all your individual cards and make sure the list is super correct so that you avoid getting DQed in the final round, yes. It generally requires folks to plan ahead of time, know exactly what deck thay are playing before they show up, and not modify that deck at the last second. And it is another hurdle for less commited players to have to jump over to enter the event which might be one hurdle too many. > Moreover, my players often bring the printed decklists - aren't > we all using deckbuilding programs? No. > Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do > if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of > cards at the beginning of the round? I'd say "Huh. What do you think is missing? Ok. Fix that." > My players just ask their > decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player > would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you > determine whose is the card without the decklists? "Hey! Who lost a Haven Uncovered?" > I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of > my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a > serious sport. *Boggle* VTES is a collectible card game that is about make believe vampires. And devil dogs. And Werewolves on morotcycles with machine guns. Did you honestly think that it was going to make it to they Olympics? Bridge isn't even in the Olympics. Ok, now that that is out of the way, VTES is a game that people take seriously, yes. Which is good. I vastly prefer playing VTES against serious competition than against folks who aren't particularly invested in it. This doesn't mean, however, that, I feel the game needs to be treated like a "serious sport" (I don't play "serious sports" for a reason). > When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that > only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional > players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But > LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? I'm pretty sure that no tournaments in the US use deck lists. Maybe once and a while someone will use one, but I have never been to a qualifier that used Decklists, no. The US championship does not use decklists, no. This might indicate that many folks seem to feel that it is perfectly reasonable to run a serious, high level, competetive tournament without decklists. > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. You seem to be under the impression that people want VTES to be a "serious sport". People want it to be a serious, competetive game, sure. But apparently, that can happen without deck lists. > How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious > tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, You seem to have a very limited imagination. Serious VTES tournaments happen all the time that have no decklists. Because Decklists don't serve to actually do much other than occasionally catch someone trying to cheat in a very dubious and unlikely to be helpful fashion and occasionally get folks DQed for clerical errors. I suspect at about the same level of occurance. That, and waste people's time. > but if LSJ > himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT > anymore, > and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future. Again with the "serious sport". No one claims that VTES is a "serious sport". It is a game that folks take seriously and play competetively. > This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's > Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was > supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. What are you talking about here? > Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and > this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical > errors" and so on - instead of learning by example. Learning what by example? That it is somehow useful to saddle your playerbase with a need to turn in deck lists when they don't actually accomplish that much? > Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? Nothing, if you are into that sort of thing. But it is optional and unecessary. > It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? It is optional and unecessary. > Why can > anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a > Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? 'Cause it is absurd to get a GL for forgetting a Haven Uncovered. It is much less absurd to say "Huh. I forgot a Haven Uncovered. How bout I pick that up and put it back in my deck now..." > Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players > (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of > trying to change their playstyle. This has nothing at all to do with disorganization. It has to do with rationality. Decklists don't actually accomplish much other than provide another hurdle to folks who are already on the fence about going to a tournament. And occasionally result in folks getting effectively DQed for misplacing cards by accident. > and they SERIOUSLY advice to > remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play > undetectable!!! Bad and disorganized play does not become undetectable due to a lack of decklists. What becomes undetectable is the occasional mislplacement of cards and the occasional dubious attempt to gain advantage by swapping cards around which very few people are going to do in the first place, and for the people who do do this, it is rarely actually going to help them. You have played in a VTES tournament before, right? > And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour. What--he pointed out that the decklist rules are optional, 'cause they are? > He is responsible to > protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty > talks. "Dirty talks"? What are you even talking about here? The general consensus here is that decklists are mostly unecessary. 'Cause they are. What are "dirty talks"? > But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without > decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, The "law" works just fine. The VEKN tournament rules don't require decklists. And most folks running tournaments (well, at least in the US--I can't really speak for the rest of the world) tend to lean towards the optional nature of this rule and ignores it. 'Cause they realize that it doesn't accomplish much, is a hassle, and can cause as much damage as it prevents. -Peter

>(...) > Tibor Holhos (DOM OBF stealth-bleed) -> Milan Horvath (a toolboxish take > on the weenie Saturday Night Special + Dragon Breath Roungs combo) -> > Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy (playing Giovanni Powerbleed) -> Tamas Kovacs > (Malkavian stealth-bleed) -> Peter Korsos (Tzimisce Wall). >(...) Here's the winning deck: > > Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 17, Max: 28, Avg: 5,58) > ---------------------------------------------- > 2 Gilbert Duane AUS DOM OBF 7 Malkavian > 2 Mariel aus tha DOM OBF 7 Malkavian > 2 Didi Meyers aus cel obf DOM 5 Malkavian > 1 Zebulon aus dom pro OBF 5 Malkavian > 1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian > 1 Count Ormonde dom pre ser OBF 5 Followers of Set > 1 Badr al-Budur cel dom qui OBF 5 Assamite > 1 Ozmo dom obf AUS 6 Malkavian > 1 Reverend Blackwood obf DOM THA 6 Tremere Antitribu >(...) Amazing! A 53-player tournament in 2007 won by a 10-years-old deck! (i assume that those 3 On the qui vive and those Final Nights vampires don't really make the difference). Also amazing is that all 5 finalist none have a new type of modern deck or strategy! 10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals... where are those new types like the Imbued and Group 4 decks?? I'm really out of scene but every 6 months i like to see what's happening out there in VTES and surprises me a lot a result like this. Congratulations for the 53 players in one tournament. I don't know if this number is also common nowadays...

luis....@gmail.com wrote in news:1176385146.465248.148200 @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] *rolls eyes* you couldn't keep that topic on the WW forum, could you? ;-) > 10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals... where are > those new types like the Imbued and Group 4 decks?? Welcome to Qualifiers. Expect people to play Stuff That Works(TM). > I'm really out of scene but every 6 months i like to see what's > happening out there in VTES and surprises me a lot a result like this. Heh. I suggest you don't come here and fixate on one tournament result, then. Look at the TWDA, which is rich with novel decks winning myriad tournaments of all sizes. Its _good_ news that solid established decks occasionally still win tournaments, its also good news that new concepts win their fair share, as well... > Congratulations for the 53 players in one tournament. I don't know if > this number is also common nowadays... > for an EC Qualifier? Its typical, and the Hungarian group is still in a growth phase, AFAIK. DaveZ AW

On 12 apr, 15:08, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for the > last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that you spelled > you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days ago. We must insist > that you withdraw from the Tour..." > I think there's a big difference between the inpact of a typo in a word, and a typo in a number. Writing down "Zoo Hunting Groond" doesn't make much of a difference. Writing down a wrong amount does. And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms. Not because of a single typo in a name though.

On 12 apr, 15:39, luis.pal...@gmail.com wrote: > Also amazing is that all 5 finalist none have a new type of modern > deck or strategy! > 10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals... nit-picking: Not true. You couldn't play concealed weapon without obf 10 years ago. Not that you needed, because you could play DBR on zip guns. Old concept: yes, old deck: not really.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi Jeroen. Yeah yeah but you know what i mean: Malk G1 still rules even after all this time. I'd prefer to see a new strategy winning or so...

On Apr 12, 2:46 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Heh. I suggest you don't come here and fixate on one tournament result, > then. Look at the TWDA, which is rich with novel decks winning myriad > tournaments of all sizes. Its _good_ news that solid established decks > occasionally still win tournaments, its also good news that new concepts > win their fair share, as well... I did that check on TWDA and i must admit i got in fact another view about it. You're absolutelly right: Malk S&B don't rule anymore and there are plenty of new winning strategies out there. My mistake. Sorry all. Top20 on TWDA (sort by date, newest to oldest): Malk G1 S&B Salubri G2 Spirit Marionette Nossie G3 Toolbox Imbued Giovanni Powerbleed+Puppeteer Tremere G2+G3 BB Nossie G2+G3 Vote Inner Vote Imbued Stanislava Garou Ravnos G4 Toolbox Ahrimanes G2 BB Malk antitribu G2+G3 Call/Bleed Nossie/Pander G4 LoP Vote Black Hand Bloat&Bleed Toreador G1 BB Setite G2 Bleed Guruhi Vote&Bleed Jaroslav Wall Turbo Lucita Bleed

"Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1176386007.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 12 apr, 15:08, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for >> the last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that >> you spelled you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days >> ago. We must insist that you withdraw from the Tour..." >> > > I think there's a big difference between the inpact of a typo in a > word, and a typo in a number. Writing down "Zoo Hunting Groond" > doesn't make much of a difference. Writing down a wrong amount does. > I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of drawing it. Can a stats genius answer this? What is the difference in liklihood of drawing one of 5 Reunion Kamut in an 89 card deck, vs. drawing one of 6 Reunion Kamut in a 90 card deck (lets assume a player goes through 75% of their deck, or Teeka can assign a different value)... > And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and > the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms. I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled from the event for a form error, after being allowed to start (nevermind almost finish) the race. DaveZ Atom Weaver

luis....@gmail.com wrote in news:1176387273.599465.278940 @p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > Yeah yeah but you know what i mean: Malk G1 still rules even after all > this time. I'd prefer to see a new strategy winning or so... > You fail to see the real story... The fact that a G1/2 sneak bleed deck can occasionally win a tournament, _and_ the tournament scene still continues to also produce wins for novel strategies is Strong Evidence that escalation is _not_ occurring in VTES. Unlike a game where escalation can be dealt with by obsoleting old sets, escalation is important to design against, if older cards are to remain useful. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Apr 12, 5:22 am, coincoinmas...@hotmail.com wrote: > If there are no decklists, you cannot be sure than there is no > cheating. All those tournaments might be full of players who change > their decks before the Finals. > If there is a decklist, you cannot know if a player who has a decklist > problem cheats or not, but you can be sure that a player whose deck > and decklist match each other doesn't change. In Poker, there is a standard uniform decklist: one of each of 52 cards. On occasion, people play with illegal decks and they are very hard to catch. If you actually remember which cards you're adding to your deck, it's easy to get them out of sight when the Judge arrives. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On 12 apr, 16:31, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of > drawing it. That's not the point. The point is that certain agreements (if not rules) are made about the material used to play the game. Of course one extra or missing card in a 90 card decks does not make a huge difference. But if you'd allow that, then how about two cards? How about three? If no clear line can be drawn as to the specific point where these things start giving a player an advantage , then you have no choice but to disallow them altogether. > > And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and > > the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms. > > I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled from > the event for a form error, after being allowed to start (nevermind almost > finish) the race. > There'd be none, probably, because the whole form-business gets done REAL carefully. I know for sure that if Lance's team-boss had forgotten to put his name on the appearence-list for the final day, he'd be screwed. So the boss makes 100% sure that doesn't happen. Entire (less careful) teams have been disallowed to start because of clerical errors though. Other "minor" errors, like a bicycle that's not been built to regulations, or missing a urine-test, have been known to DQ a cyclist even at the final day. Cyclists have also been known to get DQ'd even during a race, due to other rule-breaking such as changing to a non-regulation bike during the race or not keeping a "straight course" during a sprint to the finish. You shouldn't compare the decklist-thing to filling in a form at the Tour. Instead, you should compare tinkering with your bike during a Tour (or missing a urine-test or something) to changing your deck during an event. It's not enough that things are ok at the start, things get checked during the course of a Tour on a daily basis. And it also doesn't matter if you actually gained an advantage or if you did things deliberately. Breaking the rules = breaking the rules.

On Apr 12, 7:57 am, "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Same with VTES: we must try and do anything we can, and issue as many > laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real > life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways > of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead. > That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or > reacting to that. > In that case, Teeka, we should ensure that all tournaments have 2 Judges for every player: One to handle their hand, and one to handle all their cards and counters in play. That way, no players are able to modify the contents of their deck, the quantity of their pool, the amount of blood on their minions, etc. All cheating will be stopped. Oh, also, all players will be required to communicate with their hand- judge one at a time in an opaque soundproof booth to prevent them from being scouted. Oh, also, all Judges must wear opaque masks and gloves, vocal distorters, lumpy clothing to further help disguise their identities, and everything a Judge says must be recorded and replayed by the head judge to help prevent collusion. Or did you perhaps mean we should do anything *reasonable* to stop cheating? If you look at the amount of work all players have to do to make decklists and the amount of work a judge must do to collect and secure them and the amount of work the judge must do to check them against decks and the amount of time the players have to waste waiting for the judge to check them and the cost of the judge having to penalize players whose decklists do not match their decks due to error and compare that with the amount of cheaters caught by decklist checking and the amount of cheaters dissuaded by decklist checking, I am confident that the costs of decklists are NOT reasonable under almost any circumstances. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1176391588....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > On 12 apr, 16:31, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of >> drawing it. > > That's not the point. The point is that certain agreements (if not > rules) are made about the material used to play the game. Of course > one extra or missing card in a 90 card decks does not make a huge > difference. But if you'd allow that, then how about two cards? How > about three? If no clear line can be drawn as to the specific point > where these things start giving a player an advantage , then you have > no choice but to disallow them altogether. > Clearly correct. They are disallowed, and I do not seek to change that. >> > And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and >> > the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms. >> >> I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled >> from the event for a form error, after being allowed to start >> (nevermind almost finish) the race. >> > > There'd be none, probably, because the whole form-business gets done > REAL carefully. ... _and_ the event organizers review paperwork _before_ the event gets underway. This is my point. IMPLEMENTATION is all screwed up with this section of the VEKN rules, because its been left un-defined, and Judges are leaving it until the end of the event to check a few who likely haven't had their decklists reviewed up till that point, and then they're furhter applying the default penalty at a point where it is having an effect which is closer to a total DQ... > I know for sure that if Lance's team-boss had > forgotten to put his name on the appearence-list for the final day, > he'd be screwed. So the boss makes 100% sure that doesn't happen. > Entire (less careful) teams have been disallowed to start because of > clerical errors though. Examples, please. > Other "minor" errors, like a bicycle that's > not been built to regulations, or missing a urine-test, have been > known to DQ a cyclist even at the final day. > > Cyclists have also been known to get DQ'd even during a race, due to > other rule-breaking such as changing to a non-regulation bike during > the race or not keeping a "straight course" during a sprint to the > finish. > Sure. I've issued Game Losses for rules infractions, unsportsmanlike conduct, etc., too... > You shouldn't compare the decklist-thing to filling in a form at the > Tour. Instead, you should compare tinkering with your bike during a > Tour (or missing a urine-test or something) to changing your deck > during an event. Your analogy to bike-tinkering fails, because that is cheating. Decklist error (only) != cheating, nor does it, alone, provide sufficient evidence that the deck was changed, specifically because of the way decklist checks are being implemented (finalist deck checks, random prelim checks). Until you've got more evidence than a discrepancy in a form, the assumption of cheating is just that, an assumption. Should a Judge Penalize on the basis of the actual evidence, or on assumptions about what the evidence might imply? As it currently stands, it seems like the assumption is that (regardless of the specific infraction) the player is cheating. At the very least, the default penalty of Game Loss is excessive, and looks like particularly unfair Judging when it is being selectively applied just before the Finals. > It's not enough that things are ok at the start, > things get checked during the course of a Tour on a daily basis. Right, which is what is _not_ being done with many decklists, although we certainly are penalizing players as if a more thorough job _were_ being done. > And > it also doesn't matter if you actually gained an advantage or if you > did things deliberately. Breaking the rules = breaking the rules. You oversimplify. Take it further. Does the punishment suit the infraction? Answer; no. DaveZ Atom Weaver

> You should check all decklists during the first round to find the most > obvious bugs ASAP. If you have no time or staff to perform deckchecks, > try counting the number if cards during that first round checking and > ask your players to count cards in their prey's libraries at the > beginning of round 2. This will minimize the chances of encountering > the problem before the finals. Hey Ector, how do you want to check decklists DURING the first round, dude? Players tend to play with their cards then. In the break between round 1 and round 2 there is, according to my experiences, too less time and people to check all decks at such a big event (and you don't want to let check other players, because they could be biased, you need neutral persons out of the tourney). Checking some of the decks per round and before finals should suffice.

On Apr 12, 7:57 am, "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Same with VTES: we must try and do anything we can, and issue as many > laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real > life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways > of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead. > That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or > reacting to that. Looks like Google ate this reply earlier: We can stop cheating entirely if we give every player their own judge. That way, the judge sleeves, shuffles, and handles all the player's cards, pool, and other tokens for them. We'd also need an opaque soundproof booth for players to ask rules questions in. Oh, and the judges would have to wear opaque masks, gloves, lumpy clothing, vocal distorters, and be randomly assigned. Oh, and... Or did you mean we must try and do anything *reasonable*? Now, if you add up all the effort *all* the players have to take to get their decklist in order, sometimes while hungover, jet-lagged, overtired, and trading cards mere seconds before the tournament begins; the effort it takes the judge to collect and secure the decklists; the effort it takes the judge to examine a reasonable number of decks every round; the time *all* the players must wait for decklists to be checked; and the headaches of players being penalized for innocent deck/decklist errors and weigh that against the number of cheaters actually caught plus the number of cheaters dissuaded from cheating, you might then have a means of determining if decklists are reasonable. The way I see it, lots of work for no gain. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jon wrote: > > ... if decklists are > going to be used to verify deck contents I think it could be done in a > better manner than only checking decks prior to the finals. If > decklist checks are going to be done, have it as part of the > registration process. Check all decks when the decklist is turned in. > Then do a few random (or targeted if you suspect deck changing) checks > (whatever time permits) at the beginning of each round. I think the rules changes should be that if you require decklists, you should be required to do exactly what you detail above: Check decks at the beginning of tournament. All players must have a deck that matches their decklist at that time - either by modifying their deck, or modifying their list. Then spot checks throughout, with at least 5% of decks checked between rounds - whether random or due to suspicion is up to the the judge. Then all finalists decks are checked. And players are encouraged to count their decks between each round, just to be sure they picked up all their Disarms, Sense Deps, etc etc. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

"Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: > For what it's worth, I agree with Janne on the point that decklists > don't stop cheating, only one form of cheating. > I do think, however, that any measures possible to stop a possible way > of cheating should be enforced. To go with his copy protection thing: > just because there's other ways to break the law, doesn't mean we > should just abandon all laws. That would be the worst possible thing > to do. To go with my copy protection thing: Copy protection does not stop piracy. But it *does* harass oridinary consumers, who want to copy a CD they bought for their car stereo and their computer at work. Or play a computer game on their laptop while they travel, without having to pack all the original game CDs and DVDs - not because they're needed to play the game, but because the copy protection software (which does not stop piracy, remember) demands it. Is a procedure, that perhaps might hinder a few incompetent cheaters, but certainly punishes all legitimate players, really necessary and justifiable? And another point: You are talking about "abandoning all laws." I'm talking about abandoning a way of enforcing a law, not the law itself. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <461d5267$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, > Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> but what if it results in rampant cheating, but you don't notice, >> because there weren't any decklists to check to help spot it? > > Well, then you are no worse off than before--if there was going to be > rampant cheating, there will still be rampant cheating even if you got > deck lists. > One of these is solipsistic, but I'm not sure which... best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On 12 apr, 17:34, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In that case, Teeka, we should -snip utter BS- You're over-reacting and talking nonsense here. > Or did you perhaps mean we should do anything *reasonable* to stop > cheating? Duh. Of course I did. I'm not insane you know. Next time, I'll remember to put that extra word in my posts so you too will understand what I mean. If you look at the amount of work all players have to do to > make decklists "The amount of work"? Hah! As I said earlier, this is NOT a lot of work. You write down the name of, what, 30 different cards and the amounts of each card. That's about 140 words and 30 numbers. How much time does it take You to write 140 words and 30 numbers? Stop saying that it is a lot of work, because it simply isn't. and the amount of work a judge must do to collect and > secure them and the amount of work the judge must do to check them > against decks and the amount of time the players have to waste waiting > for the judge to check them and the cost of the judge having to > penalize players whose decklists do not match their decks due to error > and compare that with the amount of cheaters caught by decklist > checking and the amount of cheaters dissuaded by decklist checking, I > am confident that the costs of decklists are NOT reasonable under > almost any circumstances. > Yawn. Did you get a nice little kick out of writing that big long sentence? Anyway, I'm totally fine with random checks instead of full thorough checks of all decks involved. Of course a Judge doesn't have time to check them all each round, so random checks are what I consider to be in the "possible" ( = within the boundaries of "reasonable") area. I have no idea how much cheating gets prevented by this, just saying it's a way of at least trying to prevent (some) cheating.

On 12 apr, 18:06, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1176391588....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: -snip- > This is my point. IMPLEMENTATION is all screwed up with this > section of the VEKN rules, because its been left un-defined, and Judges > are leaving it until the end of the event to check a few who likely > haven't had their decklists reviewed up till that point, and then they're > furhter applying the default penalty at a point where it is having an > effect which is closer to a total DQ... > That's probably true. I wasn't talking about that, so I think I misinterpreted the point you were making, sorry about that. The whole "does the punishment suit the crime (if any)" issue is something else than what I meant. > > I know for sure that if Lance's team-boss had > > forgotten to put his name on the appearence-list for the final day, > > he'd be screwed. So the boss makes 100% sure that doesn't happen. > > Entire (less careful) teams have been disallowed to start because of > > clerical errors though. > > Examples, please. > I'm pretty sure it happened, but no time now to look it up. Feel free to kick my ass if it turns out I'm wrong. :-) > Until you've got more evidence than a discrepancy in a form, the > assumption of cheating is just that, an assumption. Should a Judge > Penalize on the basis of the actual evidence, or on assumptions about > what the evidence might imply? As it currently stands, it seems like the > assumption is that (regardless of the specific infraction) the player is > cheating. Oh yes, that's true. Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever possible to "prove" bad intentions in this case. Therefor, I think there's no other choice but to enforce one penalty for all who break this rule, even though it hurts people who do it unintentionally. At the very least, the default penalty of Game Loss is > excessive, and looks like particularly unfair Judging when it is being > selectively applied just before the Finals. > That's true. Because then, it's not random checking anymore. > You oversimplify. Take it further. Does the punishment suit the > infraction? Answer; no. > That's another thing altogether. I indeed think a game loss is probably too harsh a penalty. I *do* think that there should be a pentalty of some sorts, and just saying that everyone should get it when they break a specific rule, intentional or not.

In article <1176419067.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, "Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "The amount of work"? Hah! As I said earlier, this is NOT a lot of > work. You write down the name of, what, 30 different cards and the > amounts of each card. That's about 140 words and 30 numbers. How much > time does it take You to write 140 words and 30 numbers? Stop saying > that it is a lot of work, because it simply isn't. You are correct. It isn't a huge amount of work. But it is an extra hurdle for the less committed players--VTES is a pretty fringe game. I mean, like, yeah, we love it and all, but it is hardly like people are knocking down walls to get into tournaments in most places. A lot of people who come to VTES tournaments are already fairly "on the fence"--i.e. they like the game, but aren't real committed to it, know they are likely going to lose, and any extra impediment will likely have them go "Uh, nah, I'm gonna go out to a movie instead" come tournament time. Which isn't the only reason why decklists are not really necessary, but it certainly factors in, along with (most importantly), it doesn't really do much and is just as likely to punish someone for an accident/clerical error as it is for intentional cheating. It is a hassle for the players. It is a hassle for the judges (to have to collect and check decks--this is going to add a not insignificant amount of time to an already long event; yet another hurdle for the less committed). It only theoretically prevents one form (and likely the least effective) of potential cheating. It is just all around not worth the effort it takes. Ector did bring up a potentially solvent point about decklists--it might make people more disciplined in regards to the game, in that they really need to pay attention to their deck lists and count their cards after every game and make sure everything is on the up and up at all times out of fear of accidental DQing. That being said, I don't know that this is necessarily something that anyone is actually going to *benefit* from in the world of VTES, and just like every other point in regards to deck lists, is probably not worth the hassle. > I have no idea how much cheating gets prevented by this, just saying > it's a way of at least trying to prevent (some) cheating. Sure, it is. But so is having a judge count everyone's pool count at the start of each game. And so is giving each player a screen so that no one can peer at their hand of cards. But both of these are pretty much extreme and absurd. Yet are still ways to prevent some cheating. Deck lists and checks *might* prevent some cheating once and a while. And they also might unfairly DQ someone for an honest accident once and a while. And most of the time, they aren't going to do either (even if this form of cheating *is* going on at the same time). But they *always* will be kind of a hassle and an extra hurdle for folks. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

On 13 apr, 01:29, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176419067.479704.306...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "The amount of work"? Hah! As I said earlier, this is NOT a lot of > > work. You write down the name of, what, 30 different cards and the > > amounts of each card. That's about 140 words and 30 numbers. How much > > time does it take You to write 140 words and 30 numbers? Stop saying > > that it is a lot of work, because it simply isn't. > > You are correct. It isn't a huge amount of work. But it is an extra > hurdle for the less committed players--VTES is a pretty fringe game. I > mean, like, yeah, we love it and all, but it is hardly like people are > knocking down walls to get into tournaments in most places. A lot of > people who come to VTES tournaments are already fairly "on the > fence"--i.e. they like the game, but aren't real committed to it, know > they are likely going to lose, and any extra impediment will likely have > them go "Uh, nah, I'm gonna go out to a movie instead" come tournament > time. This I understand. It would be very bad if this indeed makes people go for the movies instead. Is this the same for qualifiers and nationals too, though? I'd think people who come to those actually *want* to play VTES and wouldn't be put off by something like having to write down their decklist. I know I wouldn't. But like I said, I'm not a tourney player and to be honest, it kindof saddens me that apparently people get put off so easily, by a trivial (IMO) thing like that. Shame. If what you say is true, then you're right, we'd be doing more wrong than right. > Ector did bring up a potentially solvent point about decklists--it might > make people more disciplined in regards to the game, in that they really > need to pay attention to their deck lists and count their cards after > every game and make sure everything is on the up and up at all times out > of fear of accidental DQing. That being said, I don't know that this is > necessarily something that anyone is actually going to *benefit* from in > the world of VTES, and just like every other point in regards to deck > lists, is probably not worth the hassle. > I agree on all of that, except the "this being a hassle" thing. But apparently, lots of people think it is and I'm in a minority saying it isn't. And since all my arguments are based on the idea that it isn't, I guess nothing I can say is suitable to the avarage tourney-VTES crowd. Oh well. > > I have no idea how much cheating gets prevented by this, just saying > > it's a way of at least trying to prevent (some) cheating. > > Sure, it is. But so is having a judge count everyone's pool count at the > start of each game. And so is giving each player a screen so that no one > can peer at their hand of cards. But both of these are pretty much > extreme and absurd. Well, I don't think that, for instance, demanding players to display their pool counters in neat rows so everyone can see there's exactly 30 (e.g. 5 rows of 6?) wouldn't be too much too ask, IMO. But again, apparently I consider less things to be a hassle than most others. The screen thing and all the stuff like George "suggested" are nonsense of course. Yet are still ways to prevent some cheating. Deck > lists and checks *might* prevent some cheating once and a while. And > they also might unfairly DQ someone for an honest accident once and a > while. And most of the time, they aren't going to do either (even if > this form of cheating *is* going on at the same time). But they *always* > will be kind of a hassle and an extra hurdle for folks. > Again, that apparently is the consensus among tourney players. I disagree with it, but it's all a matter of opinion in the end. For the record, I never meant to force my opinion on anyone, just wrote down my thoughts about rules and rule-breaking. I'll leave this discussion be now. -Teeka

In article <1176421981.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, "Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > This I understand. > It would be very bad if this indeed makes people go for the movies > instead. Is this the same for qualifiers and nationals too, though? > I'd think people who come to those actually *want* to play VTES and > wouldn't be put off by something like having to write down their > decklist. I know I wouldn't. I mean, it isn't like a huge issue any more than it is a huge hassle. But given all other aspects of deck list submission and checking (i.e. it doesn't really accomplish much and is just as likely to do harm as not), it is just yet another reason to just ignore the whole thing. > But like I said, I'm not a tourney player and to be honest, it kindof > saddens me that apparently people get put off so easily, by a trivial > (IMO) thing like that. Shame. If what you say is true, then you're > right, we'd be doing more wrong than right. Like, I don't have data or anything, but if even a few folks don't go to a tournament 'cause they were like "Man. I don't have a deck list ready...", that is a few too many. > Well, I don't think that, for instance, demanding players to display > their pool counters in neat rows so everyone can see there's exactly > 30 (e.g. 5 rows of 6?) wouldn't be too much too ask, IMO. It isn't. I stack my pool using small coins in exactly 6 stacks of 5, for example. But it isn't at all impossible to slip an extra pool in there (heck, in casual games where I am being less careful, I have done so by accident and didn't realize till later in the game). But it isn't at all difficult, if you are an unscrupulous bastard and inclined to cheat, to slip an extra pool in "by accident", and unless someone specifically checks them, it is unlikely anyone will notice. > But again, apparently I consider less things to be a hassle than most > others. The screen thing and all the stuff like George "suggested" are > nonsense of course. Sure. But they also prevent some cheating. And likely they prevent more cheating than deck lists ever would. Again, the biggest issue here is not the hassle, it is that deck list checking doesn't actually stop any significant amount of cheating, and is just as likely to cause harm as it is to not--again, most folks playing this game are going to be unlikely to cheat in the first place, and even if they are likely to cheat, changing your deck illegally between rounds is of such limited advantage to not really even be worth worrying about. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 12, 7:13 pm, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > > You should check all decklists during the first round to find the most > > obvious bugs ASAP. If you have no time or staff to perform deckchecks, > > try counting the number if cards during that first round checking and > > ask your players to count cards in their prey's libraries at the > > beginning of round 2. This will minimize the chances of encountering > > the problem before the finals. > > Hey Ector, how do you want to check decklists DURING the first round, > dude? Players tend to play with their cards then. You don't have much time, right. Just count the number of cards and check the groups of vampires. This will take 2-3 minutes per deck maximum. And you can encounter the most obvious errors (such as more than 90 cards of less than 60), which are much more common that you might imagine. You will also write down the number of cards in the decklist and you may compare this number to the number provided by the player. If the numbers are different, something may be wrong with the deck. After that, you may ask your players to count the cards in their prey libraties at the beginning of round 2 and report it to you. Should you do all this, you will eliminate all possible problems with card numbers early enough. Yours, Ector

Looks like I've considered my goal to make VTES a true sport game unreachable yesterday. Somebody may think that I'm afraid of the work. It would be a shame! No, I don't afraid of the work. And, frankly, I don't care whether LSJ or somebody else considers VTES a serious sport game or not. For me, it's a sport game, so I'm going to develop it as a sport game here in Minsk. Just leaving the game would be too simple. Every player is welcome here, but please be ready to fill the decklists and don't blame me if you get a penalty for illegal deck or illegal decklist. We are playing seriously here - at least, we are trying to. And we are going to have our first Nationals this year! I never thought that I would have to explain in detail why decklists are needed (especially to LSJ - oh my!) But as long as there are people who don't understand this, here you are. 1). If you have decklists, you can prevent cheating with changing the decks, at least theoretically, and everybody knows that. If you don't have them, you cannot prevent such cheating or even discover it. And everybody knows that you cannot! Any player willing to cheat with his deck may do this freely. This psychological effect is cumulative over time. If you NEVER play with the decklists, some player may even fail to realize that changing his deck during a tournament is cheating! Honestly, why the player should realize this if nobody did ever check his deck? Most players aren't "rule geeks". On the other side, if you ALWAYS play with the decklists, if you explained the underlying philosophy and the penalties to your players, and if you make deckchecks regularly, your players will quickly get accustomed to check their decklist carefully prior to submitting them, to count their cards after each round, and so on. In other words, they will become a well-disciplined players. 2). Every player tend to consider his decklists as a "contract" between himself and the judge. Player is responsible for playing the submitted deck in each round of tournament, judge is responsible for checking this and punishing the players who violate the "contract". The mere existence of decklist and the POSSIBILITY of deckcheck makes the players to be much more accurate, even if you don't make any deckchecks at all! Quite often, the decklists are the most obvious sign of a serious tournament (compared to the "friendly" tournament): "Wow, the judge requires a decklist! Looks like it isn't going to be a friendly casual gaming..." 3). If you have the decklists, you can help any player to restore his deck to the original state. Players regularly forget the exact contents of their decks, and they regularly ask me for their decklists. With the list, a player can recall his deck in a few second. If the judge won't have decklists, he would look incredibly silly, since he would be unable to help the player. Decklists are useful to the players, too - not only to the judge! I guess that nobody cares about restoring the decks to their original state at the tournaments without decklists, and players can play everything they want :) Note that the players playing with incorrect or incomplete decks are actually cheating, but they have no other choice! This is going to further soften the border between the honest play and cheating - if the border ever existed in the tournaments without decklists. 4). If you have the decklists, you can quickly answer the questions like "Does he really have Fear of Mekhet in his deck?" Five seconds, and the answer is ready - either yes, or DQ :) If you don't have decklists, nobody would even ask you such question - obviously you know nothing! The judge without decklists is a pitiful judge, and his possibilities are very limited. 5). If you have the decklists, you can easily judge the complicated PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. Take the decklist and decide whether the player can "reasonably" hope to get more than 1VP or not. Without the decklist a judge will be forced to analyze the actual deck, which is much more difficult and lengthy. 6). The claim that decklists prevent only one kind of cheating is wrong. If the judge suspects that some player can be cheating, his decklist may provide a lot of hints about the ways he may be cheating. If you see a decklist with 10 Governs and 8 vampires with 7 capacity, you may suspect that the player isn't playing Govern on the younger vampire and check it. Every experienced judge will have many different examples of possible cheating or misrepresentation that can be suspected from the decklist. Overall, when a judge runs a tournament without decklists, it usually means "nothing really matters to me" attitude, and the very attitude is very disruptive to the tournament. If you don't have decklists, do you need a judge at all, and for what purpose? Some good players can answer all rules questions even without a judge. The advantages of decklists far outweights the "hassle". Seriously. As soon as your players will get accustomed to them, you will never think about playing a serious tournament without them. On Apr 12, 4:09 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 3:59 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of > > paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count > > them? > > It is a hassle to write a deck list and count all your individual > cards and make sure the list is super correct so that you avoid > getting DQed in the final round, yes. It generally requires folks to > plan ahead of time, know exactly what deck thay are playing before > they show up, and not modify that deck at the last second. And it is > another hurdle for less commited players to have to jump over to enter > the event which might be one hurdle too many. I always allow the players to modify their decks "at the last second" (prior to the seating declaration, of course). They just have to ask their decklist, and they frequently do. And, frankly, do you really need players that aren't going to play because of the "hassle" of filling the decklist? As long as they were supposed to spend at least 6-7 hours in play, creating a problem from spending 10 minutes on filling the decklist only means that they didn't actually want to participate. To hell with them! > > Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do > > if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of > > cards at the beginning of the round? > > I'd say "Huh. What do you think is missing? Ok. Fix that." "Huh. What do you think is missing? Fear of Mekhet? Take two Fears, there are too many ICs here!" :D And now, seriously: "What do you think is missing" - "I don't remember!" Your response is??? I suggest this: "Oh, I'm so sorry for I didn't require the decklists! Be sure to bring it next time". > > My players just ask their > > decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player > > would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you > > determine whose is the card without the decklists? > > "Hey! Who lost a Haven Uncovered?" Wonderful. Simply wonderful, especially at the large tournament with 53 players :) Stop the whole event to find out who lost the card. If the player asked you during a break, the owner of HU may simply be away. So you are going to make an announcement at the beginning of the next round: "Attention! Somebody played HU on Mr.N and forgot it! Please check your decks!" And how they are going to check their decks without the decklists? :) Why are you sure that each player remembers how many HUs he initially had? Compare this to the version with the decklists. The judge quickly finds the decklists of all players who played on the same table and filters the ones with HUs. Then he asks ONLY THOSE PLAYERS to count the number of HUs and report to him. Not more than 2 minutes in the worst case, and the success is guaranteed. > > > When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that > > only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional > > players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But > > LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? > > I'm pretty sure that no tournaments in the US use deck lists. Maybe > once and a while someone will use one, but I have never been to a > qualifier that used Decklists, no. The US championship does not use > decklists, no. This might indicate that many folks seem to feel that > it is perfectly reasonable to run a serious, high level, competetive > tournament without decklists. This is very, very strange. Decklists are not just a useless papers. They really help a lot, BOTH players and judges. They really prevent a lot of cheating (and I don't believe that "there are no cheating in VTES" - it's too good to believe). They really worth a "hassle" of filling them. I decline to consider any tournament without decklists a serious one. LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will demonstrate their value to the whole country. I guess that you aren't going to pretend that some players aren't going to attend Nationals or Qualifiers due to the "hurdle" of filling the decklists? :) > > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. > > You seem to be under the impression that people want VTES to be a > "serious sport". People want it to be a serious, competetive game, > sure. But apparently, that can happen without deck lists. I don't believe in any "serious and competitive" CCG tournament without the decklists. And I don't see the reasons of avoiding them. > > How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious > > tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, > > You seem to have a very limited imagination. Serious VTES tournaments > happen all the time that have no decklists. Because Decklists don't > serve to actually do much other than occasionally catch someone trying > to cheat in a very dubious and unlikely to be helpful fashion and > occasionally get folks DQed for clerical errors. I suspect at about > the same level of occurance. That, and waste people's time. I completely disagree with you about the usefulness of decklists - see above. They serve many different purposes, and they really worth "wasting people's time". > Again with the "serious sport". No one claims that VTES is a "serious > sport". It is a game that folks take seriously and play competetively. Actually, I meant right that. I'm not going to become the professional sportsman myself :) But if people really take the game seriously, is anybody going to complain about "wasting time" to fill the decklist? Really? > > This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's > > Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was > > supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. > > What are you talking about here? I tried to say that that rule was written in the times when nobody would even try to complain about players getting GL for this infraction, at least at the major tournament. And, possibly, for the different game, too :) Issuing a GL for a deck problem at the large tournament is OK. Absolutely nothing to complain about. No real sportsman would complain about it. > > Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and > > this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical > > errors" and so on - instead of learning by example. > > Learning what by example? That it is somehow useful to saddle your > playerbase with a need to turn in deck lists when they don't actually > accomplish that much? Learning by example for players: "I should carefully examine my deck prior to submitting it, and be sure to have my actual deck to correspond the decklist in each round". Judge should learn that he needs to implement some ways to detect the most frequent deck mistakes ASAP, and don't wait until the finals. And he also heeds to explain the rules about the decklists and deckchecks, as long as some players in Hungary are obviously ignorant. I usually take 2-3 minutes to explain the consequences of having illegal decks or illegal decklists prior to each tournament. > > Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? > > Nothing, if you are into that sort of thing. But it is optional and > unecessary. It is "optional" only if you don't have decklists at all. If you have them, it's current *official* recommendation to the judges. So, the Hungarian judge was absolutely right when he issued GL. > > > Why can > > anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a > > Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? > > 'Cause it is absurd to get a GL for forgetting a Haven Uncovered. It > is much less absurd to say "Huh. I forgot a Haven Uncovered. How bout > I pick that up and put it back in my deck now..." "Huh. I forgot a Haven Uncovered. Without your deckcheck, two players would play with the illegal decks, but does it really matter?" :D Forgetting HU isn't much of a problem, but failing to return it until the beginning of the next round really is. All deckchecks are performed at the beginning of the round when all players MUST have the same decks as they're submitted. Guess what would happen if some player would use that extra HU and win because of it? GL may be too harsh penalty for this at the small tournament, but it's normal at ECQ. > > Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players > > (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of > > trying to change their playstyle. > > This has nothing at all to do with disorganization. It has to do with > rationality. Decklists don't actually accomplish much other than > provide another hurdle to folks who are already on the fence about > going to a tournament. And occasionally result in folks getting > effectively DQed for misplacing cards by accident. This is completely wrong. See the decklists usefulness above. Guess why almost ALL CCGs use the decklists? Just to bring unnecessary hussle to their players? Or to penalize players without a serious reason? :) The very fact that you don't see the usefulness of decklists and consider the GL in the finals equal to DQ is the most clear sign of your disorganisation :) DQ would lead to banning of that player for several months. > > and they SERIOUSLY advice to > > remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play > > undetectable!!! > > Bad and disorganized play does not become undetectable due to a lack > of decklists. What becomes undetectable is the occasional > mislplacement of cards and the occasional dubious attempt to gain > advantage by swapping cards around which very few people are going to > do in the first place, and for the people who do do this, it is rarely > actually going to help them. You have played in a VTES tournament > before, right? "Occasional misplacement of cards" without returning them to the proper decks IS bad and disorganized play. Suggesting to drop the decklists to make those problems invisible is the sign of the complete lack of discipline and organization. Seriously. This can even be called "an anarchy". > > > He is responsible to > > protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty > > talks. > > "Dirty talks"? What are you even talking about here? The general > consensus here is that decklists are mostly unecessary. 'Cause they > are. What are "dirty talks"? Dirty talks are the talks about "draconian rules", "too harsh penalty", "effectively DQ" and so on. The rules are normal, but the players weren't prepared good enough. I don't know whether the judge was responsible for training players or not, but his decision is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. LSJ should immediately point this out, since every judge needs a confirmation in such cases - without it the judge may break under the moral pressure and adopt the "doesn't matter" behaviour which cannot be a sign of a good judge. Didn't you see the Hungarian prince suggesting to drop the decklists in the future? This should mean that somebody really doesn't like the situation there. But in fact, everything is OK, and no changes are needed. LSJ should point that out from the very beginning - and this would prevent those dirty talks. > > But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without > > decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, > > The "law" works just fine. The VEKN tournament rules don't require > decklists. And most folks running tournaments (well, at least in the > US--I can't really speak for the rest of the world) tend to lean > towards the optional nature of this rule and ignores it. 'Cause they > realize that it doesn't accomplish much, is a hassle, and can cause as > much damage as it prevents. Well, did I tell you that you're completely wrong when you talk about the decklist usefulness? I guess I did. A serious judge just cannot avoid so great tool for maintaining order as the decklists. Really. A road policeman could also do his job without the radar, but he isn't so stupid. Decklists cannot cause any "damage" at all, but they can prevent a lot of tournament disruptions. Thus, the decklists must be immediately recommended at all tournaments, and even REQUIRED at the major events like Nationals and Qualifiers. Guess why That-Other-Game(TM) does right that? Because they really appreciate the order and hate anarchy. Don't we appreciate order and hate anarchy, too? Yours, Ector

On 13 apr, 12:19, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Looks like I've considered my goal to make VTES a true sport game > unreachable yesterday. Somebody may think that I'm afraid of the work. > It would be a shame! No, I don't afraid of the work. And, frankly, I > don't care whether LSJ or somebody else considers VTES a serious sport > game or not. For me, it's a sport game, so I'm going to develop it as > a sport game here in Minsk. Just leaving the game would be too simple. > Every player is welcome here, but please be ready to fill the > decklists and don't blame me if you get a penalty for illegal deck or > illegal decklist. We are playing seriously here - at least, we are > trying to. And we are going to have our first Nationals this year! Grats :) I'm sure you'll have fun. I agree with you that decklists have merit and should actually be used, too. It's a way of preventing cheating. Similar to, say, the cutting cards rule. However, v:tes is a non-teambased multiplayer game. Since everyone affects eachother, this makes v:tes innately incompatible with truly serious competition. Essentially it's still a game. A game that is played competetively, but not for serious rewards. > 4). If you have the decklists, you can quickly answer the questions > like "Does he really have Fear of Mekhet in his deck?" Five seconds, > and the answer is ready - either yes, or DQ :) If you don't have > decklists, nobody would even ask you such question - obviously you > know nothing! The judge without decklists is a pitiful judge, and his > possibilities are very limited. I dont think that's a feasible option. For one, the contents of the deck are priviledged information. > Overall, when a judge runs a tournament without decklists, it usually > means "nothing really matters to me" attitude, and the very attitude > is very disruptive to the tournament. If you don't have decklists, do > you need a judge at all, and for what purpose? Some good players can > answer all rules questions even without a judge. Agreed. Many a smaller tournament the judge is utterly redundant and bored. That doesn't change with decklists. :P > The advantages of decklists far outweights the "hassle". Seriously. As > soon as your players will get accustomed to them, you will never think > about playing a serious tournament without them. > The judge quickly > finds the decklists of all players who played on the same table and > filters the ones with HUs. Then he asks ONLY THOSE PLAYERS to count > the number of HUs and report to him. Not more than 2 minutes in the > worst case, and the success is guaranteed. You should also include the peolpe he played with that do not have HUs. Decklists do not matter here. The losing of HU's is because of people scooping them up when done. Not confusion between different HU's. > > > When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that > > > only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional > > > players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But > > > LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? > > > I'm pretty sure that no tournaments in the US use deck lists. Maybe > > once and a while someone will use one, but I have never been to a > > qualifier that used Decklists, no. The US championship does not use > > decklists, no. This might indicate that many folks seem to feel that > > it is perfectly reasonable to run a serious, high level, competetive > > tournament without decklists. > > This is very, very strange. Decklists are not just a useless papers. > They really help a lot, BOTH players and judges. They really prevent a > lot of cheating (and I don't believe that "there are no cheating in > VTES" - it's too good to believe). They really worth a "hassle" of > filling them. I decline to consider any tournament without decklists a > serious one. LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least > at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will > demonstrate their value to the whole country. > I guess that you aren't going to pretend that some players aren't > going to attend Nationals or Qualifiers due to the "hurdle" of filling > the decklists? :) I agree that's a bit odd. When they were introduced over here, I was unconvinced of their usefulness. And I think the way things were handled in hungary is a bad way of approaching trouble with decklists, but I do think nowadays that decklists per se are a good thing. Cheers, and good luck with your nats, Bram

On Apr 12, 4:08 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is > >> not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide. > > What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of > > paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count > > them? > > I think you mis-understand here. By 'hassle', I believe ira meant the > hassle of extra time spent by the judge (not the players) in decklist > checking, which has an apparent effect of over-penalizing clerical errors, > and a minor impact, if any, on cheating overall. Looks like I actually argued with Peter D. Bakija, who really considers filling the decklists a "hassle". Talking about the deckchecks, I might surprise you. Actually, the decklist existence is helpful even if you DON'T perform any deckchecks. I don't perform them at every tournament. But I still CAN perform them, and this keeps my players organized. > > Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do > > if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of > > cards at the beginning of the round? My players just ask their > > decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player > > would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you > > determine whose is the card without the decklists? > > This happens in tournaments without decklists... frequently even. The > Judge investigates, solicits information from the Archon (to find prior > opponents) and from the players, and uses his Judgement to find out where > the card belongs. I've never heard of a complaint with the results of that > process. Ever. Just evaluate, how difficult is to restore the order without decklists, and how easy to do the same with them! And the judge never has extra time. This alone worth using decklists for all tournaments. > > Several players > > could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and some > > of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their decks. > > Since decks are typically built to an even number of cards (80 or 90), the > answer is typically blatantly obvious from a fast deck count. Why do you think that every player should know an exact number of cards in his deck? Especially at a tournament without decklists? > > > Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? > > The problem is not in the rule, but in the lack of further definition of > the Judge's discretion in implementing the rule. Also, the point which > started this all, there is almost no, as you call them, "orders" for how > decklist checks should be implemented, and the traditional method that's > been developed by the field, paired with a severe default penalty, is > resulting in the over-penalization of clerical processes. The decklist time was really bad chosen, as I've already pointed out several times. This is really worth discussing, but nobody does. Everyone just complains about "too harsh tules" and so on. What do you call the "over-penalization of clerical processes"? Players were penalized not for the clerical processes, but for failing to performing the most elementary procedures that are needed for smooth tournament running. Plus, the differences between decks and decklists could possibly be the consequences of cheating. > > VTES players take a stronger hand in determining what > rules are fair, just because other games' processes may or may not apply > appropriately to our own game. In Magic, were some random player to raise > a point which he thought was unfair, and _really_ try to get things > changed, there would be nothing but ridicule for his efforts, as all of the > rules processes operate internally within WotC. Not so for VTES players, > the tournament rules are the VEKN rules, not the White Wolf rules, and when > unfairness is discovered, you can post here, make your case, and possibly > motivate a positive change in the game. It is that exact process that > results in the positive refinement of borrowed rules into an infrastructure > more appropriate for VTES... > IMHO, game rules should not be a theme of player's voting. Judges' voting, probably. But as long as there are no judge certification in VTES, it would be better to leave votes question to LSJ. Actually, I tried to ask what makes the players to raise against the rule. Your words about "over-penalization the clerical process" convinced me that most players don't understand the philosophy of this rule. Please read once more. If the judge discovers a difference between a deck and a decklist, then he should follow the next pattern: 1). If you believe that it was cheating, DQ that player. 2). If you don't believe in cheating, but it could possibly be a cheating, issue the recommended penalty (GL or your "VP loss"). This is actually something AVERAGE between a warning and DQ. You cannot issue DQ since you don't believe that it was a cheating, but you cannot issue a warning too, since it would encourage the possible cheating. I'd say that VP loss would suffice for minor tournaments, but for the large tournaments like ECQ Game Loss is quite normal. 3). If the difference could not possibly be a cheating (clerical error etc), issue warning. Let me comment this a bit. "Campground Hunting Groung" instead of "Zoo Hunting Ground" cannot possible be a cheating, so it's a clerical error and deserves a warning. 6 Reunion Kamuts instead of 5 is NOT a clerical error, since a player could have 5 or 6, and changing the number during the tournament can provide some illegal advantage to him. That's why the player really deserves a Game Loss. Yours, Ector

On 13 apr, 12:19, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > I never thought that I would have to explain in detail why decklists > are needed (especially to LSJ - oh my!) But as long as there are > people who don't understand this, here you are. *YOU* don't understand that decklists aren't needed for competitive play. Not the other way around. Maybe listen to the rest of the NG for a change? > > 1). If you have decklists, you can prevent cheating with changing the > decks, at least theoretically, and everybody knows that. Indeed: theoretically. And that's exactly the point. Extra Hassle for no real benefit except for being able to post it to the NG faster. > This psychological effect is cumulative over time. If you NEVER play > with the decklists, some player may even fail to realize that changing > his deck during a tournament is cheating! Honestly, why the player > should realize this if nobody did ever check his deck? Because you tell them? And because comptetitive doesn't mean rampant cheating. >Most players > aren't "rule geeks". On the other side, if you ALWAYS play with the > decklists, if you explained the underlying philosophy and the > penalties to your players, and if you make deckchecks regularly, your > players will quickly get accustomed to check their decklist carefully > prior to submitting them, to count their cards after each round, and > so on. In other words, they will become a well-disciplined players. BS. Well disciplined players (sic.) don't cheat, not because of the penalty, but because they want to play the game as it's supposed to be played. > 2). Every player tend to consider his decklists as a "contract" > between himself and the judge. *roll eyes* >Player is responsible for playing the > submitted deck in each round of tournament, judge is responsible for > checking this and punishing the players who violate the "contract". > The mere existence of decklist and the POSSIBILITY of deckcheck makes > the players to be much more accurate, even if you don't make any > deckchecks at all! Quite often, the decklists are the most obvious > sign of a serious tournament (compared to the "friendly" tournament): > "Wow, the judge requires a decklist! Looks like it isn't going to be a > friendly casual gaming..." To you maybe. Why would decklist mean competitive and no decklist mean friendly? Why the difference? You can be competitive and play friendly.... > 3). If you have the decklists, you can help any player to restore his > deck to the original state. Players regularly forget the exact > contents of their decks, and they regularly ask me for their > decklists. With the list, a player can recall his deck in a few > second. If the judge won't have decklists, he would look incredibly > silly, since he would be unable to help the player. Decklists are > useful to the players, too - not only to the judge! wait! Either they become more disciplined or they come to rely on their decklist to know what's in their deck.. Which one is it? > I guess that nobody cares about restoring the decks to their original > state at the tournaments without decklists, and players can play > everything they want :) Note that the players playing with incorrect > or incomplete decks are actually cheating, but they have no other > choice! This is going to further soften the border between the honest > play and cheating - if the border ever existed in the tournaments > without decklists. Most people trust other people unless there is a reason not to. And you still haven't shown that a/ decklists prevent people from cheating. It may make it a bit more difficult, but if deckchecking is the real goal the only way of doing this is doing deck check during a game. b/ People wil regularly cheat when there are no decklists. Why do you believe these things are a given. > 4). If you have the decklists, you can quickly answer the questions > like "Does he really have Fear of Mekhet in his deck?" Five seconds, > and the answer is ready - either yes, or DQ :) If you don't have > decklists, nobody would even ask you such question - obviously you > know nothing! The judge without decklists is a pitiful judge, and his > possibilities are very limited. trust? > 5). If you have the decklists, you can easily judge the complicated > PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. > Take the decklist and decide whether the player can "reasonably" hope > to get more than 1VP or not. Without the decklist a judge will be > forced to analyze the actual deck, which is much more difficult and > lengthy. A judge who needs a decklist for that is a pitiful judge indeed. > 6). The claim that decklists prevent only one kind of cheating is > wrong. It doesn't prevent cheating in any way except when done during play. And just saying it's wrong doesn't make that true: show me.... Allow me to explain, because you obviously don't get this. If someone is going to cheat, they will find a way. Even with decklists and deckchecks between every round. Cards need to be shuffled before a game. For a determined cheater it's very easy to have a 'sideboard' of cards to slip in (and the same number of cards out) of a deck during prep for a game and restore the deck right after the game. So the only way you can counter this is to keep all players decks until the game begins and do the shuffling for all of them. Or run around all tables during play to check if no-one plays any cards that are not in his deck (and that way you can't even check the amounts) And I'm not even talking about cheating players using sleight of hand tricks to mingle cards in the game from out of their deck. > > Overall, when a judge runs a tournament without decklists, it usually > means "nothing really matters to me" attitude, and the very attitude > is very disruptive to the tournament. If you don't have decklists, do > you need a judge at all, and for what purpose? Some good players can > answer all rules questions even without a judge. Indeed. That's actually what a judge does. > The advantages of decklists far outweights the "hassle". Seriously. As > soon as your players will get accustomed to them, you will never think > about playing a serious tournament without them. I've been playing years and years with mandatory decklists and I still despise them. I only saw them causing trouble and bad feelings when people were kicked out the final for a trivial difference. I never saw a decklist prove that someone cheated, ever.... > And, frankly, do you really need players that aren't going to play > because of the "hassle" of filling the decklist? yes. why not? It's a game and why shouldn't less organised players be allowed to play. >As long as they were > supposed to spend at least 6-7 hours in play, creating a problem from > spending 10 minutes on filling the decklist only means that they > didn't actually want to participate. Yes, because playing 3 two hour prelim rounds and then getting kicked out of the final because of a typo or because someone stole a card is better? >To hell with them! *sigh* elitism to boot. Great attitude.... > > > > My players just ask their > > > decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player > > > would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you > > > determine whose is the card without the decklists? > > > "Hey! Who lost a Haven Uncovered?" > > Wonderful. Simply wonderful, especially at the large tournament with > 53 players :) Stop the whole event to find out who lost the card. Dude, come on. Get serious. How long does it take to find the people you played your last table with, find the HU and shuffle? >If > the player asked you during a break, the owner of HU may simply be > away. So you are going to make an announcement at the beginning of the > next round: "Attention! Somebody played HU on Mr.N and forgot it! > Please check your decks!" And how they are going to check their decks > without the decklists? :) Why are you sure that each player remembers > how many HUs he initially had? Because, unlike some are assuming, most players are not stupid. > Compare this to the version with the decklists. The judge quickly > finds the decklists of all players in a heap of 53 decklists? Quickly? >who played on the same table and > filters the ones with HUs. Then he asks ONLY THOSE PLAYERS to count > the number of HUs and report to him. Not more than 2 minutes in the > worst case, and the success is guaranteed. and you think the other way takes longer than 2 minutes? <snip> > LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least > at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will > demonstrate their value to the whole country. Because you say so? Should he ban intercept equipment because you think S&B is dead or should he ban Rötschreck? > I don't believe in any "serious and competitive" CCG tournament > without the decklists. And I don't see the reasons of avoiding them. So? > > > > How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious > > > tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, > > > You seem to have a very limited imagination. Serious VTES tournaments > > happen all the time that have no decklists. Because Decklists don't > > serve to actually do much other than occasionally catch someone trying > > to cheat in a very dubious and unlikely to be helpful fashion and > > occasionally get folks DQed for clerical errors. I suspect at about > > the same level of occurance. That, and waste people's time. > > I completely disagree with you about the usefulness of decklists - see > above. They serve many different purposes, and they really worth > "wasting people's time". You still haven't shown that. > Actually, I meant right that. I'm not going to become the professional > sportsman myself :) But if people really take the game seriously, is > anybody going to complain about "wasting time" to fill the decklist? > Really? Maybe, but 1 is too many. There's also the time wasting of deck checks and wrongly accusing people. > > > > This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's > > > Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was > > > supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. > > > What are you talking about here? > > I tried to say that that rule was written in the times when nobody > would even try to complain about players getting GL for this > infraction, at least at the major tournament. And, possibly, for the > different game, too :) > Issuing a GL for a deck problem at the large tournament is OK. > Absolutely nothing to complain about. No real sportsman would complain > about it. No? if I steal one of your cards in game three and that gets you kicked from the final, you wouldn't complain? BS. > Learning by example for players: "I should carefully examine my deck > prior to submitting it, and be sure to have my actual deck to > correspond the decklist in each round". Hey look: more hassle. > Judge should learn that he needs to implement some ways to detect the > most frequent deck mistakes ASAP, and don't wait until the finals. And > he also heeds to explain the rules about the decklists and deckchecks, > as long as some players in Hungary are obviously ignorant. I usually > take 2-3 minutes to explain the consequences of having illegal decks > or illegal decklists prior to each tournament. And they listen? Unlike when you tell them about Rötschreck? > It is "optional" only if you don't have decklists at all. If you have > them, it's current *official* recommendation to the judges. So, the > Hungarian judge was absolutely right when he issued GL. Depends on the cards that were wrong and where they were... > "Huh. I forgot a Haven Uncovered. Without your deckcheck, two players > would play with the illegal decks, but does it really matter?" :D > Forgetting HU isn't much of a problem, but failing to return it until > the beginning of the next round really is. All deckchecks are > performed at the beginning of the round when all players MUST have the > same decks as they're submitted. Guess what would happen if some > player would use that extra HU and win because of it? GL may be too > harsh penalty for this at the small tournament, but it's normal at > ECQ. no. Penalties should be the same in all tourneys. > > This is completely wrong. See the decklists usefulness above. Which nobody buys. Try again. >Guess > why almost ALL CCGs use the decklists? Just to bring unnecessary > hussle to their players? Or to penalize players without a serious > reason? :) To make it easier to let the organiser put them online? > The very fact that you don't see the usefulness of decklists and > consider the GL in the finals equal to DQ is the most clear sign of > your disorganisation :) DQ would lead to banning of that player for > several months. Luckily we don't play M:TG. <snip the rest, I wasted enough time on this already>

On Apr 13, 2:15 pm, "Bram Vink" <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > I dont think that's a feasible option. For one, the contents of the > deck are priviledged information. Oh, I meant "after that Fear of Mekhet is played", of course. > > Agreed. Many a smaller tournament the judge is utterly redundant and > bored. That doesn't change with decklists. :P This depends on a judge, really :) But I cannot understand why should a good judge run tournaments without decklists. > You should also include the peolpe he played with that do not have > HUs. Decklists do not matter here. The losing of HU's is because of > people scooping them up when done. Not confusion between different > HU's. You might miss the point? If somebody FOUND the HU (not lost it), why whould I check the decklists without HU? > I agree that's a bit odd. When they were introduced over here, I was > unconvinced of their usefulness. And I think the way things were > handled in hungary is a bad way of approaching trouble with decklists, > but I do think nowadays that decklists per se are a good thing. Actually, the very idea of dropping decklists just to avoid the "draconian" penalties is as stupid as trying to close your eyes and pretend that things you don't like to see don't actually exist :) > Cheers, and good luck with your nats, Thanks! Yours, Ector

Guys, time to settle down. Remember: community standards play a big part in setting up tournament structure. If your community prefers not to use decklists, then fine. If your community prefers decklists, then fine. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/af2729c97d6015ed

On 13 apr, 14:15, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Guys, time to settle down. > > Remember: community standards play a big part in setting up tournament > structure. If your community prefers not to use decklists, then fine. If your > community prefers decklists, then fine. No problem with that. But there's a huge difference between saying that and saying: "competitive play without decklists is impossible"

[ quoted text not captured ] Not if you embrace the reality that saying so doesn't impose a rule upon other communities. And really, it's already been said. What we're into now is the repetition stage. I'm just trying to get past that into the "let it be" stage -- a period for possible reflectance.

On 13 apr, 14:32, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Not if you embrace the reality that saying so doesn't impose a rule upon other > communities. Right. Opinion. > And really, it's already been said. What we're into now is the repetition stage. > I'm just trying to get past that into the "let it be" stage -- a period for > possible reflectance. NP

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6- FBDF6F.200...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > In article <1176421981.7...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > "Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> This I understand. >> It would be very bad if this indeed makes people go for the movies >> instead. Is this the same for qualifiers and nationals too, though? >> I'd think people who come to those actually *want* to play VTES and >> wouldn't be put off by something like having to write down their >> decklist. I know I wouldn't. > > I mean, it isn't like a huge issue any more than it is a huge hassle. > But given all other aspects of deck list submission and checking (i.e. > it doesn't really accomplish much and is just as likely to do harm as > not), it is just yet another reason to just ignore the whole thing. > I might be treading on dangerous ground here, but I think this goes toward that whole EU vs. US difference in mentality, here. In the EU, I think the formality and presence of oversight is possibly a part of the appeal of tournaments. Not to overly stereo-type, but those EU boys and girls seem to really love their pomp, beauraucracy, and cradle-to-grave social institutions, etc. Where in the US, decklists are merely a nuisance, mayhap in the EU they play up the legitimacy of the event? In that respect, I can see decklists as a form of "positive advertising" within that region. I still disagree with the differential in results of the Game Loss penalty being applied at different times of the event, though... For the cheating paranoiacs out there, ever consider that a Judge could aid his peers through selectively screening his comrades decks before the prelims, such that any penalty applied would be less than that of visitors... I'm sure its never happened, but its a possibility, with the traditional decklist checking method ;-) DZ AW

On Apr 13, 6:19 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Looks like I've considered my goal to make VTES a true sport game > unreachable yesterday. I think somehow, we'll all be able to soldier on. > 1). If you have decklists, you can prevent cheating with changing the > decks, at least theoretically, and everybody knows that. You saw the part where changing your deck between rounds is rarely actually ever going to help you, right? Such that it isn't really worth the effort to do, right? > This psychological effect is cumulative over time. If you NEVER play > with the decklists, some player may even fail to realize that changing > his deck during a tournament is cheating! Honestly, why the player > should realize this if nobody did ever check his deck? 'Cause the rules say "you can't change your deck between rounds" more or less? I kinda get the feeling that either A) You play with monkeys (which I don't actually think is the case) or B) You think that your players are monkeys (which could be the case) or C) You like to portray your players as monkeys in the name of propping up your argument (which I suspect is actually the case). > if you explained the underlying philosophy and the > penalties to your players, and if you make deckchecks regularly, your > players will quickly get accustomed to check their decklist carefully > prior to submitting them, to count their cards after each round, and > so on. You could also just say "you can't change your decks between rounds" an accomplish the same thing in a lot less hassle. > 3). If you have the decklists, you can help any player to restore his > deck to the original state. Which is rarely really that important in the first place. The vast majority of the time, someone will not have to restore their deck to its original state. And then the vast majority of the time that someone does need to do so, they'll be like "Huh. I lost a Haven Uncovered. Lemme replace that..." > I guess that nobody cares about restoring the decks to their original > state at the tournaments without decklists, and players can play > everything they want :) See, you seem to be under the impression that folks who play VTES only obey the rules due to fear of punishment from breaking them. Which isn't actually the case. Most people obey the rules to the game, 'cause it is a game, and when you play a game, you obey the rules. Otherwise, why play the game? > 4). If you have the decklists, you can quickly answer the questions > like "Does he really have Fear of Mekhet in his deck?" Five seconds, > and the answer is ready - either yes, or DQ :) Why would I even ask such a question? The likelyhood of someone illegally getting a Fear of Mekhet into his deck *and then* sitting next to someone when it would actully make a difference *and then* drawing it *and then* having an opportunity to play it when it is gonna be useful? Very, very small. > 5). If you have the decklists, you can easily judge the complicated > PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. Umm, you are crossing the line here from "serious judge" to "mental institution escapee". There are no complicated PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. That is something you are simply making up or imagineing. > 6). The claim that decklists prevent only one kind of cheating is > wrong. Not only does it only partially prevent one kind of cheating (i.e. illegal between rounds deck manipulation), it only partially prevents the least effective kind of cheating. > Overall, when a judge runs a tournament without decklists, it usually > means "nothing really matters to me" attitude, and the very attitude > is very disruptive to the tournament. You realize that you, Ector, a dude who has been playing this game for what, maybe 2 years now, and has been running tournaments for less than that are standing here and decrying the ability of people who have been running tournaments for this game for 12 years (including the head game designer and guy who has run all of the North American Championship events) of all sizes due to your belief that not requiring decklists comes from a "nothing really matters to me" attitude? Remember that time where you were all like "Stealth and Bleed is dead! Bowl of Convergence kills it!" and then eventually, you were all like "Huh. I guess these people who have been playing this game competetively for a much longer time than me might know something I don't..." Yeah. Just pointing that out. -Peter

On Apr 13, 7:40 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Looks like I actually argued with Peter D. Bakija, who really > considers filling the decklists a "hassle". It is a hassle compared to not doing it at all. As the benefits are generally outweiged by the negatives (the greatest negative being the high likelyhood of deck checking to cause just as much harm as good), and it being a hassle is just another negative thrown on the pile, there ya go. -Peter

"Teeka" <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1176420111....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On 12 apr, 18:06, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote >> innews:1176391588....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > > -snip- > >> This is my point. IMPLEMENTATION is all screwed up with this >> section of the VEKN rules, because its been left un-defined, and >> Judges are leaving it until the end of the event to check a few who >> likely haven't had their decklists reviewed up till that point, and >> then they're furhter applying the default penalty at a point where it >> is having an effect which is closer to a total DQ... >> > > That's probably true. I wasn't talking about that, so I think I > misinterpreted the point you were making, sorry about that. The whole > "does the punishment suit the crime (if any)" issue is something else > than what I meant. > OK, we were probably shouting past one another then :-) Good catch. I'll go back and re-read your posts, to see if I was doing the same... >> Until you've got more evidence than a discrepancy in a form, the >> assumption of cheating is just that, an assumption. Should a Judge >> Penalize on the basis of the actual evidence, or on assumptions about >> what the evidence might imply? As it currently stands, it seems like >> the assumption is that (regardless of the specific infraction) the >> player is cheating. > > Oh yes, that's true. Unfortunately, I don't think it's ever possible > to "prove" bad intentions in this case. Therefor, I think there's no > other choice but to enforce one penalty for all who break this rule, > even though it hurts people who do it unintentionally. > I think you _could_, if you were to stretch out the registration time a bit, and have a Head Judge and some number of assistants check each deck as it is submitted. When the player and the assistants agree that all is in order, the Head Judge signs off and accepts the decklist. Heck, the assistants could be participants in the tournament, so long as the pre- check was only to verify that the deck and the list matched up, and the player and the assistant both agree on the outcome of the review. With that official pre-check in place, the deck contents for all participants have a point of confirmation at the _beginning_ of the tournament, and the answers to deck errors being cheating, or someone's misplaced Haven Uncovered from a prior round, then become very clear. It'd be a more formalized process of having a buddy verify your decklist for you... DZ AW

On Apr 13, 6:19 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Huh. What do you think is missing? Fear of Mekhet? Take two Fears, > there are too many ICs here!" :D You realize that hoser cards like Fear of Mekhet aren't really all that useful, right? Even if you illegally modify your deck to include them between rounds, right? > Wonderful. Simply wonderful, especially at the large tournament with > 53 players :) Stop the whole event to find out who lost the card. You don't have to stop the whole event. You have to pause, say "Huh. I was sitting next to Frank last game. Lemme go ask him..." > This is very, very strange. Decklists are not just a useless papers. I never claimed they were useless papers. I claimed that they don't actually accomplish what you hope they will most of the time, and aren't really worth the effort. > LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least > at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will > demonstrate their value to the whole country. We've lived this long without them. I don't really think it is necessary to "demonstrate their value". > This is completely wrong. See the decklists usefulness above. You failed to convince me. Yes, they help when folks misplace cards (but not so much that they should be required). Yes, they theoretically prevent some forms of mostly ineffective cheating (but not so much that they should be required). Yes, they occasionally mean that someone is absurdly DQed from a final for a minor error. > The very fact that you don't see the usefulness of decklists and > consider the GL in the finals equal to DQ is the most clear sign of > your disorganisation :) DQ would lead to banning of that player for > several months. Sigh. That's right, Ector. Everyone in the US who runs big, competetive tournaments all the time is disorganized. 'Cause they don't have deck lists. > Dirty talks are the talks about "draconian rules", "too harsh > penalty", "effectively DQ" and so on. Getting removed from the final round of a tournament due to having one less card in your deck than your decklist said? That is pretty much draconian. > Well, did I tell you that you're completely wrong when you talk about > the decklist usefulness? I guess I did. Sure you did. I'm just unconvinced. > Decklists cannot cause any "damage" at all, but they can prevent a lot of > tournament disruptions. Getting removed from the final round of a tournament due to having one less card in your deck than your decklist indicated is certainly damage. And more than I am willing to accept in the name of a slight reduction in an already very small amount of cheating. -Peter

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176464410....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] I'll reply with a quote of Peter <shout> "Who is missing a Haven?!!" >> > Several players >> > could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and >> > some of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their >> > decks. >> >> Since decks are typically built to an even number of cards (80 or >> 90), the answer is typically blatantly obvious from a fast deck >> count. > Why do you think that every player should know an exact number of > cards in his deck? Especially at a tournament without decklists? > Its not a be-all end-all answer, but an example of one way by which its fairly easy to discern where a card should be... >> >> > Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? >> >> The problem is not in the rule, but in the lack of further definition >> of the Judge's discretion in implementing the rule. Also, the point >> which started this all, there is almost no, as you call them, >> "orders" for how decklist checks should be implemented, and the >> traditional method that's been developed by the field, paired with a >> severe default penalty, is resulting in the over-penalization of >> clerical processes. > The decklist time was really bad chosen, as I've already pointed out > several times. This is really worth discussing, but nobody does. I keep trying... ;-) > Everyone just complains about "too harsh tules" and so on. > What do you call the "over-penalization of clerical processes"? Well, yeah, there's that issue, too. In VTES, GL = 1/3 of your chances at the finals. In TOCG GL = 1/8 to 1/18th of your chances at the finals... It all plays in together with this one decklist issue, but there are multiple concerns here... > Players were penalized not for the clerical processes, but for failing > to performing the most elementary procedures that are needed for > smooth tournament running. I dispute "needed" here. They are obviously not "needed" as you continue to insist, as decklists aren't used at all in a significant fraction (perhaps even majority) of tournaments at all levels, and yet the tournament scene is healthy and functional. > Plus, the differences between decks and > decklists could possibly be the consequences of cheating. > >> >> VTES players take a stronger hand in determining what >> rules are fair, just because other games' processes may or may not >> apply appropriately to our own game. In Magic, were some random >> player to raise a point which he thought was unfair, and _really_ try >> to get things changed, there would be nothing but ridicule for his >> efforts, as all of the rules processes operate internally within >> WotC. Not so for VTES players, the tournament rules are the VEKN >> rules, not the White Wolf rules, and when unfairness is discovered, >> you can post here, make your case, and possibly motivate a positive >> change in the game. It is that exact process that results in the >> positive refinement of borrowed rules into an infrastructure more >> appropriate for VTES... >> > IMHO, game rules should not be a theme of player's voting. WHo said anything about voting? Players make reasoned arguments, which are read here by LSJ, Oscar, etc. Changes may occur if the arguments are sound... > Judges' > voting, probably. But as long as there are no judge certification in > VTES, it would be better to leave votes question to LSJ. Welcome to VTES... What with the process of card text changes being a result of such significant input from discussion in the player base (Succubus Club, Madness of the Bard, RTI, Life Boon (your's truly!), etc.), it should come as no suprise that similar results are possible with the tournament rules. For five years, VTES had no support from anywhere, other than what was provided by the player base. It continues now with a greater involvement by WW, but the legacy of player-initiated improvment continues. > Actually, I tried to ask what makes the players to raise against the > rule. Your words about "over-penalization the clerical process" > convinced me that most players don't understand the philosophy of this > rule. Please read once more. If the judge discovers a difference > between a deck and a decklist, then he should follow the next pattern: > > 1). If you believe that it was cheating, DQ that player. > 2). If you don't believe in cheating, but it could possibly be a > cheating, issue the recommended penalty (GL or your "VP loss"). This > is actually something AVERAGE between a warning and DQ. You cannot > issue DQ since you don't believe that it was a cheating, but you > cannot issue a warning too, since it would encourage the possible > cheating. I'd say that VP loss would suffice for minor tournaments, > but for the large tournaments like ECQ Game Loss is quite normal. > 3). If the difference could not possibly be a cheating (clerical error > etc), issue warning. Let me comment this a bit. "Campground Hunting > Groung" instead of "Zoo Hunting Ground" cannot possible be a cheating, > so it's a clerical error and deserves a warning. 6 Reunion Kamuts > instead of 5 is NOT a clerical error, since a player could have 5 or > 6, and changing the number during the tournament can provide some > illegal advantage to him. That's why the player really deserves a Game > Loss. Yeah, and here I'd say that for VTES, I'd rather the Judge actually _have_ eveidence that the value for the RKs was _actually_ beign changed, rather than guessing or leaving that question as a "maybe". A different method for deckl check implementation could do that (see up-thread for a method of formally checking each participant's deck during the registration process). DZ AW

On Apr 12, 7:04 pm, "Teeka" <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "The amount of work"? Hah! As I said earlier, this is NOT a lot of > work. You write down the name of, what, 30 different cards and the > amounts of each card. That's about 140 words and 30 numbers. How much > time does it take You to write 140 words and 30 numbers? Stop saying > that it is a lot of work, because it simply isn't. I didn't say it was a lot of work. I said it was too much work for too little effect. $5 is not a lot of money. But it is too much money for a can of soda. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > *YOU* don't understand that decklists aren't needed for competitive > play. Not the other way around. Maybe listen to the rest of the NG for > a change? Maybe *you* should notice that there are people that agree with my opinion about the decklists? For a change? > > > > 1). If you have decklists, you can prevent cheating with changing the > > decks, at least theoretically, and everybody knows that. > Indeed: theoretically. And that's exactly the point. Extra Hassle for > no real benefit except for being able to post it to the NG faster. Theoretically, indeed. A cop has a gun to be *theoretically* able to shoot criminals. And he has to train in shooting and so on without being sure that he will ever need these skills. His "theoretical" gun quite practically prevents potential crimes, as long as potential criminals are aware of it. The decklists also work such way. Now tell me that cops don't need guns - these are only unneeded hassle... Or invent something as clever... > > This psychological effect is cumulative over time. If you NEVER play > > with the decklists, some player may even fail to realize that changing > > his deck during a tournament is cheating! Honestly, why the player > > should realize this if nobody did ever check his deck? > > Because you tell them? And because comptetitive doesn't mean rampant > cheating. Because WHO tell them? A judge? But why should the player immediately believe him or follow his instructions? When you're playing the casual games, you can change your deck between games. Why cannot you do the same at the tournament? Judge's words aren't going to outweight all the player's experience, especially if the judge cannot issue any penalty for changing the deck. > > BS. Well disciplined players (sic.) don't cheat, not because of the > penalty, but because they want to play the game as it's supposed to be > played. You obviously never been a judge. Should you be an experienced judge, you'd know that there are many intermediate states between "fair play" and "intentional cheating". The best rated players sometimes do the things that are "almost a cheating". And you need as much anti- cheating tech as you can get to never let this become the real, intentional cheating. > > To you maybe. Why would decklist mean competitive and no decklist mean > friendly? Why the difference? You can be competitive and play > friendly.... I mean, when you play a frendly game, you don't have to be that serious. But at the tournament, where every VP is precious, you have to. > wait! Either they become more disciplined or they come to rely on > their decklist to know what's in their deck.. Which one is it? Do you insist that a disciplined player should memorize the whole decklist? No. He wrote it down, and he can use it when needed. The undisciplined player still doesn't remember the exact contents of his deck, but he doesn't care. > Most people trust other people unless there is a reason not to. And > you still haven't shown that > a/ decklists prevent people from cheating. It may make it a bit more > difficult, but if deckchecking is the real goal the only way of doing > this is doing deck check during a game. > b/ People wil regularly cheat when there are no decklists. > > Why do you believe these things are a given. a/ Decklists prevent people from cheating by reminding them that they are watched. That there is a judge that really wants to prevent a possible cheating. This won't stop all cheaters, of course, but some would refuse to cheat. b/ People are trying to win, and sometimes they are trying *too good*. This happens all the time. You may notice the signs of this in the unsportsmanship behaviour, and many other things. Cheating with the deck contents is very simple, and as long as there are no chances of being caught without the decklists, some players will inevitably try it - but they are much less likely to try at a tournament with the decklists. > trust? Good way. Why do you need a judge at all if everyone can be trusted? :) > > > 5). If you have the decklists, you can easily judge the complicated > > PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. > > Take the decklist and decide whether the player can "reasonably" hope > > to get more than 1VP or not. Without the decklist a judge will be > > forced to analyze the actual deck, which is much more difficult and > > lengthy. > > A judge who needs a decklist for that is a pitiful judge indeed. Just one more evidence that you know nothing about the judge's work. EVERY judge often needs a decklist for that (or the actual deck, which isn't as convenient). > If someone is going to cheat, they will find a way. Even with > decklists and deckchecks between every round. Cards need to be > shuffled before a game. For a determined cheater it's very easy to > have a 'sideboard' of cards to slip in (and the same number of cards > out) of a deck during prep for a game and restore the deck right after > the game. And yet another evidence that you know nothing about the judge's work. A deckcheck is usually performed AFTER the decks are shuffled and presented to the opponents to perform the usual cutting/shiffling. So no cards can be added "before a game" and go unnoticed. Guess why the deckcheck is performed at this moment? Because this allows the judge to evaluate the quality of your shuffling, too! > > Indeed. That's actually what a judge does. You may not know, but ACTUALLY judge does much, much more. At least, he is supposed to do. > I've been playing years and years with mandatory decklists and I still > despise them. I only saw them causing trouble and bad feelings when > people were kicked out the final for a trivial difference. I never saw > a decklist prove that someone cheated, ever.... So you've played years with mandatory decklists and still don't understand that people who were "kicked out for a trivial difference" really deserve that, since the difference can be very dangerous. Never saw a decklist prove that someone cheated? Well, maybe some of those people with "trivial differences" attempted to cheat, but failed. Anyway, if a policeman's gun isn't shooting, that doesn't mean that it isn't needed. Its mere existence prevents a lot of crimes. Absolutely the same thing with the decklists. > > And, frankly, do you really need players that aren't going to play > > because of the "hassle" of filling the decklist? > > yes. why not? It's a game and why shouldn't less organised players be > allowed to play. Because tournament is an ORGANIZED event. People that aren't organized enough to participate should just play casual games. > >As long as they were > > supposed to spend at least 6-7 hours in play, creating a problem from > > spending 10 minutes on filling the decklist only means that they > > didn't actually want to participate. > > Yes, because playing 3 two hour prelim rounds and then getting kicked > out of the final because of a typo or because someone stole a card is > better? You repeat that so often that I have to consider pre-finals Game Losses a common thing in your playgroup. Really? Does your players regularly make such "typos" or steal cards? I guess not. One tournament should be enough to adopt the right discipline, it isn't very hard. Besides, I wrote about some ways to discover deck problems prior to the finals. The sooner they would be found and fixed, the better. > >To hell with them! > > *sigh* elitism to boot. Great attitude.... So a player who can fill a decklist without "typos" and "clerical errors" and who can restore his deck to its original state after each round is *elite* player? :D Really? Even a child can do it. I guess all my players are elite. They will be happy to know this, thanks! :D > > Dude, come on. Get serious. How long does it take to find the people > you played your last table with, find the HU and shuffle? I'm completely serious. Why should you search only among the last table - couldn't it be there from the first round? And what are you going to do if there were several players with HU, but nobody can recall how many HUs he had in his deck? > Because, unlike some are assuming, most players are not stupid. Well then... Firstly you consider a player who is able to write a correct decklist and keep his deck an "elite". Now you claim that players who don't remember their decklists in detail are stupid. Did you ever see a VTES player? :) AFAIK, most of them are both "stupid" and "elite", i.e. they quite capable of performing such elementary tasks as writing the decklist and keeping the deck, but they cannot always recall the exact number of any card in their deck. Welcome to the Stupid Elites Club! :D > > Compare this to the version with the decklists. The judge quickly > > finds the decklists of all players > > in a heap of 53 decklists? Quickly? > >who played on the same table and Maybe you will read prior to answering? I mean only the decklist of players who played with that player. > > filters the ones with HUs. Then he asks ONLY THOSE PLAYERS to count > > the number of HUs and report to him. Not more than 2 minutes in the > > worst case, and the success is guaranteed. > > and you think the other way takes longer than 2 minutes? It may take 2 minutes or even less if the player immediately recall that he forgot HU. If nobody would be able to say for sure that the HU is his (or if two players would pretend to take it), it may take much, much longer. > <snip> > > > LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least > > at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will > > demonstrate their value to the whole country. > > Because you say so? Should he ban intercept equipment because you > think S&B is dead or should he ban Rötschreck? It's just my opinion - as usual, backed up by the arguments. As Dave said, we're openly discussing the rules here, since it's VTES, and not Magic. Enjoy! > > I don't believe in any "serious and competitive" CCG tournament > > without the decklists. And I don't see the reasons of avoiding them. > > So? So they should be recommended, of course. > > You still haven't shown that. You mean, YOU still didn't understand that. > > Actually, I meant right that. I'm not going to become the professional > > sportsman myself :) But if people really take the game seriously, is > > anybody going to complain about "wasting time" to fill the decklist? > > Really? > > Maybe, but 1 is too many. There's also the time wasting of deck checks > and wrongly accusing people. So you are WRONGLY accusing the judges in wrongly accusing people :) Believe me, judges know what are they doing and why. > > > > > > This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's > > > > Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was > > > > supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. > > > > What are you talking about here? > > > I tried to say that that rule was written in the times when nobody > > would even try to complain about players getting GL for this > > infraction, at least at the major tournament. And, possibly, for the > > different game, too :) > > Issuing a GL for a deck problem at the large tournament is OK. > > Absolutely nothing to complain about. No real sportsman would complain > > about it. > > No? if I steal one of your cards in game three and that gets you > kicked from the final, you wouldn't complain? BS. I will count my cards after the game. Then I will ask all players at the table whether they took the card. If you won't return the card even after that, I will report to the judge that I've missed a card from my deck, and he will ask ALL players to count cards in their decks. Anyway, I won't get the GL, since I've reported about the missed card myself. A decent judge would allow me to replace this card with a proxy. Please, NEVER consider the judges (or the rules) stupid!!! > > Learning by example for players: "I should carefully examine my deck > > prior to submitting it, and be sure to have my actual deck to > > correspond the decklist in each round". > > Hey look: more hassle. Hey look: just a ordinary procedure. Really. You will do it automatically after some practice. > > Judge should learn that he needs to implement some ways to detect the > > most frequent deck mistakes ASAP, and don't wait until the finals. And > > he also heeds to explain the rules about the decklists and deckchecks, > > as long as some players in Hungary are obviously ignorant. I usually > > take 2-3 minutes to explain the consequences of having illegal decks > > or illegal decklists prior to each tournament. > > And they listen? Unlike when you tell them about Rötschreck? Oh yes, they listen. Because this is not just a theoretical talk, and it's much more simple than the details of MN + Rot combo. > > It is "optional" only if you don't have decklists at all. If you have > > them, it's current *official* recommendation to the judges. So, the > > Hungarian judge was absolutely right when he issued GL. > > Depends on the cards that were wrong and where they were... Read the thread carefully, and you will find the info. > > no. Penalties should be the same in all tourneys. Penalties at the local 10-players tourney CANNOT be the same as at the National. Different players, different competition and different responsibilities. Every judge knows that. > > > > This is completely wrong. See the decklists usefulness above. > > Which nobody buys. Try again. Which is clear enough for any judge. Probably not for you, alas. > >Guess > > why almost ALL CCGs use the decklists? Just to bring unnecessary > > hussle to their players? Or to penalize players without a serious > > reason? :) > > To make it easier to let the organiser put them online? I've never put a single decklist online yet. So I think not. The real reasons are provided. I readily assume that I didn't listed ALL the reasons, but I did my best. > > The very fact that you don't see the usefulness of decklists and > > consider the GL in the finals equal to DQ is the most clear sign of > > your disorganisation :) DQ would lead to banning of that player for > > several months. > > Luckily we don't play M:TG. Unluckily, you don't know VTES tournament rules well enough :) 5.1. Cheating "...All disqualifications are subject to later V:EKN review, and further penalties may be assessed." I've never reported a DQ so far, but it's quite logical to expect a temporary banning for a person who really got a DQ for cheating. > <snip the rest, I wasted enough time on this already> Me too :) Yours, Ector

> Getting removed from the final round of a tournament due to having one > less card in your deck than your decklist indicated is certainly > damage. Peter has driven directly to the heart of the matter with this statement. If I have cleared my schedule, ignored my wife and family, taken time away from work, and taken what little precious free time I have to spend eight hours at a tournament to only get disqualified for having one less card in my deck when I earned my spot in the finals while being accused of cheating, then I would never, ever play in a tournament with this player again. In fact, I would probably never play in a tournament again. ...and I might just get angry enough to do something I would certainly regret. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Apr 13, 11:48 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Maybe *you* should notice that there are people that agree with my > opinion about the decklists? For a change? Sure. A lot of folks do. Yet most of them seem a lot less totalitarian about it than you do. I don't think anyone is here telling you, Ector, that you should stop using decklists. If you wanna do that, and your players are ok with it, go nuts. The rules allow it, and if it makes you happy, so be it. Dave is even going as far as to suggest ways that, if decklist rules are going to be used, they could be more reasonable and less arbitrary. Yet here you are, Ector, telling the rest of the world that *not* using decklists effectively invalidates the events that don't use them. See the difference? > Theoretically, indeed. A cop has a gun to be *theoretically* able to > shoot criminals. And he has to train in shooting and so on without > being sure that he will ever need these skills. His "theoretical" gun > quite practically prevents potential crimes, as long as potential > criminals are aware of it. You are back on the VTES = Crime analogy. Not a good analogy. > Because WHO tell them? A judge? But why should the player immediately > believe him or follow his instructions? 'Cause they are the rules, and most folks who play games understand that the whole point of the game is to operate in the bounds of the rules. Again, you seem to be under the impression that people only follow rules because they are afraid of punishment for breaking them when in fact most folks follow rules 'cause they understand that the whole point of the game is to follow the rules. > Why cannot you do the same at the tournament? 'Cause the tournament rules say so. And if someone asks, the judge says "Yeah, you can't do that." and between rounds, if someone starts monkeying with their deck, someone else will say "Yeah, you can't do that." It is a simple rule to learn and know. And the vast majority of players of this game are going to follow that rule, and not simply because they are afraid of punishment if they break it. > Judge's words aren't going to outweight all > the player's experience, especially if the judge cannot issue any > penalty for changing the deck. The judge can issue penalties for changing the deck, even without decklists. If someone is caught changing their deck (because they didn't know it was a rule), the Judge says "Yeah, you can't do that." and has them put the deck back to its original form. What is that original form? Again, assuming that the player was changing their deck out of ignorance of the rule, it is reasonable to assume that they will just put the deck back like it was when they started out, as they had no intention of cheating in the first place. If they refuse, they get DQed. Pretty simple. > You obviously never been a judge. Should you be an experienced judge, > you'd know that there are many intermediate states between "fair play" > and "intentional cheating". The best rated players sometimes do the > things that are "almost a cheating". I am an experienced judge. And what we are discussing here (illegally changing your deck between rounds) does not fall between "intentional cheating" and "almost cheating". It is clearly "intentional cheating". And as such, isn't something someone is going to do unless they intend on cheating. And if someone intends on cheating, they'll cheat, deck list or no. > And you need as much anti- cheating tech as you can get to never let this > become the real, intentional cheating. I now fear and pity you. This is the bleaklest, yet kind of terrifying, world view I can imagine. > Do you insist that a disciplined player should memorize the whole > decklist? No. He wrote it down, and he can use it when needed. The > undisciplined player still doesn't remember the exact contents of his > deck, but he doesn't care. I have never felt the need to have a decklist in tournament play. If am missing a card, I can usually figure it out. > a/ Decklists prevent people from cheating by reminding them that they > are watched. Most people don't need to be reminded that they are bing watched to prevent them from cheating. Most people don't cheat 'cause they realize that cheating is a bad idea in the first place. And the ones that do need to be reminded that they are being watched, as they intend on cheating, will likely cheat anyway, even if they are being watched. > Cheating with the > deck contents is very simple, and as long as there are no chances of > being caught without the decklists, some players will inevitably try > it - but they are much less likely to try at a tournament with the > decklists. Sure. But not very many of them. And even if they do, it is unlikely to actually help them. > So you've played years with mandatory decklists and still don't > understand that people who were "kicked out for a trivial difference" > really deserve that, since the difference can be very dangerous. Having 5 Reunion Kamut instead of 6 can be very dangerous? > Never saw a decklist prove that someone cheated? Well, maybe some of > those people with "trivial differences" attempted to cheat, but > failed. Anyway, if a policeman's gun isn't shooting, that doesn't mean > that it isn't needed. Its mere existence prevents a lot of crimes. > Absolutely the same thing with the decklists. Crime != VTES. -Peter

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > Because > they really appreciate the order and hate anarchy. Don't we appreciate > order and hate anarchy, too? > > Yours, > Ector Umm, Ector, you're seriously starting to creep me out... I've attended lots of tournaments without decklists. And no, they did not degenerate into anarchistic, satanic blood orgies with few survivors. They were nice, polite, orderly affairs where people behaved like gentlemen. The world does not fall apart if people don't do things the way you want. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Bram Vink wrote: > > I agree that's a bit odd. When they were introduced over here, I was > unconvinced of their usefulness. > Bram - did you become convinced later? What made you convinced? best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Ector wrote: > On Apr 13, 2:15 pm, "Bram Vink" <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: >> I dont think that's a feasible option. For one, the contents of the >> deck are priviledged information. > Oh, I meant "after that Fear of Mekhet is played", of course. > >> Agreed. Many a smaller tournament the judge is utterly redundant and >> bored. That doesn't change with decklists. :P > This depends on a judge, really :) But I cannot understand why should > a good judge run tournaments without decklists. > I am not convinced that decklists are necessary, but I can see a reason for them also. I don't agree with the "hassle" argument from a player's standpoint - I use FELDB and it's no big deal to come up with a deck list. However, from a judge's point of view, I don't really like them. One time I ran a tournament wherein everyone had to switch decks each round. In that tourney, everyone was required to submit a decklist. I did that so that everyone would be comfortable with letting others play with their rares or what have you. Because the point of the decklists was to prevent stealing, not cheating, I checked every deck against it's decklist prior to the start of the tournament. And then each player was responsible for checking their decks upon it getting returned to them. I remember that a)checking in the decks was a pain - I was the only judge, and there were around 15-20 players, b) people are sloppy writers, adding to the pain, c) people are not organized in how they write out their decks, adding to the pain, and d) it took at least half an hour to verify all decks vs decklists, mostly due to b & c above. A few of the players used ELDB (this was before Davila gave up on it) to print out. But most didn't. And many of the decks weren't in the order they were on their decklists. THAT was a real pain. In the end, the deck lists weren't really used, because no one ended up missing any of their cards. But that doesn't prove that they did not have a preventative effect in keeping folks from walking off with a disarm by mistake. As a judge however, I wouldn't really want to do decklist checks of all of the decks prior to a tournament, just because they are a pain. I don't think they are a hassle for players, but for me, they were a pain. If I had a couple of other non-playing judges, I might consider doing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > > > I might be treading on dangerous ground here, but I think this goes > toward that whole EU vs. US difference in mentality, here. In the EU, I > think the formality and presence of oversight is possibly a part of the > appeal of tournaments. You know, one thing lost in all of this discussion is that the Hungarian tournament had 53 frickin players. 53!! When is the last time a qualifier in the US had 53 players? In fact, the only tournament that I can think of that has had over 50 players in the US over the last 2-3 years is the NAC, and maybe the LCQs. I list below all the tournaments in 2006 in the TWDA until now in the US that had over 30 players (and a few at Origins that came close). Feb 2007 Northeast Regional Q - 38 players Oct 2006 NAC - 65 players Oct 2006 LCQ - 43 players Oct 2006 Prince of City tourney during Week of Nightmares - 45 players Jul 2006 Origins Qualifier - 34 players Jul 2006 Origins Friday - 30 players Jul 2006 Origins 4 other tourneys - 24-28 players Jun 2006 Shame Columbus - 33 players Jun 2006 Washington DC Q - 37 players Mar 2006 Great Lakes Q - 45 players Jan 2006 Northeast Regional Q - 39 players Aug 2005 NAC - 62 players Aug 2005 LCQ - 58 players Jul 2005 Origins Friday - 30 players Jun 2005 Warning Sirens Columbus - 36 players Jun 2005 Washington DC Q - 43 players Apr 2005 Great Lakes Q - 41 players Feb 2005 Northeast Regional Q - 33 players 53 players in a nation the size of Indiana, with the population of Michigan. Maybe part of it has to do with the fact that they take the game more seriously? And if so, perhaps deck lists has something to do with it... Or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <m3zm5cj...@nothung.homelinux.net>, Janne Hägglund <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> writes: >I've attended lots of tournaments without decklists. And no, they did not >degenerate into anarchistic, satanic blood orgies with few survivors. FOR SHAME. Doesn't even resolve tie-breakers with satanic blood orgies? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: > In message <m3zm5cj...@nothung.homelinux.net>, Janne Hägglund > <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> writes: > >I've attended lots of tournaments without decklists. And no, they did not > >degenerate into anarchistic, satanic blood orgies with few survivors. > > FOR SHAME. > > Doesn't even resolve tie-breakers with satanic blood orgies? No, we use pistols at dawn. [ quoted text not captured ]

librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in news:PNQTh.163841$7g3.1...@newsfe14.phx: > As a judge however, I wouldn't really want to do decklist checks of > all of the decks prior to a tournament, just because they are a pain. > I don't think they are a hassle for players, but for me, they were a > pain. > If I had a couple of other non-playing judges, I might consider > doing it. > Yaah. Assistant Mooks seem to be the only way to implement a fair and efficient review pre-tournament. Figure each registrant has to check up to 5 decks. Make every registrant participate. At 2-4 minutes per decklist, and a factorial growth of assistants, the work can get done quickly... Head Judge checks Player 1 - Decks checked (1) HJ and P1 check 2 decks - (3) HJ, P1 - P3 check 4 decks - (7) HJ, P1 - P7 check 8 decks - (15) HJ, P1 - P15 check 16 decks - (31) HJ, P1 - 31 check 32 decks - (63) P1 retires, HJ, P2 - P63 check 63 decks - (126) P2-P3 retire, HJ, P4-P126 check 123 decks - (149) Nearly all regional qualifiers are confirmed after four iterations. Decklists for the largest tournaments, ever, are completed after 8 iterations. DZ AW

librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Maybe part of it has to do with the fact that they take > the game more seriously? And if so, perhaps deck lists > has something to do with it... Or not. It probably has more to do with population distribution and easy, cheap mass transit. It is a fact that there are more and larger tournaments on the US East Coast due to these two facts. I doubt that there is any difference between the level of "seriousness" (or committment) between the average US and Euro player, although I *have* noticed a difference between the older, original VTES playgroups and newer, more recently established playgroups, perhaps due to perceived loyalty and fan "ownership" of a game that was dead for many years. 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

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:35:15 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And a player seeing complete decklists (3 of 15 =20% in small games, 4 of 31 = 12%, 5 of 63 =8%) is a better solution? In a 3 round tourney + final, the likelihood of a player knowing the exact deck contents of a predator or prey become significant. It'd be much better to just pair up players and get them to check the other's deck. That way they can be seperated within the groupings, at least in a 16+ level tourney (4 tables = ability to have no checked deck pairings). Each player only has to do it the once, and if they ARE paired on the same table, neither gets the advantage of having one scouted by the other. Exponential iteration looks cool, but is impractical from a balance issue. Morgan Vening

On Apr 13, 4:00 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > 1). If you have decklists, you can prevent cheating with changing the > > decks, at least theoretically, and everybody knows that. > > You saw the part where changing your deck between rounds is rarely > actually ever going to help you, right? Such that it isn't really > worth the effort to do, right? "Changing my deck between rounds is rarely going to help me"? Yes, I saw that utter BS, but didn't have enough time to answer it. If I noticed three decks based on ICs, putting two Fear of Mekhets isn't going to help me? Really? If I noticed a lot of weenies, Aranthebes isn't going to help me? Besides, if I'm playing a combo-deck with 6 Sibyl's Tongues and 3 Drop Point Networks and can fetch any card in a moment, changing my "silver bullets" package isn't going to help me? Never read the worst crap, honestly. > > This psychological effect is cumulative over time. If you NEVER play > > with the decklists, some player may even fail to realize that changing > > his deck during a tournament is cheating! Honestly, why the player > > should realize this if nobody did ever check his deck? > > 'Cause the rules say "you can't change your deck between rounds" more > or less? I kinda get the feeling that either A) You play with monkeys > (which I don't actually think is the case) or B) You think that your > players are monkeys (which could be the case) or C) You like to > portray your players as monkeys in the name of propping up your > argument (which I suspect is actually the case). I don't play with monkeys, since I spend some time to train them. But some of my newbies really needed time to understand what is the tournament, how it differs from the casual play and that they CANNOT change their decks during the tournament. Decklists greatly reduced that time. Even the most stupid player understands that he has to play the deck he submitted. And don't tell me that stupid people live only in Belarus :) > > if you explained the underlying philosophy and the > > penalties to your players, and if you make deckchecks regularly, your > > players will quickly get accustomed to check their decklist carefully > > prior to submitting them, to count their cards after each round, and > > so on. > > You could also just say "you can't change your decks between rounds" > an accomplish the same thing in a lot less hassle. You WON'T accomplish it. As long as you cannot check the decks, how can you be sure that the players will obey your words? Besides, sometimes the decks change unintentionally, you know. And yet again, you cannot check them. > > 3). If you have the decklists, you can help any player to restore his > > deck to the original state. > > Which is rarely really that important in the first place. The vast > majority of the time, someone will not have to restore their deck to > its original state. And then the vast majority of the time that > someone does need to do so, they'll be like "Huh. I lost a Haven > Uncovered. Lemme replace that..." Oh yeah. In the vast majoruty of time everything is good. In the vast majority of time the judge serves only as a rules guru. And so on. But the GOOD judge is able to fix ANY problem, not just "majority" of them. Even such "rare" problem as "I've lost some cards and don't remember which". I insist on using decklist since I always was a good judge in Magic, and I wish to remain a good judge in VTES. > > I guess that nobody cares about restoring the decks to their original > > state at the tournaments without decklists, and players can play > > everything they want :) > > See, you seem to be under the impression that folks who play VTES only > obey the rules due to fear of punishment from breaking them. Which > isn't actually the case. Most people obey the rules to the game, > 'cause it is a game, and when you play a game, you obey the rules. > Otherwise, why play the game? Besides the determined cheaters, there are people who want to win too much, and these people often do "unintentional cheating". For instance, imagine a player could use either Fear of Mekhet or Pentex Subversion. After the first round, he discovers that he missed one master card, though he never played it. What was the card? He cannot remember what he put in his deck at the last moment, but he feels that Fear of Mekhet is going to help him better at this tournament. Surely he should take it, not Pentex! So, he puts Fear into his deck and continues play. This can be cheating, but you don't care - as long as you think that changing the deck between rounds cannot bring any good :D Should you have decklists, the problem would be resolved in a few seconds, of course, and that player wouldn't have to cheat. > > 4). If you have the decklists, you can quickly answer the questions > > like "Does he really have Fear of Mekhet in his deck?" Five seconds, > > and the answer is ready - either yes, or DQ :) > > Why would I even ask such a question? The likelyhood of someone > illegally getting a Fear of Mekhet into his deck *and then* sitting > next to someone when it would actully make a difference *and then* > drawing it *and then* having an opportunity to play it when it is > gonna be useful? Very, very small. Did I say something about sitting next? Or about it being useful or not? Look, if I play at the large tournament, where the stakes are high, and somebody is playing a second Fear of Mekhet on my vampire, I'm going to ask the judge whether he really has two Fears in his deck, since it isn't very common. This wouldn't harm anybody, but this can prevent the potential cheating. Without the decklists, cheaters are welcome and well-rewarded! :D > > 5). If you have the decklists, you can easily judge the complicated > > PTW questions that usually require evaluation of the player's deck. > > Umm, you are crossing the line here from "serious judge" to "mental > institution escapee". There are no complicated PTW questions that > usually require evaluation of the player's deck. That is something you > are simply making up or imagineing. I'm not crossing anything. Just read some PTW threads here. To determine whether the player "reasonably" can get more than, say, 1VP, or cannot, you will need to inspect his deck (or his decklist, which is much more convenient). I don't know what are YOU imagineing, but it's as simple as the "untap-master-minions-influence-discard" order. How can you make a decision without examining the deck? Oh yeah, I know, you will just trust the player. Great. > > 6). The claim that decklists prevent only one kind of cheating is > > wrong. > > Not only does it only partially prevent one kind of cheating (i.e. > illegal between rounds deck manipulation), it only partially prevents > the least effective kind of cheating. I should say this in different words. The sheet of paper cannot prevent anything - it's just a sheet of paper. But a bunch of decklists can HELP a good judge to prevent a lot of possible cheating. I've demonstrated this, but why you aren't willing to see - it isn't my problem. > > You realize that you, Ector, a dude who has been playing this game for > what, maybe 2 years now, and has been running tournaments for less > than that are standing here and decrying the ability of people who > have been running tournaments for this game for 12 years (including > the head game designer and guy who has run all of the North American > Championship events) of all sizes due to your belief that not > requiring decklists comes from a "nothing really matters to me" > attitude? Remember that time where you were all like "Stealth and > Bleed is dead! Bowl of Convergence kills it!" and then eventually, you > were all like "Huh. I guess these people who have been playing this > game competetively for a much longer time than me might know something > I don't..." > Oh, too bad for me! How dare I to write that? Very simply. A good judge is a "bastion of order". He is able to solve ANY problem and he can restore order in the most complicated situations. Thus, a judge that voluntarily gives up the wonderful opportunity of checking the deck of any player (should that be necessary) and the opportunity of helping the players to restore their decks to the original state can NEVER be a good judge. As well as a cop that voluntarily refuses to wield his gun can never be a good cop, even though the gun isn't going to be needed 99% of time, and carrying it is a "hassle". I can understand that there is a tradition of playing without the decklists, lazyness and similar things, but this changes nothing. If LSJ runs tournaments without the decklists, then he's probalbly not as good judge as I supposed. He knows the rules best of all, of course, but the judge's work isn't limited to that. I don't know whether he feels a shame when he's unable to help the player to restore his deck to the original status (or when he realizes that the players unable to restore their decks are playing with the decks that differ from the original), but I would be ashamed for sure. And the solution is very simple: start to require the decklists at major tournaments. This will eventually spread their usage in the whole country. Note that I don't insist on making deckchecks prior to the finals or at any other time. And I don't insist of issuing GLs for deck problems at each tournament - after all, not all tournaments are as big as ECQ. A judge may even decide to make no deckchecks at all, but the decklists will still help a lot in maintaining order during the tournament. And they will help BOTH the judge and the players. Some words personally for you, Peter. IMHO, any person who can seriously suggest dropping decklists as a "solution" for the "draconian rule problem" cannot be a judge at all. Without the decklists those Hungarian players would play the finals with the illegal decks, having significant differences from the submitted ones!!! How can a judge think that it would be better than two GLs is completely beyond my imagination. Please think about it if you seriously consider yourself a judge. Yours, Ector

On Apr 13, 4:36 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 6:19 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > "Huh. What do you think is missing? Fear of Mekhet? Take two Fears, > > there are too many ICs here!" :D > > You realize that hoser cards like Fear of Mekhet aren't really all > that useful, right? Even if you illegally modify your deck to include > them between rounds, right? "Aren't that useful"? You must be kidding? So I'm playing the Sabbat voting deck, and I suddently discover that there are lot of ICs at the tournament. Not only do I risk to catch PTO, but I cannot push my votes! Thus, I put Fear of Mekhet and dig for it. Puff! There are no opposing votes, no PTO threat, I'm on ny road to victory. > > Wonderful. Simply wonderful, especially at the large tournament with > > 53 players :) Stop the whole event to find out who lost the card. > > You don't have to stop the whole event. You have to pause, say "Huh. I > was sitting next to Frank last game. Lemme go ask him..." You tend to hope for the simplest outcome. A good judge must have a solution for ALL situations, even the most complicated. So, that player goes to Frank, but Frank isn't sure that the HU is his. He cannot remember for sure how many HUs he originally had, and cannot remember the exact number of cards in his deck. Your solution? No good solution, you are helpless. A good judge is never helpless. This isn't even the most complicated case. You might ask all the players at the last table "whose is the HU", and two players may want to get it! > > This is very, very strange. Decklists are not just a useless papers. > > I never claimed they were useless papers. I claimed that they don't > actually accomplish what you hope they will most of the time, and > aren't really worth the effort. Decklists are the emergency tools. Failing to have them makes you helpless in emergency situations. So, they really worth the effort as long as you really want to have the emergency tool - which you should want if you're a good judge. If you think that "shit never happens", how is such attitude differ from "nothing really matters to me"? > > LSJ really needs to start to require decklists, at least > > at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals - and this will > > demonstrate their value to the whole country. > > We've lived this long without them. I don't really think it is > necessary to "demonstrate their value". It's extremely strange that US players and US judges don't value such great emergency tool as decklists. US is known as a "land of security"... many people have guns to protect their houses, many people report any suspicious things to the police, and so on. How can the same country live without decklists? And why? > > This is completely wrong. See the decklists usefulness above. > > You failed to convince me. Yes, they help when folks misplace cards > (but not so much that they should be required). Yes, they > theoretically prevent some forms of mostly ineffective cheating (but > not so much that they should be required). Yes, they occasionally mean > that someone is absurdly DQed from a final for a minor error. You still confuse GL with DQ, which is not a sign of a good judge. Really. Decklists are just TOOLS. They don't do anything without a judge. With a good judge, they help to prevent some cheating (not all cheating, of course) and to maintain decks status. This is far outweights the "hassle" of filling them. And, Peter, the decklists don't issue any penalties. Only the judges do. So when a judge uses the decklists to punish players too hard, he should be blamed, not the decklists. As well as when the cop uses his gun too aggressively, nobody even thinks about blaming the gun or demanding to take the guns away. The judge must use his own judgement to assign an appropriate penalty, taking into account the tournament level, the player, the character of the infraction, and so on. BTW, why do I have to tell you all this? Are you a judge or not? > > Sigh. That's right, Ector. Everyone in the US who runs big, > competetive tournaments all the time is disorganized. 'Cause they > don't have deck lists. At least, they aren't organized good enough, and they definitely could be organized better. > > Dirty talks are the talks about "draconian rules", "too harsh > > penalty", "effectively DQ" and so on. > > Getting removed from the final round of a tournament due to having one > less card in your deck than your decklist said? That is pretty much > draconian. There is absolutely nothing draconian in the RULE. But it was improperly used. Firstly, the players weren't trained enough to play with such rules (and the judge should spend some time to explain it to the players). Secondly, decks should be checked as soon as possible, not only prior to the finals - at least card quantity. Should this be done, nobody would be punished that hard - except for the potential cheaters, against whom the rule was created. > > > Decklists cannot cause any "damage" at all, but they can prevent a lot of > > tournament disruptions. > > Getting removed from the final round of a tournament due to having one > less card in your deck than your decklist indicated is certainly > damage. And more than I am willing to accept in the name of a slight > reduction in an already very small amount of cheating. Please read my previous answer. Rules are just tools that the judges use to maintain order. Most of the time rules aren't "stupid" or "draconian", but the judge should use them right. Yours, Ector

In article <1176535444.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Aren't that useful"? You must be kidding? So I'm playing the Sabbat > voting deck, and I suddently discover that there are lot of ICs at the > tournament. Not only do I risk to catch PTO, but I cannot push my > votes! Thus, I put Fear of Mekhet and dig for it. Puff! There are no > opposing votes, no PTO threat, I'm on ny road to victory. That is correct. Changing your deck between rounds illegally isn't that useful. I explained this at length in a tangental thread, but you apparently didn't read that. In any case, yeah, let's say you discover there are a lot of ICs in the tournament in R1. So you cheat and swap a couple Fear of Mekhets in your deck. R2, you don't sit next to any IC members, so you have swapped out two useful cards for two dead cards. We'll say you are still convinced that you really want to continue cheating for R3. And then we'll assume that you sit next to an IC member in R3. And then we'll assume you draw a Fear in R3. You then need to be able to play it to some effect. Have you ever actually *tried* to use Fear of Mekhet (which is apparently the best possible example you have for how illegally modifying your deck is a huge help)? Heck, I was main decking two Fear of Mekhets in both of the Cultist Storyline tournaments I played. Which weren't that huge (12-18 players) and I *knew* that there were going to be ICs and Justicars. Ya know how many vampires got burned by Fear of Mekhet? None. 'Cause it isn't really that good of a card. It is highly conditional (even if you "know" there are going to be IC members), easily foiled, risky if you are playing your own IC/Justicars, and expensive. It is a kind of dubious hoser card that occasionally might pay off. But most of the time, not so much. Even if you are an unscrupulous bastard who wants to cheat and put this card in your deck between rounds illegally. VTES (unlike Magic) is generally not a game where single cards are going to have such a huge impact such that cheating by sticking a few different cards in your deck between rounds is going to have a significant impact--you don't know who you are playing against when you are in the process of cheating (unless you are so adept at card manipulation that you can swap cards in and out of your deck while folks are watching you, and if that is the case, are deck lists really gonna stop this?); you can't guarantee that you'll be sitting anywhere near someone who is playing a deck that is going to be affected by the cards you put in; you can't guarantee that you'll draw the cards you put in; you can't guarantee that the opponent you want to use those cards against are even going to still be in the game when you do draw them, let alone that playing them will actually do you any good. In Magic, say, using a really old school example, if I can scout out my next opponent somehow, discover he is playing some all white deck, and then illegally shove 4x Brushfire (that's the one that destroys all Plains, right?) in my deck, I'm gonna be in pretty good shape. There isn't an analog for VTES. 'Cause you aren't playing a single opponent. You aren't playing best 2 of 3 matches. Your deck is bigger and contains more useful cards (i.e. 90 important that have an effect on the game as opposed to ~40 in a 60 card deck). Illegally modifying your deck between games in VTES just isn't that useful. If you are likely to cheat, there are more effective ways to do it. That, and even if putting those Fear of Mekhets were actually going to help you out (which is assure you, is pretty unlikely in the grand scheme), if there weren't deck lists and deck checks in play, would you, Ector, cheat like this if you were in a tournament? I'm assuming you are going to say "of course not". If that is the case, why are you assuming everyone else will? > Decklists are the emergency tools. Failing to have them makes you > helpless in emergency situations. What emergency situations are you imagining here, exactly? What "emergency" is going to come up where a deck list is needed to fix it where simple rationality and judgement can't fix it? > It's extremely strange that US players and US judges don't value such > great emergency tool as decklists. For what "emergency" exactly? > US is known as a "land of > security"... many people have guns to protect their houses, many > people report any suspicious things to the police, and so on. You watch too much TV. > How can the same country live without decklists? And why? I can only speak for myself, really, but I'd assume that is because the general consensus is that they aren't worth the hassle. As noted many times in this discussion. > You still confuse GL with DQ, which is not a sign of a good judge. No, I don't confuse GL with DQ. In the discussion at hand, a player (two actually) were effectively disqualified from a tournament for very minor decklist errors. Yes. Technically, they only were given a Game Loss. But at the point that they were given said Game Loss, it resulted in them being removed from the finals that they rightfully got in to. So effectively, they were disqualified from the event. I'm using DQed in this discussion 'cause in practice, that is what happened. > BTW, why do I have to tell you all this? 'Cause you seem to think it is important. But it really isn't. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht news:1176531796.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > Some words personally for you, Peter. IMHO, any person who can > seriously suggest dropping decklists as a "solution" for the > "draconian rule problem" cannot be a judge at all. Without the > decklists those Hungarian players would play the finals with the > illegal decks, having significant differences from the submitted > ones!!! How can a judge think that it would be better than two GLs is > completely beyond my imagination. Please think about it if you > seriously consider yourself a judge. you're really starting to freak me out. Who are you? Ector from the Gestapo?

In article <1176531796.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "Changing my deck between rounds is rarely going to help me"? Yes, I > saw that utter BS, but didn't have enough time to answer it. You have played this game, right? You have no idea who you are going to be sitting next to, or even at the same table with, until you are already sitting there. In your first game, you see 4 other decks. If you die quickly and get to scout around, you might get to see another handfull enough to have an idea of what they are doing. So you have limited info in a limited number of decks. You can then, assuming you are an unscrupulous bastard and want to cheat, go and put a couple of appropriate hosers in your deck that you think might help. But then: A) You still are pretty likely to not sit at a table that contains a deck that you "prepped" for. B) Even if you do sit at such a table, you are pretty likely to not be sitting next to a deck that you "prepped" for. C) Even if you do sit at a table with such a deck, and you sit next to such a deck, you need to draw the card and have it actually do you some good. > If I noticed three decks based on ICs, putting two Fear of Mekhets > isn't going to help me? Really? Yes. Really. 'Cause you have to be sitting at a table with such a deck and near such a deck and then draw the card and then be able to play it effectively (again, have you ever actually *used* Fear of Mekhet and had it work the way you wanted it to?). And that is just one card. Are you going to a tournament with every card in your collection, just in case you want to be able to dial-a-cheat? > If I noticed a lot of weenies, Aranthebes isn't going to help me? Not if you don't sit next to weenies in the next game. You notice a lot of weenies in the first round. You then cheat and put in an Aranthebes. And then the next round, you sit next to an all huge vampire deck. And then the next round, you manage to sit next to a weenie deck, but you don't draw the Aranthebes. How is this helping you? > Besides, if I'm playing a combo-deck with 6 Sibyl's Tongues and 3 Drop > Point Networks and can fetch any card in a moment, changing my "silver > bullets" package isn't going to help me? Never read the worst crap, > honestly. Go ahead and play that deck and see what happens. Probably nothing that good. > I don't play with monkeys, since I spend some time to train them. And here you are implying that they *would* be monkeys, except for your magnanamous charity towards them. Man. Why do people play with you? > But > some of my newbies really needed time to understand what is the > tournament, how it differs from the casual play and that they CANNOT > change their decks during the tournament. Hmm. Does saying "You can't change your deck during a tournament" not suffice? > And don't tell me that stupid people live only in Belarus :) You seem to think that is the case, considering how you refer to your own player base. > You WON'T accomplish it. As long as you cannot check the decks, how > can you be sure that the players will obey your words? 'Cause most people who play games understand that, ya know, you are supposed to obey the rules. As that is the point of a game. > Oh yeah. In the vast majoruty of time everything is good. In the vast > majority of time the judge serves only as a rules guru. And so on. But > the GOOD judge is able to fix ANY problem, not just "majority" of > them. Even such "rare" problem as "I've lost some cards and don't > remember which". I insist on using decklist since I always was a good > judge in Magic, and I wish to remain a good judge in VTES. Which if that makes you happy, go nuts. But it isn't actually necessary for good play. > Besides the determined cheaters, there are people who want to win too > much, and these people often do "unintentional cheating". If they are cheating, they are cheating. There is no such thing as "unintentional cheating". There is either an honest mistake or someone intentionally breaking the rules. > I'm not crossing anything. Just read some PTW threads here. To > determine whether the player "reasonably" can get more than, say, 1VP, > or cannot, you will need to inspect his deck (or his decklist, which > is much more convenient). Again, you are inventing a problem with an invented solution--no one will ever be in a situation where you have to look at their deck and decide, based on the composition of their deck, if they are "playing to win". That is utter insanity. > Oh, too bad for me! How dare I to write that? See, I didn't point that out just to be mean. If history has shown us anything, it is that you, Ector, are willing to jump to conclusions about this game based on not much actual evidence or experience. If history has shown us anything, it is that it is *possible* that there are folks who have a far greater depth of experience in both playing this game and running tournaments for this game that might have some insight that you are missing out on. There are an awful lot of people in the world who have run an awful lot of VTES tournaments. Heck, one year, Kevin ran, by himself, like, 12 VTES tournaments in 3 days. And an awful lot of people who do this don't think that decklists and deck checks are worth the effort they take. And it is never a problem. You'd think that this breadth of evidence would support the idea that you can effectively run a tournament without decklists. > Thus, a > judge that voluntarily gives up the wonderful opportunity of checking > the deck of any player (should that be necessary) and the opportunity > of helping the players to restore their decks to the original state > can NEVER be a good judge. Yes, that is right. People who have been running this game for far, far, longer than you have, and have run far, far more events that you have, will never be as good a judge as you, as they realize that decklists aren't real useful and generally noth worth the effort. > If LSJ runs tournaments without the decklists, then he's probalbly not as > good judge as I supposed. Oh, that is deeply rich. > Some words personally for you, Peter. IMHO, any person who can > seriously suggest dropping decklists as a "solution" for the > "draconian rule problem" cannot be a judge at all. You keep thinking that. > Without the > decklists those Hungarian players would play the finals with the > illegal decks, having significant differences from the submitted > ones!!! You honestly think that having 5 Reunion Kamut instead of 6 Reunion Kamut is a problem worth throwing someone out of the finals of a tournament? Really? > How can a judge think that it would be better than two GLs is > completely beyond my imagination. Please think about it if you > seriously consider yourself a judge. I used to think you were funny but kind of misguided. Now I am beginning to think you live in a sad and creepy little world. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 9:40 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > you're really starting to freak me out. Who are you? Ector from the > Gestapo? In case you don't know, I'm a Jew :) I seriously doubt that Gestapo would accept me :D Seriously, I'm just a judge from Magic. Not sure that Magic = Gestapo, but we had even more harsh rules there... I've issued GL to a player who was 5 minutes late to the start of round, for instance. Not that I'm going to do the same in VTES, but a "VP loss" would be adequate to maintain order, IMHO. Yours, Ector

Ector wrote: > On Apr 14, 9:40 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> you're really starting to freak me out. Who are you? Ector from the >> Gestapo? > > Seriously, I'm just a judge from Magic. Not sure that Magic = Gestapo, > but we had even more harsh rules there... I've issued GL to a player > who was 5 minutes late to the start of round, for instance. Not that > I'm going to do the same in VTES, but a "VP loss" would be adequate to > maintain order, IMHO. Wow. You'd really issue a penalty other than a formal warning to a player who caused his table in a particular round to start 5 minutes late? I can't think of a better way to ensure that player never came to a tournament again; I'd be surprised if he came back to the local playgroup. I am willing to agree with one thing: You certainly were a Magic player. That said, you are so far off base here it's not even funny, and it's quite scary that you somehow are surprised that people are mocking you over this. Ector, when a game is no longer fun, people quit playing unless there is some other incentive. Magic tournaments quit being fun many, many years ago, but have the incentive of large cash and/or product prizes... so people still play. But in the last Magic tournament I saw, nobody was having "fun"; people were throwing tantrums and literally, a chair once. There was much yelling and arguing with the judges. That's not fun for the players OR the judges, and nobody should waste our time pretending that it is. V:TES tournaments will never have that much monetary or product incentive, so the only way to get people come to V:TES tournaments is to make sure they have fun. Your expectation that they will somehow treat the tournament as seriously as Magic players take their tournaments is foolish on the face of it; there's no incentive to, nor will there ever be. Nobody wants to alienate their friends over a few booster packs. This, by the way, is also why there's such a blase' attitude about cheating; it's just not worth anyone's time. Ector, I have come to believe you have absolutely no idea what "fun" is, and I think that's why you're having such a problem with everyone. Perhaps there's no such thing as "officially sanctioned fun" in a totalitarian state, and for this I feel great pity. But people have figured out ways to have a little unofficial fun ever since the dawn of time, and I firmly suggest that you go and find some of those people, and talk to them about "fun" and what it is. The only way to grow this game in _any_ country is to make sure the people who play it have fun. Draconian punishments for the slightest rule infraction, however, are fun for nobody, and serve only to drive people away. Think about it. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1176531796.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > > A) You still are pretty likely to not sit at a table that contains a > deck that you "prepped" for. So what? I will have just 1-2 unusable hosers in my deck. Not much of a deal, compared to the possible advantage. Besides, at the small tournament the chances may be much higher. For instance, at the 10-players tournament (just two tables) you are pretty sure to be on the same table with one of 3 IC decks, for instance. > B) Even if you do sit at such a table, you are pretty likely to not be > sitting next to a deck that you "prepped" for. So what again? People are packing hoser cards against the most dangerous decks, not against the weaker ones. If that IC deck is your grandpredator, it may become your predator. Or if it's your grandprey, it may become your prey, if you're also playing a good deck. > C) Even if you do sit at a table with such a deck, and you sit next to > such a deck, you need to draw the card and have it actually do you some > good. And this is the worst bullshit of all. In Magic, people have 60 cards minimum and generally get only one card per turn. In VTES they have 60-90 cards and can cycle 6-7 cards per turn or more. Obviously, you can eventually get any card from your deck, especially if you can defend yourself good enough and have enough time. My Anneke deck usually started the aggressive actions only after Temptation of Greater Power, which I was guaranteed to get, sooner or later. > > If I noticed three decks based on ICs, putting two Fear of Mekhets > > isn't going to help me? Really? > > Yes. Really. 'Cause you have to be sitting at a table with such a deck > and near such a deck and then draw the card and then be able to play it > effectively (again, have you ever actually *used* Fear of Mekhet and had > it work the way you wanted it to?). And that is just one card. Are you > going to a tournament with every card in your collection, just in case > you want to be able to dial-a-cheat? Yes, I've played Fear of Mekhet on my prey's Alexandra that was Minion Tapped to 4 blood and got Alastor + Assault Rifle on the previous turn :) And I cannot understand why you don't consider the possibility of playing it crosstable (after all, PTO can be played crosstable, right?) No, the cheater isn't going to bring all his collection. Just a small number of cards known as "sideboard" :) > > If I noticed a lot of weenies, Aranthebes isn't going to help me? > > Not if you don't sit next to weenies in the next game. You notice a lot > of weenies in the first round. You then cheat and put in an Aranthebes. > And then the next round, you sit next to an all huge vampire deck. And > then the next round, you manage to sit next to a weenie deck, but you > don't draw the Aranthebes. How is this helping you? My predator is playing huge vampires? Then the weenie is going to oust him, and I will have time to find my Aranthebes. I won't have the time to play Aranthebes? So, my cheat CAN fail to help me. But it can help me, too! Obviously my chances would be higher, right? > > Besides, if I'm playing a combo-deck with 6 Sibyl's Tongues and 3 Drop > > Point Networks and can fetch any card in a moment, changing my "silver > > bullets" package isn't going to help me? Never read the worst crap, > > honestly. > > Go ahead and play that deck and see what happens. Probably nothing that > good. So if I can fetch Aranthebes early against weenies, it's no good? :D If I can fetch Justicar Retribution + Awe, it's no good as well? You must be joking... > > I don't play with monkeys, since I spend some time to train them. > > And here you are implying that they *would* be monkeys, except for your > magnanamous charity towards them. Man. Why do people play with you? Because they appreciate the ORDER I provide. Every good player appreciates the order and respects the good judge who is able to maintain it. > > But > > some of my newbies really needed time to understand what is the > > tournament, how it differs from the casual play and that they CANNOT > > change their decks during the tournament. > > Hmm. Does saying "You can't change your deck during a tournament" not > suffice? Sometimes it doesn't. There are bad players, too. > > And don't tell me that stupid people live only in Belarus :) > > You seem to think that is the case, considering how you refer to your > own player base. No, I think that you don't have so much newbies as I do, and you've already forgot their behavior. > > You WON'T accomplish it. As long as you cannot check the decks, how > > can you be sure that the players will obey your words? > > 'Cause most people who play games understand that, ya know, you are > supposed to obey the rules. As that is the point of a game. People tend to follow their habits, not somebody's words. Even if the casual player did hear your words that changing deck is prohibited (and you really said that), he may just forget these words after some rounds. > > Besides the determined cheaters, there are people who want to win too > > much, and these people often do "unintentional cheating". > > If they are cheating, they are cheating. There is no such thing as > "unintentional cheating". There is either an honest mistake or someone > intentionally breaking the rules. Why you've missed my example of "unintentional cheating", then? Don't you think that such things may happen? I've seen a lot of different things that can fall into this category. And I know several examples of such behaviour of the best and most honest players. Looks like you know little about cheating and its psychology, but there's nothing to doubt here, as long as you are playing without the decklists... > > I'm not crossing anything. Just read some PTW threads here. To > > determine whether the player "reasonably" can get more than, say, 1VP, > > or cannot, you will need to inspect his deck (or his decklist, which > > is much more convenient). > > Again, you are inventing a problem with an invented solution--no one > will ever be in a situation where you have to look at their deck and > decide, based on the composition of their deck, if they are "playing to > win". That is utter insanity. Why didn't you search the NG as I've suggested? Here's the LSJ's words on this matter: "The judge just makes a judgment as to whether the game state is such that 1VP is the most that that player could reasonably expect to get. ... The judge examine whatever information he feels that he should examine. He takes as much time as he needs." Here's the link: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/7c74c43a6865f01e/6f72a08d81eea7f3?lnk=gst&q=PTW+reasonable&rnum=4#6f72a08d81eea7f3 So, what information are you going to examine if you don't need to look at the deck? The stars placement and various omens? :D > > There are an awful lot of people in the world who have run an awful lot > of VTES tournaments. Heck, one year, Kevin ran, by himself, like, 12 > VTES tournaments in 3 days. And an awful lot of people who do this don't > think that decklists and deck checks are worth the effort they take. And > it is never a problem. You'd think that this breadth of evidence would > support the idea that you can effectively run a tournament without > decklists. Those "awful lot of people" aren't taking judging tournaments seriously enough. This may be OK for the small local tournaments, but this cannot be tolerated at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and Nationals. Any serious judge that really wants to run the large tournament smoothly would require the decklists just for that purpose. Besides, if a problem remains unnoticed that doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. For instance, those two Hungarian players would play the illegal decks in the finals, and that would be unnoticed without the decklists. Not a problem for you? Then you obviously aren't a serious judge. > > Thus, a > > judge that voluntarily gives up the wonderful opportunity of checking > > the deck of any player (should that be necessary) and the opportunity > > of helping the players to restore their decks to the original state > > can NEVER be a good judge. > > Yes, that is right. People who have been running this game for far, far, > longer than you have, and have run far, far more events that you have, > will never be as good a judge as you, as they realize that decklists > aren't real useful and generally noth worth the effort. Please read the above. I'm not trying to tell that I will ever know the rules as good as LSJ (that's impossible by definition), but as long as I would have the decklists and LSJ wouldn't, I will be able to maintain the better order at the tournament. And believe me, the organized players really appreciate the order and understand that the order is well worth filling a decklist. > > > Without the > > decklists those Hungarian players would play the finals with the > > illegal decks, having significant differences from the submitted > > ones!!! > > You honestly think that having 5 Reunion Kamut instead of 6 Reunion > Kamut is a problem worth throwing someone out of the finals of a > tournament? Really? I think that the problem should be discovered much earlier than after the preliminary rounds, and I've told this at least 3 times here. But as long as we're discussing the decklists here, it's obvious that "throwing someone out" is better than closing your eyes on such immense rules violation as playing the illegal deck (EVEN the deck with 5 Reunion Kamuts instead of 6). Without the decklists that rules violation would go unnoticed, and you seriously suggest it as a SOLUTION!!! In this case, the proposed cure is worse than the disease. Why "throwing somebody out" is better? Because your job as a judge is maintaining the order, not only at this tournament, but at the ALL tournaments you're running. If you "throw somebody out", every player at the tournament would learn by example, and you aren't likely to have the same problem at the next tournament. If you just close your eyes and say: "Play with illegal decks, it doesn't matter for me" (as you will inevitably do if you drop decklists) - you will NEVER get the good order. For a serious judge, that is a catastrophe. Again, I'm NOT recommending "throwing people out" prior to the finals, but playing without the decklists and allowing people to play with illegal decks is even worse. > > How can a judge think that it would be better than two GLs is > > completely beyond my imagination. Please think about it if you > > seriously consider yourself a judge. > > I used to think you were funny but kind of misguided. Now I am beginning > to think you live in a sad and creepy little world. Actually, YOU are "funny but kind of misguided". You seem to believe that everything should be OK, every time. No problems should arise, no players would cheat with their decks, nobody would miss any cards from his decks, and so on. I live in the normal world, where there are good players, and there are bad players; there are honest players, and there are potential cheaters. I maintain the order to help the good and honest players to play normally, to help the bad players to learn, and to make the potential cheaters understand that cheating is going to be punished pretty soon. Believe it or not, but ALL my players appreciate my work and never complain about the "hassle" of filling the decklists. Yes, all players, including the potential cheaters. Even the criminals usually respect good cops that are eager to maintain the order and despise the cops with "nothing matters to me" attitude. Yours, Ector

On Apr 15, 1:11 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Even the criminals usually > respect good cops that are eager to maintain the order and despise the > cops with "nothing matters to me" attitude. Hahahahahahahahaha! John Eno

On Apr 15, 7:14 am, Derek Ray <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: Derek, I'm totally amazed to read such kind and gentle post from you! > Wow. You'd really issue a penalty other than a formal warning to a > player who caused his table in a particular round to start 5 minutes > late? I can't think of a better way to ensure that player never came to > a tournament again; I'd be surprised if he came back to the local playgroup. A judge has to follow the rules and the recommendations. When a player doesn't appear at the table after the pre-game time limit passes (3 minutes), a judge is recommended to issue Game Loss, which should be upgraded to Match Loss after the next 5 minutes. Note that it was issued at the Minsk Open Championship with 32 players (quite big tournament for Belarus), and nobody blamed me for that GL, as it was obviously issued according to the rules. And that player didn't quit playing. But I'm not going to issue anything similar in VTES, for sure... unless somebody will be 20 minutes late without a serious reason, for instance :) > Ector, when a game is no longer fun, people quit playing unless there is > some other incentive. Magic tournaments quit being fun many, many years > ago, but have the incentive of large cash and/or product prizes... so > people still play. But in the last Magic tournament I saw, nobody was > having "fun"; people were throwing tantrums and literally, a chair once. > There was much yelling and arguing with the judges. That's not fun for > the players OR the judges, and nobody should waste our time pretending > that it is. You know, our Magic players DIDN'T have large cash/product prizes when I were a judge. Most tournaments had just 2-3 boosters as a prize, not more. We didn't have too much players to buy a lot of product, so our support was minimal as well. Thus, the incentive in local Magic is the same as in VTES: everyone wants to be the best. We are having a lot of fun here - without it people wouldn't play VTES at all, but "fun" and "order" aren't the contradicting things. Players may joke, laugh, propose the ridiculous deals, and so on, but this doesn't prevent them from filling the decklists or counting their cards after each round. And yes, they also call the judge sometimes - it's a tournament after all, and they are playing to win, aren't they? > V:TES tournaments will never have that much monetary or product > incentive, so the only way to get people come to V:TES tournaments is to > make sure they have fun. Your expectation that they will somehow treat > the tournament as seriously as Magic players take their tournaments is > foolish on the face of it; there's no incentive to, nor will there ever > be. Nobody wants to alienate their friends over a few booster packs. > This, by the way, is also why there's such a blase' attitude about > cheating; it's just not worth anyone's time. You may not believe, but there are people who value the victory too much, and they can cheat even without the prize at all. Fortunately, their number is low, but nevertheless. I didn't tell that we have a lot of cheaters, and probably there are no determined cheaters at all, but sometimes a player cheats almost unconsciously. I've seen several cases. As long as the prizes are the same in Magic and in VTES here, I cannot see why the VTES players shouldn't take their tournaments as seriously as Magic players. And the prize isn't everything. Our players already see the perspective of coming to the major European events, and if you spend $500 or more just to participate in the tournament, you are going to take it serious for sure! Just imagine the glory of winning the ECQ (not even talking about the EC itself) for a player from Belarus!!! > Ector, I have come to believe you have absolutely no idea what "fun" is, > and I think that's why you're having such a problem with everyone. > Perhaps there's no such thing as "officially sanctioned fun" in a > totalitarian state, and for this I feel great pity. But people have > figured out ways to have a little unofficial fun ever since the dawn of > time, and I firmly suggest that you go and find some of those people, > and talk to them about "fun" and what it is. The "officially sanctioned fun" here is no fun at all, for sure :) I really know what is fun, and I even joke with my players quite often. But, again, "fun" and "order" don't contradict each other. You can have them both. At least, I'm trying to. > The only way to grow this game in _any_ country is to make sure the > people who play it have fun. Draconian punishments for the slightest > rule infraction, however, are fun for nobody, and serve only to drive > people away. Draconian punishments should be avoided if you can avoid them without giving up the order. In most cases, you can, but this require some efforts - like, as I've mentioned, checking the decklists during round 1, calculating the number of cards in all decks prior to round 2, and recommending the players to count their cards after each round. There is nothing impossible or too difficult, people just need to get accustomed to it. This is the best solution, not dropping the decklists as somebody suggested. Besides, the strict order actually HELPS me to grow the game here, since people do believe that the game isn't just a recreation, but a serious sport. At least, some of them. I was able to convert some Magic players to VTES - and even the best players! Yours, Ector

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > Seriously, I'm just a judge from Magic. Not sure that Magic = Gestapo, > but we had even more harsh rules there... I've issued GL to a player > who was 5 minutes late to the start of round, for instance. Not that > I'm going to do the same in VTES, but a "VP loss" would be adequate to > maintain order, IMHO. "To maintain order" ?? Your tournaments sound like the first half of Full Metal Jacket. "I am Ector, your senior VTES judge. From now on, you will speak only when spoken to. And the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be "sir". Do you maggots understand?" "SIR, YES, SIR!" [ quoted text not captured ]

You know, I've been reading this thread since the start, but have refrained, through super human application of will power, to respond. Simply because I thought that, maybe, eventually, Derek or Kevin or someone could knock a little bit of sense into Ector's head. But it seems that I am misguided, wrong and delusional... Hmmmm, seems familiar somehow. Ector, I have some questions for you. 1) Do any of the people in your playgroup ever invite you out for a drink or anything similar when it does not involve card playing? Or do they all seem mysteriously busy? 2) Where you alive before the fall of communism, and if so, where you old enough to be seriously affected by the state of life in a totalitarian regime? 3) Why DID you quit Magic? You keep mentioning the fact that you used to play Magic, but never mention why you quit? 4) Do you have the ability to learn? 5) How old are you? And in my opinion, the most important question: 6) Have you ever in your life had fun? And by fun I do not mean "I control your life, I am the supreme greatest, bwahahahaha", I mean something stupid like laughing yourself silly cos someone accidentally put 6 minion taps into a caitiff deck. When their "decklist" says Blood doll. you know, silly, meaningless, highly amusing stuff. Otherwise known as fun.... Everyone else, I have only one question 1) Having spent all this time, effort and energy trying to understand the mind of someone that i personally find somewhat twisted, and after expending all this energy, coming to realise that it will never make a difference, do any of you still care? Seriously. Kevin, you and me have had our disagreements, but thats what happens when you communicate with other people. Same goes for you Derek. However I honestly feel that sometimes you guys just keep trying to beat a dead horse far too long, you know? No disrespect, really, its meant like you guys are trying really hard to show this guy the error of his ways, but if he insists on being a schlemiel, let him, you know? anyway, back to your regular program....

In message <1176613885.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >Even the criminals usually >respect good cops that are eager to maintain the order and despise the >cops with "nothing matters to me" attitude. You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector wrote: > On Apr 15, 7:14 am, Derek Ray wrote: >> Wow. You'd really issue a penalty other than a formal warning to a >> player who caused his table in a particular round to start 5 minutes >> late? > A judge has to follow the rules and the recommendations. When a player > doesn't appear at the table after the pre-game time limit passes (3 > minutes), a judge is recommended to issue Game Loss, which should be > upgraded to Match Loss after the next 5 minutes. Speaking of following rules and recommendations, the VEKN rules specify 15 minutes, not 5.

Blooded Sand wrote: > Everyone else, I have only one question > 1) Having spent all this time, effort and energy trying to understand > the mind of someone that i personally find somewhat twisted, and after > expending all this energy, coming to realise that it will never make a > difference, do any of you still care? Well, fortunately, I've only expended the total energy of one post. > However I honestly feel that sometimes you guys just keep > trying to beat a dead horse far too long, you know? No disrespect, > really, its meant like you guys are trying really hard to show this > guy the error of his ways, but if he insists on being a schlemiel, let > him, you know? Without expending a great deal of energy explaining why one tries to teach someone _anything_, the short of it is: It's not just about showing Ector the error of his ways. There are easily just as many people who lurk here and don't post who may have the same questions as Ector, or who may have some of the same thoughts as he does but just don't feel as strongly. Those people, too, can learn from my responses, even if Ector never will. If this were a tournament and I were speaking off to Ector in a corner somewhere with one or two other people, the discussion would take a grand total of five minutes because he's not much of a listener, and I don't bother speaking to people who don't listen. But here, the audience is much wider, so it's a little more worth expounding on ideas. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1176613885.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. ...But the way some people play should be considered one. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1176613885.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, "Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > So what? I will have just 1-2 unusable hosers in my deck. Not much of > a deal, compared to the possible advantage. The possible advantage is tiny. And taking the cards out of your deck that you know are useful and replacing them with dubious hosers is more likely to make your deck less effective than it is not. It just isn't worth doing. Really. That, and the vast, vast majority of people playing this game simply aren't going to want to do this as it is, ya know, cheating. Even without decklist rules in effect. > Besides, at the small tournament the chances may be much higher. Previously, all of your arguments were based on "Smaller tournaments are less serious and decklists are less important, but large important tournaments *need* decklists..." > So what again? People are packing hoser cards against the most > dangerous decks, not against the weaker ones. So what? It isn't helping you. And if you are so worried about IC members that you are willing to cheat to get Fear of Mekhet in your deck, and not worried about the hoser cards being dead cards (see: "so what" is reference to how they aren't going to be useful most of the time), why aren't you simply using the Fear of Mekhet in your deck in the first place? > And this is the worst bullshit of all. And yet it is supported by, ya know, actually playing this game, which I kinda get the sense you don't get to do much, as you are so caught up in the identity of "Judge" that you won't play in the tournaments that you run. > And I cannot understand why you don't consider the possibility of > playing it crosstable (after all, PTO can be played crosstable, > right?) 'Cause playing it cross table is, most of the time, going to be a stupid thing to do. This whole discussion is about odds. What are the odds someone is going to actually cheat. What are the odds that someone who does cheat is going to actually get something out of it. The cheating that you are discussing and so desperately trying to stop (or so desperately trying to make it look like it is worth trying to stop), i.e. illegally shuffling hoser cards in your deck between rounds is both very unlikely to actually happen (as most folks just aren't going to cheat like this) and very unlikely to actually help (as the structure of the game doesn't support it helping an awful lot). So you have two "very unlikely"s multiplying together into what is a really, really small chance of this sort of thing having an impact on a given tournament. Thus, why even worry about it? > Because they appreciate the ORDER I provide. Every good player > appreciates the order and respects the good judge who is able to > maintain it. I don't know what to tell you. I can only assume you live in a land of utter chaos, anarchy, and corruption such that people look to you as a bastion of order in their lives. Which is bleak. But ok. > No, I think that you don't have so much newbies as I do, and you've > already forgot their behavior. Uhh, even the new players I play with are, ya know, cognizant grown ups (or at least cognizant adolescents) who can understand basic rules. And know not to cheat. > People tend to follow their habits, not somebody's words. Even if the > casual player did hear your words that changing deck is prohibited > (and you really said that), he may just forget these words after some > rounds. See, that you believe this is really, really sad. That, or a really transparent ploy to prop up your argument. No one is going to "forget" that he can't change his deck between rounds. In the span of hours. Again, VTES players are not monkeys. Even "untrained" newbies. Even in Belarus. > Why you've missed my example of "unintentional cheating", then? 'Cause it was silly. There is no such thing as "unintentional cheating". Either someone makes a legitimate mistake, which isn't a big deal, or they intentionally cheat, which is a big deal. Intention goes a long way in this sort of situation. > Don't you think that such things may happen? Not often enough that it is worth worrying about. And certainly not often enough that it is worth kicking someone out of the finals of a tournament for having 1 less card in his deck than his decklist says in the name of worrying about it. > Looks like you know little about cheating and its psychology, but > there's nothing to doubt here, as long as you are playing without the > decklists... No, I know plenty about cheating. But I also know that the vast majority of people playing this game (well, at least around here) just simply aren't inclined to cheat. As it is stupid to cheat in a card game. And it is especially stupid to cheat in a way that is unlikely to actually help. > Why didn't you search the NG as I've suggested? Here's the LSJ's words > on this matter: I thought LSJ wasn't as good of a judge as you thought? > "The judge just makes a judgment as to whether the game state is > such that 1VP is the most that that player could reasonably > expect to get. Sure. The game state. What is going on at the table. Not the composition of the player's deck. > So, what information are you going to examine if you don't need to > look at the deck? The stars placement and various omens? The state of the table. What the player's position is, what the player's predator and prey's positions are, what is in play. There will *never* be a situation where someone will need to look at someone's decklist to determine if someone is playing to win or not. > Those "awful lot of people" aren't taking judging tournaments > seriously enough. Oh, this is gonna be rich. > This may be OK for the small local tournaments, but > this cannot be tolerated at the major tournaments like Qualifiers and > Nationals. And yet it is. And it works just fine. And everyone is happy. And no one gets thrown out of the finals due to having 1 less card in their deck than their decklist says. See, again, here is one of the main problems in your argument. I'm not telling you, Ector, that you shouldn't use decklists. If you want to, and your players are fine with it, go nuts. I'm just pointing out that it is neither particularly necessary or useful in the grand scheme of things. You, on the other hand, are attacking the rest of the world as having irresponsible, sloppy, disorganized judges in the name of propping up your argument about how they are important. That isn't getting you anywhere. But flamed. > Not a problem for you? Then you obviously aren't a serious judge. Oh, Ector. You apparently have an awful lot of your sense of self wrapped up in your identity of "serious judge". Which is kinda sad. I'm a guy who organizes and runs tournaments. And have for a long time. When I'm running these tournaments, I judge as necessary, organize as necessary, and make sure folks have a good time while playing a serious game. And never in my life have felt the need for decklists. I have played in many, many large, "important" tournaments, none of which had decklists, and none of which did I feel needed decklists. And they were run by people who were doing a fine job and taking their role as judge very seriously. And they worked fine. And no one was kicked out of the finals for having one less card in their deck than their decklist said. Which strikes me as a far more important goal than the opposite. > And believe me, the > organized players really appreciate the order and understand that the > order is well worth filling a decklist. I'm an organized player. I don't appreciate that filling in a decklist is worth the order it provides. > But as long as we're discussing the decklists here, it's obvious that > "throwing someone out" is better than closing your eyes on such > immense rules violation as playing the illegal deck (EVEN the deck > with 5 Reunion Kamuts instead of 6). Yeah, see, that is an insane world view. I can see that such a thing would regrettably happen due to an established rule and someone accidentally falling under that established rule, but I'd like to think that even the people who actually were involved with this particular issue consider that it probably wasn't the best outcome. I can't however see someone thinking that this sort of thing is actually a beneficial and desireable outcome. That is simply insane. > Without the decklists that rules violation would go unnoticed, and you seriously suggest it as a > SOLUTION!!! Not a solution to anything. Just not worth worrying about. 'Cause it doesn't really matter. The guy is not going to unfairly win the game due to missing a single card from his deck. And he probably had been playing the whole tournament like that. > Why "throwing somebody out" is better? Because your job as a judge is > maintaining the order, not only at this tournament, but at the ALL > tournaments you're running. If you "throw somebody out", every player > at the tournament would learn by example, and you aren't likely to > have the same problem at the next tournament. If you just close your > eyes and say: "Play with illegal decks, it doesn't matter for me" (as > you will inevitably do if you drop decklists) - you will NEVER get the > good order. For a serious judge, that is a catastrophe. Norm, can I make a "Hitler" joke yet? Wait. Damn. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> writes: > You know, I've been reading this thread since the start, but have > refrained, through super human application of will power, to respond. > Simply because I thought that, maybe, eventually, Derek or Kevin or > someone could knock a little bit of sense into Ector's head. But it > seems that I am misguided, wrong and delusional... Hmmmm, seems > familiar somehow. > > [SNIP SNIP] > > Everyone else, I have only one question > 1) Having spent all this time, effort and energy trying to understand > the mind of someone that i personally find somewhat twisted, and after > expending all this energy, coming to realise that it will never make a > difference, do any of you still care? I don't consider my effort wasted. Whatever Ector does or thinks is not my responsibility, but *I* have learned a lot. Plus I had a great time writing about how our tournaments degenerate into satanic blood orgies, because we have no ORDER. ;-) HG [ quoted text not captured ]

> Norm, can I make a "Hitler" joke yet? Dude, This is soooo far past that XZ

On Apr 15, 4:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Speaking of following rules and recommendations, the VEKN rules specify 15 > minutes, not 5. Surely. That's why I said that after 20 minutes I'm really going to issue GL. 5 and 10 minutes were in Magic, where normal round time is 50-60 minutes. Being late for 20 minutes is a serious lack of discipline for sure. Yours, Ector

On Apr 15, 2:51 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. Why do you mess a policeman and a prosecutor? Policemen don't accuse people, they maintain order. And the judges are supposed to do the same. Yours, Ector

On Apr 15, 9:16 am, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > > "To maintain order" ?? > > Your tournaments sound like the first half of Full Metal Jacket. > > "I am Ector, your senior VTES judge. From now on, you will speak only when > spoken to. And the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be > "sir". Do you maggots understand?" > > "SIR, YES, SIR!" I really wonder why "maintaining order" means "mockery" to you. Order is desirable for every sane player - even the players that value fun over the victory. For instance, you may laugh at some player, but you cannot insult that player - it would be punished as the unsportsmanlike behaviour. You may play stupid cards, but you cannot violate PTW. And so on. You are going to be surprised, but my former Magic players tend to consider me a good, but NOT ENOUGH STRICT judge. Other judges weren't hesitate to issue "draconian" penalties when I limited to warnings. Yours, Ector

On Apr 15, 2:27 pm, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought that, maybe, eventually, Derek or Kevin or > someone could knock a little bit of sense into Ector's head. But it > seems that I am misguided, wrong and delusional... Hmmmm, seems > familiar somehow. You are really misguided, (I should even say "narrow-minded") as long as you dont't consider the possibility of knocking "little bit of sense" into YOUR head. Such absolute confidence is usually a sign of stupidity, yes? I may be stubborn enough, but I'm always ready to learn something new. > Ector, I have some questions for you. > > 1) Do any of the people in your playgroup ever invite you out for a > drink or anything similar when it does not involve card playing? Or do > they all seem mysteriously busy? I don't even try to get invited. I don't drink alcohol (even beer), and I hate wasting time to the parties. I enjoy a pleasant work (such as writing a newsletter), and the work should be done alone. When I played Magic, I wrote the set reviews and published them at the popular sites. I also like computer games (only RPG and turn-based strategies), and I write articles about them for one of the best Russian magazines. Life without work is a waste of time for me. > 2) Where you alive before the fall of communism, and if so, where you > old enough to be seriously affected by the state of life in a > totalitarian regime? You're pursuing a wrong duck. I was a child at the time, and I wasn't "seriously affected". But I'm a programmer, and nobody hates the disorder more than programmers :) By the D&D classification, I am Lawful. Not truly Lawful Good, I guess, but something average between LG and LN. Yes, I know that it's extremely dull, and, fortunately, such alignment is quite rare in the real life :) Most of the people here are obviously Chaotic (probably CG), and that's the root of misunderstanding. But as long as we're talking about judges, I simply don't believe that a non-Lawful person may become a good judge. > 3) Why DID you quit Magic? You keep mentioning the fact that you used > to play Magic, but never mention why you quit? I said that several times at the NG. Not only they printed larger and larger percentage of crappy cards (as though getting real money for pieces of paper wasn't enough for them), but they also invented "rotation"! Players have to spend a lot of time and money to get the needed cards, and then these precious cards become wallpaper because those greedy bastards want to sell the new sets! > 4) Do you have the ability to learn? My ability to learn is greater than yours, judging by the beginning of your post. I'm playing less than 3 years for now, and in some areas I know more than the players who play from the very beginning. > 5) How old are you? I'm 35. I guess that most of the old players here are roughly the same age. > And in my opinion, the most important question: > 6) Have you ever in your life had fun? And by fun I do not mean "I > control your life, I am the supreme greatest, bwahahahaha", I mean > something stupid like laughing yourself silly cos someone accidentally > put 6 minion taps into a caitiff deck. When their "decklist" says > Blood doll. you know, silly, meaningless, highly amusing stuff. > Otherwise known as fun.... Surely I had fun. A lot of it. And controlling somebody's life is no fun for me :) I'm not going to laugh at 6 Minion Taps instead of 6 Blood Dolls, though - stupidity is no fun. As a judge, I would consider it a clerical error, as well as the Campground HG instead of Zoo HG, but the player should report the error ASAP. Two days ago I had a lot of fun in the casual game that ended when a voting deck ousted all the table in one turn. His prey (me) had 3 pool, his grandprey and predator had 4. He had 3 vampires and played 3 KRC :) Table talks are often very funny, especially when one player tries to deceive another. Having Saulot Clan Impersonated to anti- Gangrel with Talons of the Dead is a great fun, especially against players that don't know what is Anesthetic Touch. And so on. > if he insists on being a schlemiel, let him, you know? As long as you know what is "schlemiel", I can only say that being it is still better than being a "schlimazl" :) Guess who I am talking about? ;) Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. Instead of blood orgies (I play with HG occasionally :P), the kinkiest things are some obscure rules questions or the occasional Gird Minions(CE). "Maintaining order" consists of announcing some general quidelines about the timetable and practical issues, like where is table number 11. This is also the way it works in the biggest annual finnish Vtes tournament, the Ropecon (95 players last year). Rules and practical issues (like someone being late) are mostly solved without the judge. Players are sensible in general, which results in a pleasant, relaxed athmosphere (mature... old... where was I?). And people do play competitively here, getting angry about the game, personality differences and all. I understand that the situation might be different where you play, but this is just to illustrate that the environment (context) corresponds to the perception of the role of the judge. Relaxed approach works well here, IMO, and as it works, I see no reason to deliberately increase judge's workload with mandatory decklist checking et al. The organising stuff is already pretty burdening, especially in large tournaments. And people do it for fun :) Best regards, Heikki P.

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > I really wonder why "maintaining order" means "mockery" to you. Order > is desirable for every sane player - even the players that value fun > over the victory. Order in VTES tournaments is not some fragile, precious little flower, constantly in mortal, terrible danger of being trampled to death by evil, evil people. It is the natural state of things. VTES tournaments are orderly by their very nature. I'm mocking your fear of chaos and anarchy in a VTES tournament, which you use as a poor excuse for your desire to "maintain order." You might as well fear that a tournament will be disrupted by gnomes stealing the underpants of all players. "I must have the right to lock and guard all entrances and exits. Nobody may enter or exit without my permission, otherwise the gnomes will get in!" HG [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 16, 9:28 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 15, 2:27 pm, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:> I thought that, maybe, eventually, Derek or Kevin or > > someone could knock a little bit of sense into Ector's head. But it > > seems that I am misguided, wrong and delusional... Hmmmm, seems > > familiar somehow. > > You are really -snip- > Ector I was about to write an erudite, lucid, and most importantly, hopefully enlightening response, but then realised its not worth it. Ector, narrow minded is not understanding that there are different views on a subject to yours. You keep mentioning Magic, when by now you should have realised that the majority of people here have a strong, deep and abiding dislike for it. Maybe not the game per se, but the culture of it. You do not realise that you are so disliked by your own play group that they would not spend any free time with you if they could help it, but unfortunately they have to as you are the judge. You view your life in terms of a game, not the game as a part of life. You insist on maligning "your" players as (and i quote) untrained, chaotic, idiotic, stupid children incapable of learning. You might be physically 35, but your spirit and soul seems so atrophied and whithered that you come across as one of those 85 year old men that complain all day long. You say controlling someone's life is no fun for you, but yet you have all the signs of the classic control freak. You stopped playing T.O.G. because of money, nothing else. Now you bring this mercenary attitude you learnt there into the game of VtES. Dude, acquire 1) a sense of humour 2) a sense of fun and 3) a personality not quite as fascist as the one you have. And Norm, I agree, rules Nazi is the understatement of all time here. Something more along the lines of Stalin of VtES would be closer....

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah. I was responding to the thread that followed this quote: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/dc5182cad84f1d77 in which you wrote: > [in MtG] I've issued GL to a player > who was 5 minutes late to the start of round, for instance. Not that > I'm going to do the same in VTES, but a "VP loss" would be adequate to > maintain order, IMHO. ... which didn't indicate a change from 5 minutes to 20 for VTES. And, speaking of strict adherence to the rules over judge's leeway, where'd you get 20 over 15?

Ector wrote: > sense" into YOUR head. Such absolute confidence is usually a sign of > stupidity, yes? I may be stubborn enough, but I'm always ready to > learn something new. ...as long as it doesn't conflict with your existing opinions. >> 1) Do any of the people in your playgroup ever invite you out for a >> drink or anything similar when it does not involve card playing? Or do >> they all seem mysteriously busy? > I don't even try to get invited. I don't drink alcohol (even beer), > and I hate wasting time to the parties. I enjoy a pleasant work (such > as writing a newsletter), and the work should be done alone. When I > played Magic, I wrote the set reviews and published them at the > popular sites. I also like computer games (only RPG and turn-based > strategies), and I write articles about them for one of the best > Russian magazines. Life without work is a waste of time for me. This really says it all. Life should not be solely about work. When you view parties as "wasting time", you are deliberately cutting off your nose to spite your face. Doing nothing but partying is, in fact, a waste of time, but there always must be balance. Some work... some play. I truly pity you, not for what you are now, but for what you will be thirty years from now when you have gained some perspective... since it will be thirty years too late. >> 2) Where you alive before the fall of communism, and if so, where you >> old enough to be seriously affected by the state of life in a >> totalitarian regime? > You're pursuing a wrong duck. I was a child at the time, and I wasn't > "seriously affected". But I'm a programmer, and nobody hates the > disorder more than programmers :) I, too, am 35, and as a child I was profoundly affected by the state of life in a country in direct opposition to that totalitarian regime. The Berlin Wall fell at the midpoint of my life, and my world changed completely in a heartbeat. If you're trying to tell us that for the first 18 years of your life, you weren't seriously affected by the regime where you were living, well,... you know, I just don't see anyone believing you, since we can all see it in your "laws before all else, draconian punishments for lawbreakers" mentality and mindset. Also, I, too, am a programmer, yet I do not hate disorder so much that I'm willing to sacrifice my players' enjoyment of the game for the sake of imposing artificial order. And by the way, I'm a damn good programmer. > Most of the people here are obviously Chaotic (probably CG), and > that's the root of misunderstanding. But as long as we're talking > about judges, I simply don't believe that a non-Lawful person may > become a good judge. "Such absolute confidence is usually a sign of stupidity, yes?" -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in news:c3d0231sjccq6rv2t...@4ax.com: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:35:15 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> > wrote: > >>librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in >>news:PNQTh.163841$7g3.1...@newsfe14.phx: >> >> >>> As a judge however, I wouldn't really want to do decklist checks of >>> all of the decks prior to a tournament, just because they are a pain. >>> I don't think they are a hassle for players, but for me, they were a >>> pain. >>> If I had a couple of other non-playing judges, I might consider >>> doing it. >>> >> >>Yaah. Assistant Mooks seem to be the only way to implement a fair and >>efficient review pre-tournament. >snip > And a player seeing complete decklists (3 of 15 =20% in small games, 4 > of 31 = 12%, 5 of 63 =8%) is a better solution? In a 3 round tourney + > final, the likelihood of a player knowing the exact deck contents of a > predator or prey become significant. > > It'd be much better to just pair up players and get them to check the > other's deck. That way they can be seperated within the groupings, at > least in a 16+ level tourney (4 tables = ability to have no checked > deck pairings). Each player only has to do it the once, and if they > ARE paired on the same table, neither gets the advantage of having one > scouted by the other. > > Exponential iteration looks cool, but is impractical from a balance > issue. > Good points, all... A player pairing method would be superior. DZ AW

In message <1176702648.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] The judge is not doing the same as a policeman, or even close. You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 16, 7:32 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1176702648.882483.162...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <E...@mail.ru> writes: > >On Apr 15, 2:51 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >> You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. > >Why do you mess a policeman and a prosecutor? Policemen don't accuse > >people, they maintain order. And the judges are supposed to do the > >same. > > The judge is not doing the same as a policeman, or even close. > > You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. but being in the same play group as Ector should be...

In article <B5kvk1R5...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. Wait. I'm confused. I thought skateboarding is not a crime. At least that is what all those kids keep telling me... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 16, 1:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > in which you wrote: > > > [in MtG] I've issued GL to a player > > who was 5 minutes late to the start of round, for instance. Not that > > I'm going to do the same in VTES, but a "VP loss" would be adequate to > > maintain order, IMHO. > > ... which didn't indicate a change from 5 minutes to 20 for VTES. > > And, speaking of strict adherence to the rules over judge's leeway, where'd you > get 20 over 15? Sorry for not clear enough words. I meant that I'm not going to issue GL in VTES for such infraction, since GL in VTES is much more than GL in Magic, and even more than "Match Loss" in Magic. BTW, we really need that "VP Loss" penalty as something intermediate between Warning and GL. But I guess this thread isn't a right place for discussing it. I wrote about 20 minutes just because 3 of my players once were 20 minutes late to the beginning of the third round, and I was so angry that I would definitely issue GLs to them if I know how to perform it. Now I know that, thanks, and thanks for pointing out the 15-min rule, too! Yours, Ector

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <B5kvk1R5...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. > > Wait. I'm confused. I thought skateboarding is not a crime. At least > that is what all those kids keep telling me... I don't know about that, but I do know making mix-tapes is killing the music industry. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "hp" <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. > Instead of blood orgies (I play with HG occasionally :P), the kinkiest > things are some obscure rules questions or the occasional Gird > Minions(CE). "Maintaining order" consists of announcing some general > quidelines about the timetable and practical issues, like where is > table number 11. This is also the way it works in the biggest annual > finnish Vtes tournament, the Ropecon (95 players last year). I've expected that. Realy. A "bookkeeping judge" is the most classical example of a bad judge. He refuses to see any problems or participate in them. He never issues penalties 'cause nothing really matters to him besides filling a tournament report - and he often doesn't want to hurt his relations with his playing friends. Most of the time he's just sitting at his table or watching the game he likes. Players quickly understand that he doesn't like questions, so they try to solve any questions between themselves. That means that mean and experienced players often gain the psychological advantage over the newbies, and some of them use the advantage to increase their chances of winning. Compare this to the behaviour of a good judge. A good judge is always near and always ready to answer any question and solve any problem. He is absolutely fair, so he is going to issue any penalty recommended by the rules, even to his closest friend. As a result, players usually call him 10 times more than they would call a bad judge, and players NEVER solve the complicated questions anong themselves. This guarantees the right rulings and the fair play for all players, if the judge isn't overcrowded. I think that a good tournament should have at least one judge per 25-30 players, so you needed at least 4 good judges at your Ropecon to ensure a good order. If you don't have any open scandals at the tournament, that doesn't mean that everything is OK. Without a good judging, this usually means that some players perform his duties without his responsibilities. This may (and usually does) provide them an unfair advantage. So please don't think that having a "bookkeeper" instead of a judge is normal. Guess why I know the "bookkeeping" judges so well? Because we had some of them here in Magic. I'm not playing Magic for several years, but I'm sure that if I decided to judge the local tournament, players would prefer me to the remaining judges, since I'm NOT a "bookkepper". I'm a real judge, and players appreciate it. > Rules and practical issues (like someone being late) are mostly solved > without the judge. Players are sensible in general, which results in a > pleasant, relaxed athmosphere (mature... old... where was I?). And > people do play competitively here, getting angry about the game, > personality differences and all. If rules questions are solved without the judge, that means that the judge is AWFUL. Or that there should be more judges. We all know that VTES has complicated rules, and sometimes the "obvious" ruling is completely wrong. Also, if your players tend to solve even rules questions qithout a judge, nobody is going to notice such things as unsportsmanlike behaviour, PTW violation, without even talking about cheating. Don't you know that you're effectively playing without a judge? > I understand that the situation might be different where you play, but > this is just to illustrate that the environment (context) corresponds > to the perception of the role of the judge. Relaxed approach works > well here, IMO, and as it works, I see no reason to deliberately > increase judge's workload with mandatory decklist checking et al. The > organising stuff is already pretty burdening, especially in large > tournaments. And people do it for fun :) It would be very interesting to judge your tournament and demonstrate you how many rules violations you regularly have. You'd be really surprised. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be so happy when you would see them yourself. "Relaxed approach" really "works", if you mean that nobody takes a gun or knife, but it never "works" in terms of having a tournament without rules violations. If you don't have enough judges or organising stuff, you should recruit more. And those people should work instead of getting fun. Somebody always works to provide fun for the rest. Yours, Ector

On Apr 16, 2:39 pm, Derek Ray <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: > Ector wrote: > > sense" into YOUR head. Such absolute confidence is usually a sign of > > stupidity, yes? I may be stubborn enough, but I'm always ready to > > learn something new. > > ...as long as it doesn't conflict with your existing opinions. As long as my opponents have serious arguments. Something different from the "we played this way from the very beginning and never had any problems". 'Cause I know from my past Magic experience that problems always exist, but some "judges" just refuse to see them. > I, too, am 35, and as a child I was profoundly affected by the state of > life in a country in direct opposition to that totalitarian regime. The > Berlin Wall fell at the midpoint of my life, and my world changed > completely in a heartbeat. But my world didn't change. I was wondering why Soviets left the Eastern Germany without a single shot, but that didn't mean much for me. I've never been in Germany (that was nearly impossible for a common Soviet citizen), and, frankly, nobody believed in Communism here. That's why the Communist regime fall so easily. > If you're trying to tell us that for the first 18 years of your life, > you weren't seriously affected by the regime where you were living, > well,... you know, I just don't see anyone believing you, since we can > all see it in your "laws before all else, draconian punishments for > lawbreakers" mentality and mindset. Again, you're still pursuing the wrong duck. Russia never was "a land of order", especially in the last years of Socialism (that you call Communism). Don't mess Russia with China, they are completely different. And once again, I'm not calling for "draconian punishments" - is all your imagination. Punishment should correspond to the infraction. All my training comes from my Magic judging experience, and DCI are not communists, I presume :) Any Magic judge worth his salt would tell you the same things I did. > > "Such absolute confidence is usually a sign of stupidity, yes?" > I don't have "absolute confidence", but in this case I cannot even determine the opposing point of view to think about it. What are these people trying to tell me? "VTES isn't that serious"? False, at least for the major events. Any person who spent a lot of time and money to get at the tournament is going to take it seriously. And The competition will arise despite the prize, even without the prize at all - just for a title of champion. "We've played this way for XXX years, without any problems"? False. When there is competition, problems between players are going to arise. If the judge never had to solve these problems, this only means that the players solved them WITHOUT the judge, which is awful. "Decklists doesn't worth the efforts to fill them"? False. The efforts are minimal - most players can just print the decklist from any deckbuilder program. The benefits are always present, even without any deckchecks, since the potential cheaters know that the judge CAN perform the deckcheck, and without the decklists he cannot. If you tell me what is your point, I promise to think about it. But it would be great if you'd think about my points, too, instead of discussing my strange personality :) Yours, Ector

On Apr 17, 10:55 am, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: 'Cause I know from my past Magic experience > Yours, > Ector Ector, get this straight. We do niot play Magic here. We don't give a rats arse about Magic here. Anything you gained from Magic judging is not gonna help you here as what you learned is mostly likely not only useless, but bad and dangerous. So pease shut up about your utterly frikkin useless magic experience. Okay?

On Apr 17, 10:55 am, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > Yours, > Ector And your trolling. So stop it.

On 17 apr, 10:51, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "hp" <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. <snip drivel about bookkeeping judges> You know, if I saw a judge meddling in a game where a/ he wasn't asked anything in b/ nothing was happening I would tell the 'good judge' to shut up and butt out. You don't meddle with games that don't need it. Period.

In article <1176800110.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > "VTES isn't that serious"? No one has ever made that claim. In fact, I'm pretty certain I said, over and over again, "VTES is a game people take seriously." Don't make stuff up. > "We've played this way for XXX years, without any problems"? No one has ever made that claim either. What folks have said is "We've played without decklists for XXX years, without any problems that having decklists would have had any significant impact on." Which is a completely different issue. Don't make stuff up. > "Decklists doesn't worth the efforts to fill them"? This is something folks have said, yes. And the reason is that the times that decklists actually become important are vastly, vastly outweighed by the vast majority of the time that they are little more than a pain in the ass. And both are outweighed by the fact that the existence of decklists occasionally results in things like people getting effectively DQed from the finals due to having 1 less card in their deck than they should. > But it > would be great if you'd think about my points, too, instead of > discussing my strange personality :) Just as a point of internet savy, it is usually a bad idea to answer personal questions about yourself when they are asked by potentially hostile strangers. Considering the level of paranoia you exhibit in this discussion, I'm baffled that you would fall for such a thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "hp" <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. > > Instead of blood orgies (I play with HG occasionally :P), the kinkiest > > things are some obscure rules questions or the occasional Gird > > Minions(CE). "Maintaining order" consists of announcing some general > > quidelines about the timetable and practical issues, like where is > > table number 11. This is also the way it works in the biggest annual > > finnish Vtes tournament, the Ropecon (95 players last year). [SNIP] > If you don't have any open scandals at the tournament, that doesn't > mean that everything is OK. [SNIP] > > Relaxed approach works > > well here, IMO, and as it works, I see no reason to deliberately > > increase judge's workload with mandatory decklist checking et al. The > > organising stuff is already pretty burdening, especially in large > > tournaments. And people do it for fun :) > It would be very interesting to judge your tournament It'll be a cold, cold day in Hell before we'll allow that. > and demonstrate you how many rules violations you regularly have. > You'd be really surprised. Not only would you find lots of rules violations we couldn't catch, you'd also find evidence for witchcraft and weapons of mass destruction. I mean, Jesus Christ, Ector, do you realize what you just implied? You have not played a single, solitary game in Finland, yet you have deduced that every single Finnish player is either: A) a rampant cheater, or B) so pathetically blind and stupid they can't catch even a single cheater, not even by accident. That's either slander or paranoia. Are there any bridges you have not burned? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 17, 5:49 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The Fascists-R-Us bridge?

In message <1176799901....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >I've expected that. Realy. A "bookkeeping judge" is the most classical >example of a bad judge. He refuses to see any problems or participate >in them. He never issues penalties 'cause nothing really matters to >him besides filling a tournament report - and he often doesn't want to >hurt his relations with his playing friends. Most of the time he's >just sitting at his table or watching the game he likes. Players >quickly understand that he doesn't like questions, so they try to >solve any questions between themselves. No, these are two entirely separate things. On the one hand, you have a judge who doesn't intervene in games. This is, by and large, a good thing. Obviously, some games will need some intervention - correcting an incorrect play, explaining the finer points of deal-making, or something. But most games do *not* need a judge standing over them the whole time, because the players know how to play, by and large. On the other hand, you have answering questions. A judge may know a lot about the game without necessarily wanting to intervene a lot. Or you may get judges who think they know everything based on, I don't know, years of experience of something irrelevant, who'll intervene all the time. These two things do not go hand in hand. >Compare this to the behaviour of a good judge. A good judge is always >near and always ready to answer any question and solve any problem. This is fine. And this does *not* require a judge floating over every single table the whole time. A quick question can be asked. I've been at tournaments where someone has yelled for me across a room. I go and answer question. Done. >He >is absolutely fair, so he is going to issue any penalty recommended by >the rules, even to his closest friend. No. The penalties in the rules are guidelines, and guidelines only. The rules explicitly state that there can be extenuating circumstances one way or the other. A good judge applies the spirit of the penalty guidelines, not the letter of them. >As a result, players usually >call him 10 times more than they would call a bad judge, and players >NEVER solve the complicated questions anong themselves. Hardly true. Players on a table can be extremely talented and knowledgeable. I've seen players call judges for all sorts of things, or work things out amongst themselves and only call the judge if someone objects, with a variety of different judges. > This >guarantees the right rulings and the fair play for all players, if the >judge isn't overcrowded. I think that a good tournament should have at >least one judge per 25-30 players, And this number is based on? How many large V:TES tournaments have you run? In how many different areas? With what cross-section of players? How many large V:TES tournaments have you attended? I've run nine table tournaments on my own without any trouble getting to a table to give a quick ruling, or look up a lengthy ruling now and then. The only difficult part about that sort of thing is trying to herd players back into the playing area after they've gone to get drinks, or whatever. (It also helps that I'm not afraid to yell to attract attention when necessary, like when starting a new round.) >If you don't have any open scandals at the tournament, that doesn't >mean that everything is OK. How are you personally deciding that tournaments you're not at have so much disorder? We're not getting players coming out of the woodwork here, plying the newsgroup with anecdotes of "Man, there was this tournament and the judge was so bad, and the players were fucking each other over the tables, and performing satanic blood orgies, and it was crazy, and everything would have been better with two judges." >> Rules and practical issues (like someone being late) are mostly solved >> without the judge. Players are sensible in general, which results in a >> pleasant, relaxed athmosphere (mature... old... where was I?). And >> people do play competitively here, getting angry about the game, >> personality differences and all. >If rules questions are solved without the judge, that means that the >judge is AWFUL. Bullshit. Newbie: Do I get pool from the Edge in my untap phase or my master phase? Player A: Untap. Yeah, the judge is awful. Cry me a fucking river. >Also, if your players tend to solve even rules >questions qithout a judge, nobody is going to notice such things as >unsportsmanlike behaviour, PTW violation, without even talking about >cheating. Don't you know that you're effectively playing without a >judge? But tournaments aren't being played without judges. A judge can easily make everyone aware that he/she can - and should - be called over if any player has any doubts about anything at all. But by and large, players are mature and not retards trying to subvert the moral fibre of society. I assume that in Belarus players are immature and are trying to subvert the moral fibre of society, based on your bizarre attitudes. >It would be very interesting to judge your tournament and demonstrate >you how many rules violations you regularly have. You'd be really >surprised. Not really. As you demonstrate repeatedly, your understanding of the game is - erm - somewhat shaky. Remember kids, decklists are required, no wait, recommended, no wait, what....? >"Relaxed approach" really "works", if you >mean that nobody takes a gun or knife, V:TES decks are not guns. You are not a policeman. Playing V:TES is not a crime. >but it never "works" in terms >of having a tournament without rules violations. >If you don't have enough judges or organising stuff, you should >recruit more. Why are you going to recruit any? Aren't you busy getting mad that V:TES is never going to be a sport when, you know, it never has been one and has never pretended to be one? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <WNbqZikA...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I assume that in Belarus players are immature and are trying to subvert > the moral fibre of society, based on your bizarre attitudes. Really, I think all we can assume here is that Ector has a deeply twisted (paranoid/bleak/unrealistically suspicious) world view and possibly a deep contempt for the people in his play environment--he spends an awful lot of time selling out his player base in the name of propping up his argument (see: "My players aren't monkeys because I trained them!" and "If not for the watchmen, everyone will cheat!"). That, and the one time someone else from his play group chimed in, he was all like "Uh, yeah, we aren't all idiots. Ector is a bit wacky sometimes." So in reality, I suspect that players in Belarus are just like players everywhere else--cognizant, basically honest, more or less grown ups who like playing VTES and realize that it is kinda stupid to cheat, so they generally don't. But then, if Ector owned up to that, most of his argument would crumble away... > Playing V:TES is not a crime. I totally want a t-shirt that says that. With an exclamation point at the end. And a fist in the air! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 17, 2:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <WNbqZikAOSJGF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Playing V:TES is not a crime. > > I totally want a t-shirt that says that. With an exclamation point at > the end. And a fist in the air! And I think you know the perfect fist. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/images/IconDisPot.gif :-)

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6- EB3204.172...@news-server.stny.rr.com: >> Playing V:TES is not a crime. > > I totally want a t-shirt that says that. With an exclamation point at > the end. And a fist in the air! > ...Only if it's the Fist of Rock, dude. http://rockkansas.com/reviews/images/movies/solid-rock.jpg Wrist-band optional... DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] In case you didn't notice, my "utterly frikkin useless magic experience" would allow me to avoid issuing GLs at the finals if I would judge that Hungarian ECQ. So I cannot agree that it's totally useless. >And your trolling. So stop it. So, you are trying to make me shut up, without any serious arguments, but I'm trolling? I always thought that "trolling" means being rude and uncivilized. Yours, Ector

On Apr 17, 12:53 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 17 apr, 10:51, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "hp" <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. > > <snip drivel about bookkeeping judges> > > You know, if I saw a judge meddling in a game where > a/ he wasn't asked anything in > b/ nothing was happening Why do you think that a good judge is going to meddle in the game where nobody is asking him any questions and nobody violates the rules? > I would tell the 'good judge' to shut up and butt out. > You don't meddle with games that don't need it. Period. Definitely. But if the judge noticed a rules violation, he MUST fix it immediately. BTW, telling a judge to "shut up and butt out" is DQ. Yours, Ector

In message <1176876352.5...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >BTW, telling a judge to "shut up and butt out" is DQ. That's entirely based on the circumstances. A judge could easily realise that, in fact, the players were right and that he didn't need to meddle. At which point, which is the proper course of action? DQ-ing a player who made them realise that, in fact, their intervention was pointless all along, or learning from the experience and moving on? Note that telling a judge to shut up and butt out need not be phrased in that exact manner! Note that the example for disqualification does not fit this situation: "(B) A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a judge after the judge has made a final ruling." There's no indication of a final ruling, nor excessive belligerence, in the described situation. The rules and guidelines make it clear that the punishment should fit the problem. Asking a judge to leave things alone is not a problem. Any judge who feels the need to knee-jerk into DQ-ing a player because his understanding of the game was challenged has problems. And not V:TES based ones. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1176876105.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: >In case you didn't notice, my "utterly frikkin useless magic >experience" would allow me to avoid issuing GLs at the finals if I >would judge that Hungarian ECQ. So I cannot agree that it's totally >useless. Yet you make just as many bullshit arguments based on your Magic experience that you *cannot* rely on it. Sometimes, just sometimes, you'll get the right answer by doing the wrong thing. Applying Magic rulings to V:TES is the wrong thing but sometimes, just sometimes, you'll get answers that match. That doesn't mean the procedure is right, relevant, or helpful. >So, you are trying to make me shut up, without any serious arguments, >but I'm trolling? I always thought that "trolling" means being rude >and uncivilized. No. That's not what trolling means. When someone accuses you of something and your understanding of the meaning does not fit the situation, it is usually sensible to look up the meaning. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=trolling&btnG=Google+Search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 apr, 08:05, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 17, 12:53 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On 17 apr, 10:51, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > On Apr 16, 10:47 am, "hp" <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In the tournaments here the judge's role is mostly bookkeeping. > > > <snip drivel about bookkeeping judges> > > > You know, if I saw a judge meddling in a game where > > a/ he wasn't asked anything in > > b/ nothing was happening > > Why do you think that a good judge is going to meddle in the game > where nobody is asking him any questions and nobody violates the > rules? Because you said as much. > > > I would tell the 'good judge' to shut up and butt out. > > You don't meddle with games that don't need it. Period. > > Definitely. But if the judge noticed a rules violation, he MUST fix it > immediately. Right. see b/ above > BTW, telling a judge to "shut up and butt out" is DQ. Sorry to dispell you power trip fantasy about being a judge. If no-one called for a judge and nothing is going wrong, I can tell the judge to mind his own bussiness. Untill he sees something going wrong or someone asks him something he's a bystander just like any other. If you DQ people for that, you're even more stupid than I expected.

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1176884799.9...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Heh. I'm getting the impression that Ector's VTES tournaments go a bit like this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM ;-) DZ AW

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:Xns9916646B2F...@207.115.17.102... > Heh. I'm getting the impression that Ector's VTES tournaments go a bit > like this; > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM > oooh! Do you think he wears the mask too?

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in news:TSrVh.126961 $NH4.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be: [ quoted text not captured ] ...Could he be 'The Law' without it? :-) DZ AW

On Apr 18, 11:26 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Why do you think that a good judge is going to meddle in the game > > where nobody is asking him any questions and nobody violates the > > rules? > > Because you said as much. WHAT??? When did I say this? I said that a good judge should be always near to answer the questions and react to the rules infractions if they appear. The first thing judge learns is "If you can avoid meddling in the game, don't meddle". I would be very grateful if you show me any words of mine that contradict this obvious rule. > > > BTW, telling a judge to "shut up and butt out" is DQ. > > Sorry to dispell you power trip fantasy about being a judge. If no-one > called for a judge and nothing is going wrong, I can tell the judge to > mind his own bussiness. Untill he sees something going wrong or > someone asks him something he's a bystander just like any other. You didn't "dispell" anything. I know what a good judge needs, and your words didn't change anything. According to the VEKN Judges Guidelines, if you tell a judge to "shut up and butt out", this can be treated as Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Severe: 152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Severe ... Example: ... (B) A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a judge after the judge has made a final ruling. Penalty: DQ without prize. If you would use more polite words, it would be just Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major, with a GL as a result. A player CANNOT tell a judge to mind his own business, If the judge meddles in the game, he is feeling that this is needed. Players cannot properly evaluate the judge's intention, they just need to believe that the judge acts to maintain order. If you ask a decent judge why did he meddle (after the game), he will always explain you his reason. > If you DQ people for that, you're even more stupid than I expected. No, I'm not going to DQ people for that. Usually I just remind a player how harsh are the penalties for arguing with judge after he made his decision. That was always enough. But If a player would still try to argue, there would be no other way for me. The head judge's decision is final. Yours, Ector

"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht news:1176923510....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 18, 11:26 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Why do you think that a good judge is going to meddle in the game >> > where nobody is asking him any questions and nobody violates the >> > rules? >> >> Because you said as much. > WHAT??? When did I say this? I said that a good judge should be always > near to answer the questions and react to the rules infractions if > they appear. > The first thing judge learns is "If you can avoid meddling in the > game, don't meddle". I would be very grateful if you show me any words > of mine that contradict this obvious rule. > >> >> > BTW, telling a judge to "shut up and butt out" is DQ. >> >> Sorry to dispell you power trip fantasy about being a judge. If no-one >> called for a judge and nothing is going wrong, I can tell the judge to >> mind his own bussiness. Untill he sees something going wrong or >> someone asks him something he's a bystander just like any other. > You didn't "dispell" anything. So you still have the power trip fantasy? >I know what a good judge needs, and > your words didn't change anything. You are maybe missing the point that NO-ONE on this fucking newgroup agrees with you? > > According to the VEKN Judges Guidelines, Hey, look: you used the word GUIDELINES... now get it in you head too.... > if you tell a judge to "shut > up and butt out", this can be treated as Unsportsmanlike Conduct - > Severe: can, but in the above case, shouldn't. See James' answer... > > 152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Severe > ... > Example: > ... > (B) A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a > judge after the judge has made a final ruling. > Penalty: DQ without prize. That's something completely different. That assumes a/ a judgement call was needed and made by the judge b/ player keeps arguing in the above described manner. > > If you would use more polite words, it would be just Unsportsmanlike > Conduct - Major, with a GL as a result. That would be if I fr'ex advised the judge to have maternal anal intercourse or something of the like. >A player CANNOT tell a judge > to mind his own business, yes, he can. And should, IMO, if he thinks the judge doesn't need to intervene. V:TES tournements are not a police state. >If the judge meddles in the game, he is > feeling that this is needed. Players cannot properly evaluate the > judge's intention, they just need to believe that the judge acts to > maintain order. If you ask a decent judge why did he meddle (after the > game), he will always explain you his reason. Roll eyes so far that I'm now looking at my brain. thanks... > >> If you DQ people for that, you're even more stupid than I expected. > No, I'm not going to DQ people for that. Usually I just remind a > player how harsh are the penalties for arguing with judge after he > made his decision. That was always enough. But If a player would still > try to argue, there would be no other way for me. The head judge's > decision is final. > *sigh*

On Apr 18, 9:53 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Yet you make just as many bullshit arguments based on your Magic > experience that you *cannot* rely on it. Surely I cannot *rely* on it! Where did I say that I can? Obviously, sometimes that experience even hurts, but that still doesn't mean that it's useless. Actually I'd say that even a football judge's experience would be somewhat useful if that judge would decide to move to VTES. The basic principles of judging are similar in every sport game. A good football judge has to be near the ball to see the game as close as possible without intervening it; he should notice all rules violations and issue the proper penalties. As well as the good VTES judge. BTW, does anyone think that football players are "rampant cheaters"? No. The competition makes them to violate rules - sometimes unintentionally, sometimes "almost unintentionally", even though you won't find a lot of determined cheaters there. The same thing is about VTES or any other sport game. Note that while a football judge can become a good judge, a "bookkeeper judge" cannot. He doesn't know the very basics, and he doesn't want to learn. He believes that everything would be right without him - and that's utopia. If the players don't feel that they can call a judge EVERY MOMENT, and the judge would immediately solve all problems, the order will disappear. Example 1: I wasn't a judge at the local Minsk Open tournament. One player had Rumors of Gehenna that worked for several players. When that player was ousted, players decided (incorrectly) that Rumors should stay on the table, since it worked for several remaining players. Nobody even thought about calling the judge, for some mysterious reason. It was so obvious for them! When the same situation appeared in the finals, I was watching the game and provided a correct ruling. Then, the players argued that the card stayed on the table in the preliminary game! Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't animal. I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is called "misrepresentation". I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. > Sometimes, just sometimes, you'll get the right answer by doing the > wrong thing. Applying Magic rulings to V:TES is the wrong thing but > sometimes, just sometimes, you'll get answers that match. That doesn't > mean the procedure is right, relevant, or helpful. The rules we're discussing here are absolutely the same as the corresponding Magic rules (more correctly, DCI rules, as they are the same for almost all Wizards games). The games' difference cannot change the most basic principles such as the need of issuing penalties for illegal deck. The only different thing is the MEANING of GL in VTES and Magic, and that's why we direly need an intermediate penalty between Warning and GL - VP Loss would be great. But the philosophy of these rules is the same for ALL CCGs, so I cannot see why Magic experience cannot help here. Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as long as the game has such rules. Should it really be non-sporting, nobody would even think about judges or penalties. Do you need a judge when you play Monopoly with your children? > >So, you are trying to make me shut up, without any serious arguments, > >but I'm trolling? I always thought that "trolling" means being rude > >and uncivilized. > > No. That's not what trolling means. > > When someone accuses you of something and your understanding of the > meaning does not fit the situation, it is usually sensible to look up > the meaning. > Thanks for your links. Sometimes things that seem obvious (such as "troll") are not obvious at all. "In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding." This is absolutely not working in my case. I don't want to "bait users into responding" - actually, I have no time to answer the already posted responds. If my posts were "inflammatory" - that's because we're discussing a very important matter, and I simply have to try to change the status quo. And the best answer to this accusation can be found on the same page: "The term "troll" is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." I couldn't say better myself! :) As far as I can see, "argument fallacy" is absolutely correct statement about my opposition. They really have no arguments besides the tradition, which is actually rather harmful. Yours, Ector

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:Xns99168C4D6...@207.115.17.102... > ...Could he be 'The Law' without it? :-) It's not without precendent....stupid Stalone. :-) Anyhoo: back on topic. If I, as a Judge, see someone that might be violating the PTW, by fr'ex, not playing a S&B deck. What's the appropriate penalty? Dismemberment? A Bellyshot (not the good kind!)? Decapitation, maybe?

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Moot. No self-respecting player will tolerate a judge who foolishly tries to enforce rules and bring ORDER to the tournament. Before you can make the call, you have already been sacrificed for the glory of Satan. And sodomized. In that order. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 17, 10:44 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > No, these are two entirely separate things. > > On the one hand, you have a judge who doesn't intervene in games. This > is, by and large, a good thing. Obviously, some games will need some > intervention - correcting an incorrect play, explaining the finer points > of deal-making, or something. But most games do *not* need a judge > standing over them the whole time, because the players know how to play, > by and large. Fine. If everything is OK, the judge wouldn't mess. But is everything ALWAYS goes right? I'd say that a bad judge just refuses to see any problems. And that's awful. > On the other hand, you have answering questions. A judge may know a lot > about the game without necessarily wanting to intervene a lot. Or you > may get judges who think they know everything based on, I don't know, > years of experience of something irrelevant, who'll intervene all the > time. Nobody would intervene all the time!!! Who said you that somebody is going to? > > >Compare this to the behaviour of a good judge. A good judge is always > >near and always ready to answer any question and solve any problem. > > This is fine. And this does *not* require a judge floating over every > single table the whole time. A quick question can be asked. I've been > at tournaments where someone has yelled for me across a room. I go and > answer question. Done. The more questions your players will ask, the better judge you are. My players don't hesitate to ask even the most newbish and the most obvious questions if they aren't sure. > >He > >is absolutely fair, so he is going to issue any penalty recommended by > >the rules, even to his closest friend. > > No. > > The penalties in the rules are guidelines, and guidelines only. The > rules explicitly state that there can be extenuating circumstances one > way or the other. > > A good judge applies the spirit of the penalty guidelines, not the > letter of them. Definitely. I mean that the good judge would determine the right penalty according to his judgement on the case, despite his personal relations to the players. You know, there are three parts: intention, action and consequences, and all three must be evaluated. An experienced judge needs little time for that. > >As a result, players usually > >call him 10 times more than they would call a bad judge, and players > >NEVER solve the complicated questions anong themselves. > > Hardly true. Players on a table can be extremely talented and > knowledgeable. I've seen players call judges for all sorts of things, > or work things out amongst themselves and only call the judge if someone > objects, with a variety of different judges. I wasn't so lucky to see those "extremely talented and knowledgeable", but there are some players here who know the rules pretty well, and they still ask me questions quite often. Player may have a glitch and fail to recall the simple rule, he may need a confirmation that card X can be played in this situation, and so on. If a judge is well- respected and friendly enough, he will get a lot of questions. > > This > >guarantees the right rulings and the fair play for all players, if the > >judge isn't overcrowded. I think that a good tournament should have at > >least one judge per 25-30 players, > > And this number is based on? How many large V:TES tournaments have you > run? In how many different areas? With what cross-section of players? > How many large V:TES tournaments have you attended? This number is based only on my experience. The largest VTES tournament I've run had 21 players, and it was extremely difficult to run it. I seriously doubt that I will be able to answer all questions of 40 players and oversee 8 tables at once. > I've run nine table tournaments on my own without any trouble getting to > a table to give a quick ruling, or look up a lengthy ruling now and > then. The only difficult part about that sort of thing is trying to > herd players back into the playing area after they've gone to get > drinks, or whatever. Well, things may seem to run smoothly, but, IMHO, if ANY player refused to call a judge and decided to get an answer from the other players on his table - that's very bad and can lead to serious misrepresentations and violations of rules. If the judge is too busy (and with nine tables he's going to be busy for sure), this will happen inevitably. But, certainly, I was talking just about the "ideal" situation, i.e. ideally it would be right to have a judge per 25-30 players. > (It also helps that I'm not afraid to yell to attract attention when > necessary, like when starting a new round.) Oh, that's a habit of all experienced judges. I could easily make an announcement for a hundred of players, too :) > >If you don't have any open scandals at the tournament, that doesn't > >mean that everything is OK. > > How are you personally deciding that tournaments you're not at have so > much disorder? Easily. I can evaluate the number of problems that would be not solved without my intervention. The number is quite high. > We're not getting players coming out of the woodwork here, plying the > newsgroup with anecdotes of "Man, there was this tournament and the > judge was so bad, and the players were fucking each other over the > tables, and performing satanic blood orgies, and it was crazy, and > everything would have been better with two judges." Surely not. But each player has its own vision of the game and its rules, and only the judge is supposed to have the RIGHT vision. If Noobie Tim asks the players at his table whether he can play card X o not, the Bragging Joe will always say his opinion about it, and as long as Tim considers him an experienced player, he won't doubt in his words. Later, he may discover that Joe's ruling was wrong. We have similar situations quite often. When I told about the two judges, I meant one Head Judge and one Assistant Judge, not two Head Judges, of course. > >If rules questions are solved without the judge, that means that the > >judge is AWFUL. > > Bullshit. > > Newbie: Do I get pool from the Edge in my untap phase or my master > phase? > Player A: Untap. > > Yeah, the judge is awful. > > Cry me a fucking river. No need to cry at all. Compare this to: "Hey, Judge! Do I get pool from the Edge in my untap phase or my master phase?" This is 1000 times better, since the newbie is absolutely sure that the judge will provide right and detailed answer. How can the newbie be so sure in the other players? How??? Note that the players aren't OBLIGED to provide the right or detailed answers, and they can provide wrong answers. How are you going to punish them if you OCCASIONALLY get to know that they provided the wrong ruling? They CAN really know the rules badly. Moreover, other players can get the unwanted advantage from the question itself. For instance: "Can I play Archon Investigation now?" My players tend to call me, show me the card and quietly ask: "Can I play THIS now?" And even if sometimes the question is so simple that every more-or- less experienced player can easily answer (as in your example), players should get accustomed to ask a JUDGE, since answering questions is his job. That was my point, and it's far from being "bullshit". > >Also, if your players tend to solve even rules > >questions qithout a judge, nobody is going to notice such things as > >unsportsmanlike behaviour, PTW violation, without even talking about > >cheating. Don't you know that you're effectively playing without a > >judge? > > But tournaments aren't being played without judges. A judge that is hard to call, or a judge that doesn't oversee the tables = no judge. > A judge can easily make everyone aware that he/she can - and should - be > called over if any player has any doubts about anything at all. But by > and large, players are mature and not retards trying to subvert the > moral fibre of society. Yes, he can. For a "bokkeeping judge" it would be "Call me if you cannot solve the question yourself" :) Our players are mixed. There are mature players, and there are newbies. All appreciate judge's attention and availability. > I assume that in Belarus players are immature and are trying to subvert > the moral fibre of society, based on your bizarre attitudes. My attitude is absolutely normal. > >It would be very interesting to judge your tournament and demonstrate > >you how many rules violations you regularly have. You'd be really > >surprised. > > Not really. As you demonstrate repeatedly, your understanding of the > game is - erm - somewhat shaky. Well, my experience in VTES judging isn't large enough yet. But I'm working on it. > Remember kids, decklists are required, no wait, recommended, no wait, > what....? I require the decklists for all my tournaments. And cannot see any reasons to play without them. Even the most lazy of my players are able to submit them. > >"Relaxed approach" really "works", if you > >mean that nobody takes a gun or knife, > > V:TES decks are not guns. > > You are not a policeman. > > Playing V:TES is not a crime. It was just a my commentary to the word "works". How can a judge be sure that everything is OK, if he doesn't oversee the tables? > >but it never "works" in terms > >of having a tournament without rules violations. > >If you don't have enough judges or organising stuff, you should > >recruit more. > > Why are you going to recruit any? Because I feel that I won't be able to "properly serve" so many tables alone. > Aren't you busy getting mad that V:TES is never going to be a sport > when, you know, it never has been one and has never pretended to be one? To me, VTES is a sport. This madness takes no time :) All time goes to work. Yours, Ector

On Apr 18, 1:51 pm, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 18, 9:53 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > BTW, does anyone think that football players are "rampant cheaters"? > No. The competition makes them to violate rules - sometimes > unintentionally, sometimes "almost unintentionally", even though you > won't find a lot of determined cheaters there. The same thing is about > VTES or any other sport game. > Example 1: I wasn't a judge at the local Minsk Open tournament. One > player had Rumors of Gehenna that worked for several players. When > that player was ousted, players decided (incorrectly) that Rumors > should stay on the table, since it worked for several remaining > players. Nobody even thought about calling the judge, for some > mysterious reason. It was so obvious for them! When the same situation > appeared in the finals, I was watching the game and provided a correct > ruling. Then, the players argued that the card stayed on the table in > the preliminary game! I don't see the relevance here - are you saying it was a bad judge because the players didn't feel the need to call him over for something that was obvious? You weren't a judge, but you gave a correct ruling? Did you then disqualify all the players for arguing with you? This game is complicated. The interactions of so many cards frequently turn up with circumstances that players don't anticipate. Generally, if all players think something operates in a certain way, they're probably right. In any event, it's always the responsibility of players harmed by something to speak up and get the judge's input if something sounds fishy. These players clearly aren't taking the game seriously. You should remind them of how seriously they should take it if they expect you to judge them. > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > animal. I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > called "misrepresentation". That's a game gone crazy! It's a problem if you can't get 5 players together where either (a) one of them knows the rules of the game or (b) is competitive enough to challenge anything that seems wrong. I think the reason that people here feel less of a need for judges is that so many players remain up to date and current on the rules, for example by reading this news group. > I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did > go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I > really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. So those two examples were games gone crazy because they didn't have a good judge? Thank you. Just, thank you. > The games' difference cannot change the most basic principles > such as the need of issuing penalties for illegal deck. Yes, they can. Peter gave good reasons. Dozens of times. In this thread alone. You have to respect someone patient and willing enough to make the exact same point over and over again without ever breaking into condescension. > Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as > long as the game has such rules. The beauty of having guidelines rather than bright-line rules is that each judge can exercise her judgment to best reflect the needs and wants of the local player base. If the players are friendly or recreational, they can make do with less strict rules, and enjoy competitive game play. If your players need to feel like they are on trial to enjoy themselves (that is why they play the game, isn't it?), then more power to you. > Should it really be non-sporting, nobody would even think about judges or penalties. Or, we would have our judges spend a lot of time organizing and coordinating the event, assigning players to tables, and resolving rules questions as they come up. And we use penalties to correct behavior that is significantly detracting from the enjoyment of the game by others: penalties deter players from ruining the good times of other players. Which is why we keep arguing that the game is recreational. > As far as I can see, "argument fallacy" is absolutely correct > statement about my opposition. They really have no arguments besides > the tradition, which is actually rather harmful. At the core, you have no argument other than that subjectively you think the game would be better another way. Which is fine, but is also, you know, subjective - if your players are happy that way, more power to you, but I hope you understand why no one else is inclined to go along with it. Your insistence that everyone else is wrong, rather than just leaving it that you think it would be better, seems to be why you provoke such a vehement response. That and that most of your arguments make no sense, misstate others' positions, and rely on straw men to claim absurd positions are, in fact, reasonable.

On Apr 15, 7:27 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Everyone else, I have only one question > 1) Having spent all this time, effort and energy trying to understand > the mind of someone that i personally find somewhat twisted, and after > expending all this energy, coming to realise that it will never make a > difference, do any of you still care? I needed a fair bit of English translated into Russian a while ago. I asked Ector for his help in this, and he very courteously assisted me. I understand why he draws heat in these forums, but he isn't a bad guy. At least not in my book. -- David Cherryholmes

In article <1176946154....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > I needed a fair bit of English translated into Russian a while ago. I > asked Ector for his help in this, and he very courteously assisted > me. I understand why he draws heat in these forums, but he isn't a > bad guy. At least not in my book. Heh. Just to be fair here, in the past, I have always been amused by Ector, and I suspect that he is actually a reasonable guy and his heart is in the right place. I think discussion, however, he is coming off as kind of crazily fascistic. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector wrote: > On Apr 18, 9:53 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Yet you make just as many bullshit arguments based on your Magic >> experience that you *cannot* rely on it. > Surely I cannot *rely* on it! Where did I say that I can? Obviously, > sometimes that experience even hurts, but that still doesn't mean that > it's useless. Ector, the problem is that you do not know the difference. Could M:TG experience be helpful? Possibly. Could it hurt? We know at least two ways in which it can, since you've mentioned two mistakes you've made where you tried to apply M:TG concepts to V:TES. But you aren't even experienced enough to know when it'll help and when it might hurt ... and that renders it useless. > BTW, does anyone think that football players are "rampant cheaters"? First, I'm going to assume that you mean round-ball football. Second, yes, actually, diving is rampant in football, as are a number of little pushes, shoves, knees, elbows, ... ALL outside the rules and all of which should be called immediately. Why aren't they? The referee cannot see because the offender is not close enough. So yes, I do think football players are "rampant cheaters"; I just think that due to the circumstances, both sides are permitted an equal opportunity to cheat, so the game remains fair. > without him - and that's utopia. If the players don't feel that they > can call a judge EVERY MOMENT, and the judge would immediately solve > all problems, the order will disappear. Note that this is different from the players not _wishing_ to call the judge because they believe they can resolve the situation on their own. > Example 1: I wasn't a judge at the local Minsk Open tournament. One > player had Rumors of Gehenna that worked for several players. When > that player was ousted, players decided (incorrectly) that Rumors > should stay on the table, since it worked for several remaining > players. Nobody even thought about calling the judge, for some > mysterious reason. Because everyone was happy with the situation. As long is everyone is playing by the same rules, even though the rules are incorrect, then the game remains fair. No, really. Believe it, it's a fact. > It was so obvious for them! When the same situation > appeared in the finals, I was watching the game and provided a correct > ruling. Then, the players argued that the card stayed on the table in > the preliminary game! ATROCIOUS BEHAVIOR. If you were a player in this tournament, you should have been given a verbal warning by the judge. If you were not a player, you should have been called aside by the judge and informed that you were NOT a judge, and to keep your mouth shut or you would be removed from the premises. First and foremost, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. Everyone makes mistakes; since you were not a judge, it is NOT your job to make that call. While in this case, you made a correct ruling, at some future time you might NOT be correct, and it is NOT your place to interfere! Second, YOU WERE NOT PLAYING THE GAME. You have no business interfering IN ANY FASHION in a game that you are not a judge for and whose table you are not a current, non-ousted player at. Even if the players asked you a question about a ruling, you should CALL THE JUDGE rather than render your own potentially-inaccurate opinion. Ector, you have an overinflated sense of your own importance, and you believe that your personal moral code reigns supreme over all others. This is awful and you should rectify it immediately, for your own sake if not for anyone else's. > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > animal. The difference here between this and the prior example can be summed up in three words: YOU WERE JUDGING. Your actions here are appropriate even if you are wrong, because it is your responsibility to make these decisions _and_ to correct illegal play if you see it. Plus, because you are the tournament judge, you have the right to interfere in a game in progress to do so; players who disagree with your ruling should take it up after the game is concluded. > I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > called "misrepresentation". This is called "that's not even as much as a verbal warning; just tell him 'You know that's not an animal, right?' and let them continue." > I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did > go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I > really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. You overestimate the desire for perfect, rigid order among players. This is a game, Ector. It will never be more than a game. You are not capable of making it more than a game; nobody is, but certainly not you. It will always be a game. There will never be another Magic, or another Pokemon, or even (thank god) another Yu-Gi-Oh. CCGs are a dying fad. People have moved on and are doing other things now. People want to have fun. They want to play seriously to a certain degree, as well. But they want to have fun, first and foremost. If everyone at a table agrees that a play is correct and you are not present to see the incorrect play, THAT IS OK. The players are all still happy, and are having fun. If someone is that concerned that the 'correct' ruling be made, then they will call the judge over, trust me. I can tell you from personal experience that US players have no fear of saying "Let's get an official ruling on that. Hey, Judge!", and I doubt that players in Belarus are much different. Sometimes, people will *gasp* play incorrectly, and nobody at the table will notice. In the grand scheme of things, however, it just does not matter. It is each player's responsibility to know the rules himself, and to summon the judge for a ruling if he believes those rules have been violated. If nobody summons the judge, nobody gets to complain later "but that wasn't fair". > same for almost all Wizards games). The games' difference cannot > change the most basic principles such as the need of issuing penalties > for illegal deck. No, there really is no NEED to issue penalties for an illegal deck. There are many circumstances where an illegal deck deserves no penalty whatsoever, because the alteration was completely unintentional. The classic case of a Haven Uncovered being found in someone's vote deck is, in fact, the best example here. It is obviously not the vote deck's. It is easy to ask the player "Who was playing Havens on you?" and confirm with the Archon that, in fact, the player he named was at a previous table. Then you ask the named player if his deck is intact, and sure enough, he will say "No, I'm missing a Haven". You restore both decks to the correct state, issue a verbal warning to "be more careful next time", and JUST. MOVE. ON. > The only different thing is the MEANING of GL in > VTES and Magic, and that's why we direly need an intermediate penalty > between Warning and GL - VP Loss would be great. For fuck's sake, if you need an intermediate penalty between Warning and Game Loss, then just ASSIGN ONE. Alternately, just issue a warning and say "Next warning, for whatever reason, will be an automatic GL." My god, are you incapable of thinking for yourself? > But the philosophy of > these rules is the same for ALL CCGs, so I cannot see why Magic > experience cannot help here. Because you are wrong. The philosophy is NOT the same. > Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as > long as the game has such rules. Should it really be non-sporting, > nobody would even think about judges or penalties. Do you need a judge > when you play Monopoly with your children? Well, Ector, it's a fact. V:TES is both friendly AND recreational. Even the tournaments. It won't ever be anything but, no matter how much you try to make it. Don't like it? Better quit the game now. > we're discussing a very important matter, and I simply have to try to > change the status quo. And the best answer to this accusation can be > found on the same page: No, Ector, you do not have to change the status quo. You have to admit that you are wrong about this, have been wrong about this, and that you will try to learn and apply that knowledge better next time. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

On Apr 18, 5:17 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > No self-respecting player will tolerate a judge who foolishly tries to > enforce rules and bring ORDER to the tournament. Before you can make the > call, you have already been sacrificed for the glory of Satan. And > sodomized. In that order. Wow. You guys don't even let the judge pick the order? That's hard- freaking-core, man. John Eno

On Apr 19, 1:23 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't see the relevance here - are you saying it was a bad judge > because the players didn't feel the need to call him over for > something that was obvious? No. It was a bad judge just because he wasn't near the table at the moment. Should he were near and be ready to answer, players would definitely ask him. And while it may be obvious to you, it doesn't have to obvious to your players. > You weren't a judge, but you gave a correct ruling? Did you then > disqualify all the players for arguing with you? Should I ignore this? I guess I should. > This game is complicated. The interactions of so many cards > frequently turn up with circumstances that players don't anticipate. > Generally, if all players think something operates in a certain way, > they're probably right. I've provided two examples when they were WRONG, and now you are telling me the opposite. Are you reading my posts at all? No serious judge can rely on brilliant knowledge of his players. For instance, Peter D. Bakija himself was mistakingly thinking that Skin of Night can prevent Rotschreck - you can safely assume that the less experienced players at his table going to believe his rulings. I'm not going to start any personal battles, just trying to demonstrate you WHY a good judge should always be near and ready to answer any questions. If any player isn't completely sure about some ruling, he can call the judge if the judge is near. This never hurts. If the judge isn't near, the player isn't going to look for him. Simply enough. > In any event, it's always the responsibility of players harmed by > something to speak up and get the judge's input if something sounds > fishy. > > These players clearly aren't taking the game seriously. You should > remind them of how seriously they should take it if they expect you to > judge them. Could you be more specific here? Why do you think that the players aren't taking the game seriously? Any player can make a mistake about rules. Even the most serious one. And who were "harmed" here? > > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > > animal. I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > > called "misrepresentation". > > That's a game gone crazy! > > It's a problem if you can't get 5 players together where either (a) > one of them knows the rules of the game or (b) is competitive enough > to challenge anything that seems wrong. > > I think the reason that people here feel less of a need for judges is > that so many players remain up to date and current on the rules, for > example by reading this news group. That's the whole point!!! Players often make such mistakes, ALL of them, even the most experienced ones that regularly read this NG. See Peter's example above. Playing the game takes a lot of efforts and nerves, so even the most experienced players can do the stupid mistakes. Pretending that all players (or even most players) know the rules well enough to make such cases impossible is just naive! > > I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did > > go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I > > really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. > > So those two examples were games gone crazy because they didn't have a > good judge? > > Thank you. Just, thank you. You're welcome. In the first example the game really gone crazy without a good judge. In the second one I fixed the game, attempting to be as good judge as I can. > > The games' difference cannot change the most basic principles > > such as the need of issuing penalties for illegal deck. > > Yes, they can. Peter gave good reasons. Dozens of times. In this > thread alone. You have to respect someone patient and willing enough > to make the exact same point over and over again without ever breaking > into condescension. Can you please tell me what of his reasons are "good" in your eyes? VTES is "recreational" even at ECQ level? Players never cheat? Or cheating with your deck isn't going to bring you any advantages? Or something else? > > Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as > > long as the game has such rules. > > The beauty of having guidelines rather than bright-line rules is that > each judge can exercise her judgment to best reflect the needs and > wants of the local player base. If the players are friendly or > recreational, they can make do with less strict rules, and enjoy > competitive game play. If your players need to feel like they are on > trial to enjoy themselves (that is why they play the game, isn't it?), > then more power to you. People are DIFFERENT. Strange enough that I have to tell it to you, as you are obviously mature. Rules about penalties are ALWAYS just guidelines, in all games, and the judge should use his judgement. The current VTES Judge Guidelines are minimal, and if the judge refuses to use even those, he actually refuses to perform an important part of judge's work. Nobody here feels that they are "on trial". But everybody knows that the judge is near, and he isn't going to let the players cheat freely. This really doesn't worry anybody, as we don't have the intentional cheaters here (at least I believe so). > > Should it really be non-sporting, nobody would even think about judges or penalties. > > Or, we would have our judges spend a lot of time organizing and > coordinating the event, assigning players to tables, and resolving > rules questions as they come up. > > And we use penalties to correct behavior that is significantly > detracting from the enjoyment of the game by others: penalties deter > players from ruining the good times of other players. Which is why we > keep arguing that the game is recreational. Organizing and coordinating the event is the important part of judge's work, but that isn't all. Penalties were supposed to maintain the "fair play", NOT to maintain the "good times of players". I'm completely sure that no cheater would spoil the "good time", for instance - so are you suggesting to let him continue his cheating even if you know that he cheats? Let's imagine that one player brought a portable TV and placed it on the table. All players are enjoying watching the TV during the game. Will you allow that player to leave the TV on the table? I guess you will as long as you consider the game "recreational"... > > As far as I can see, "argument fallacy" is absolutely correct > > statement about my opposition. They really have no arguments besides > > the tradition, which is actually rather harmful. > > At the core, you have no argument other than that subjectively you > think the game would be better another way. Which is fine, but is > also, you know, subjective - if your players are happy that way, more > power to you, but I hope you understand why no one else is inclined to > go along with it. I feel like I'm talking with drug addicts or hippies! Is "making your players happy" your only goal? People can be happy with very different things. If some of your players think that changing some rules would make them happier, you are going to allow them to play the different game at the sanctioned tournament? Really? Players must obey the rules, judges must enforce the rules and maintain order. Players are usually happy within those borders, but they cannot cross them. Penalties for rules violation are never going to make people happy - are you suggesting to drop them at all? My arguments are absolutely clear. The decklists themselves don't bring any harm, but they can provide the invaluable help in different cases. I've already demonstrated these cases. > Your insistence that everyone else is wrong, rather than just leaving > it that you think it would be better, seems to be why you provoke such > a vehement response. I know very well what does the "relaxed" atmosphere mean. No satanic blood orgies, for sure, but no penalties for rules violation, either. Some rules violations would inevitably remain unnoticed, some rulings provided by the players will inevitably appear to be wrong. As long as I'm a judge, I cannot tolerate such things, and I'm obliged to do my best to prevent them. Very simple, right? >That and that most of your arguments make no sense, misstate others' positions, and rely on straw men to claim >absurd positions are, in fact, reasonable. Your accusations are ridiculous. If you don't see the sense in my arguments that doesn't mean that they make no sense. As well, the word "absurd" adds nothing to the discussion - everybody just keeps his opinion. If I cannot understand someone's point of view that isn't a crime. What "straw men" I was relying on? Yours, Ector

On Apr 19, 5:28 am, Derek Ray <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: > Ector wrote: > > On Apr 18, 9:53 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> Yet you make just as many bullshit arguments based on your Magic > >> experience that you *cannot* rely on it. > > Surely I cannot *rely* on it! Where did I say that I can? Obviously, > > sometimes that experience even hurts, but that still doesn't mean that > > it's useless. > > Ector, the problem is that you do not know the difference. > > Could M:TG experience be helpful? Possibly. Could it hurt? We know at > least two ways in which it can, since you've mentioned two mistakes > you've made where you tried to apply M:TG concepts to V:TES. > > But you aren't even experienced enough to know when it'll help and when > it might hurt ... and that renders it useless. This isn't that simple. The more I know and the more VTES judging experience I get, the more useful my past Magic experience becomes. Especially considering the fact that Judge's Guidelines are minimal, and most judges aren't willing to use even those. > > BTW, does anyone think that football players are "rampant cheaters"? > > First, I'm going to assume that you mean round-ball football. > > Second, yes, actually, diving is rampant in football, as are a number of > little pushes, shoves, knees, elbows, ... ALL outside the rules and all > of which should be called immediately. Why aren't they? The referee > cannot see because the offender is not close enough. So yes, I do think > football players are "rampant cheaters"; I just think that due to the > circumstances, both sides are permitted an equal opportunity to cheat, > so the game remains fair. No football judge would agree with such opinion. Players are supposed to play fair, and they are severely punished for violation of rules. Sorry, but "permitted an equal opportunity to cheat" sounds just crazy. Are you going to say that the penalized players just exceeded that "allowed" opportunity to cheat? More importantly: why do you think that VTES players don't have "equal opportunity to cheat", too? This game also has its "little pushes, shoves, knees and elbows". You may look at the other player's hand, intentionally or not, you may "unintentionally" draw an extra card (and then put it back), and so on. > > without him - and that's utopia. If the players don't feel that they > > can call a judge EVERY MOMENT, and the judge would immediately solve > > all problems, the order will disappear. > > Note that this is different from the players not _wishing_ to call the > judge because they believe they can resolve the situation on their own. Yes, it's different. A judge should encourage players to ask him questions, not to "resolve on their own". If the players don't wish to call a judge, the judge should investigate why (after the tournament, of course). Maybe, he was too far away, or he was too busy? Maybe some people don't respect his knowledge? This is a serious problem for a person who wants to become a good judge. > > Example 1: I wasn't a judge at the local Minsk Open tournament. One > > player had Rumors of Gehenna that worked for several players. When > > that player was ousted, players decided (incorrectly) that Rumors > > should stay on the table, since it worked for several remaining > > players. Nobody even thought about calling the judge, for some > > mysterious reason. > > Because everyone was happy with the situation. As long is everyone is > playing by the same rules, even though the rules are incorrect, then the > game remains fair. No, really. Believe it, it's a fact. LSJ, are you reading this??? Do you think that it's normal and can be tolerated, too? I'm totally shocked with this. Any player that do everything, as long as he can convince the table to be happy :) > > It was so obvious for them! When the same situation > > appeared in the finals, I was watching the game and provided a correct > > ruling. Then, the players argued that the card stayed on the table in > > the preliminary game! > > ATROCIOUS BEHAVIOR. If you were a player in this tournament, you should > have been given a verbal warning by the judge. If you were not a > player, you should have been called aside by the judge and informed that > you were NOT a judge, and to keep your mouth shut or you would be > removed from the premises. > > First and foremost, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. Everyone makes mistakes; > since you were not a judge, it is NOT your job to make that call. While > in this case, you made a correct ruling, at some future time you might > NOT be correct, and it is NOT your place to interfere! > > Second, YOU WERE NOT PLAYING THE GAME. You have no business interfering > IN ANY FASHION in a game that you are not a judge for and whose table > you are not a current, non-ousted player at. Even if the players asked > you a question about a ruling, you should CALL THE JUDGE rather than > render your own potentially-inaccurate opinion. You are completely right with all your points here. I should add that the judge couldn't provide the exact ruling and asked the players to share their points of view. But nevertheless, here you see just another good example of the importance of good judge. > Ector, you have an overinflated sense of your own importance, and you > believe that your personal moral code reigns supreme over all others. > This is awful and you should rectify it immediately, for your own sake > if not for anyone else's. I hate to say it, but you're absolutely right here. Still, I'd prefer a judge with similar problems to the judge that doesn't care much about anything. At least, I do have a strict moral code. > > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > > animal. > > The difference here between this and the prior example can be summed up > in three words: YOU WERE JUDGING. > > Your actions here are appropriate even if you are wrong, because it is > your responsibility to make these decisions _and_ to correct illegal > play if you see it. Plus, because you are the tournament judge, you > have the right to interfere in a game in progress to do so; players who > disagree with your ruling should take it up after the game is concluded. No, this is wrong way for a discussion. I can provide you some examples of my utter mistakes, if you wish :) These examples were posted to demonstrate the importance of a good judge, and please don't think that I consider myself a good judge in VTES right now - but I know what a good judge needs, and I'm going to become it. > > I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > > called "misrepresentation". > > This is called "that's not even as much as a verbal warning; just tell > him 'You know that's not an animal, right?' and let them continue." I did right that. Again, the example was posted to demonstrate that such violation of rules could go unnoticed without the judge. Any judge can notice some mistakes of this kind if he's going to observe the games. > > You overestimate the desire for perfect, rigid order among players. > This is a game, Ector. It will never be more than a game. You are not > capable of making it more than a game; nobody is, but certainly not you. > It will always be a game. > > There will never be another Magic, or another Pokemon, or even (thank > god) another Yu-Gi-Oh. CCGs are a dying fad. People have moved on and > are doing other things now. >From my perspective, CCGs are still very popular, and their popularity is only increasing here. And I really can't stand such words as "it's only a game". It's a GAME!!! You could say "It's only a life". Spending your time at the things that doesn't really matter to you isn't very clever. So, players that don't take the game seriously are going to leave, but the rest players will remain. > People want to have fun. They want to play seriously to a certain > degree, as well. But they want to have fun, first and foremost. If > everyone at a table agrees that a play is correct and you are not > present to see the incorrect play, THAT IS OK. The players are all > still happy, and are having fun. People want to *win*, first and foremost. If they don't, they are playing different game, not VTES, since VTES players must play to win. Having fun is great, as long as it doesn't prevent you from playing to win. > If someone is that concerned that the > 'correct' ruling be made, then they will call the judge over, trust me. > I can tell you from personal experience that US players have no fear of > saying "Let's get an official ruling on that. Hey, Judge!", and I doubt > that players in Belarus are much different. Yes, they can call a judge, if they feel that the judge is ready and willing to answer the questions. A "bookkeeper judge" isn't usually happy with questions, so the players rarely ask them. That's the difference I tried to demonstrate. > Sometimes, people will *gasp* play incorrectly, and nobody at the table > will notice. In the grand scheme of things, however, it just does not > matter. It is each player's responsibility to know the rules himself, > and to summon the judge for a ruling if he believes those rules have > been violated. If nobody summons the judge, nobody gets to complain > later "but that wasn't fair". This is false, which was demonstrated by LSJ himself when we discussed "correcting the game state". If you noticed that your vampire was improperly burned a turn ago, you still can call a judge, and the judge would have to correct the game state according to his judgement. > > same for almost all Wizards games). The games' difference cannot > > change the most basic principles such as the need of issuing penalties > > for illegal deck. > > No, there really is no NEED to issue penalties for an illegal deck. > There are many circumstances where an illegal deck deserves no penalty > whatsoever, because the alteration was completely unintentional. > > The classic case of a Haven Uncovered being found in someone's vote deck > is, in fact, the best example here. It is obviously not the vote > deck's. It is easy to ask the player "Who was playing Havens on you?" > and confirm with the Archon that, in fact, the player he named was at a > previous table. Then you ask the named player if his deck is intact, > and sure enough, he will say "No, I'm missing a Haven". You restore > both decks to the correct state, issue a verbal warning to "be more > careful next time", and JUST. MOVE. ON. Yes, this is a decent way to resolve the problem if the HU was discovered between rounds. I never said that a player deserves a penalty for leaving HU. But every player is responsible for STARTING EACH ROUND with the same deck. What are you going to do if that voting deck player DRAW that HU during the game, for instance? Rules were meant to make the players disciplined and avoid such things whenever possible. But the current penalty for illegal deck is too harsh, without any questions, since GL is a very big penalty for VTES. That can force some judges to avoid deckckecks at all. We really need Dave's "VP Loss" and the new Judges Guidelines. > > The only different thing is the MEANING of GL in > > VTES and Magic, and that's why we direly need an intermediate penalty > > between Warning and GL - VP Loss would be great. > > For fuck's sake, if you need an intermediate penalty between Warning and > Game Loss, then just ASSIGN ONE. Alternately, just issue a warning and > say "Next warning, for whatever reason, will be an automatic GL." I do this regularly. But issuing penalties without any guidelines is too much responsibility for a single man, IMHO. People shouldn't be punished without the law. > My god, are you incapable of thinking for yourself? I always have my opinion. But it's just my opinion, not the sanctioned recommendation, and I need the LAW. Without the proper law, players are free to complain about the penalties being "too harsh" or "too weak". And the law should be logical, without issuing GL for illegal deck. > > But the philosophy of > > these rules is the same for ALL CCGs, so I cannot see why Magic > > experience cannot help here. > > Because you are wrong. The philosophy is NOT the same. At least it's explained in the same words. Why should it be different, then? > > Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as > > long as the game has such rules. Should it really be non-sporting, > > nobody would even think about judges or penalties. Do you need a judge > > when you play Monopoly with your children? > > Well, Ector, it's a fact. V:TES is both friendly AND recreational. > Even the tournaments. It won't ever be anything but, no matter how much > you try to make it. > > Don't like it? Better quit the game now. Our tournaments aren't "recreational" for sure. Players get really tired after them. And even if the tournaments are "friendly", that doesn't mean that tournaments are not sport events here. No need to quit the game for me. > > we're discussing a very important matter, and I simply have to try to > > change the status quo. And the best answer to this accusation can be > > found on the same page: > > No, Ector, you do not have to change the status quo. You have to admit > that you are wrong about this, have been wrong about this, and that you > will try to learn and apply that knowledge better next time. I'd sooner quit the game than admit that I'm wrong about this. Really. You have your own way and pretend that it's the best way - me too. I don't think that my disciplined players will have any problems at the foreign tournaments, and I don't think that foreign players are going to have any serious problems here: as long as I'm aware that some playgroups are badly organized, I can warn foreign players at the beginning of the tournament. Yours, Ector

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1176933284.033741.42010 @d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 17, 10:44 pm, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >> No, these are two entirely separate things. >> >> On the one hand, you have a judge who doesn't intervene in games. This >> is, by and large, a good thing. Obviously, some games will need some >> intervention - correcting an incorrect play, explaining the finer points >> of deal-making, or something. But most games do *not* need a judge >> standing over them the whole time, because the players know how to play, >> by and large. > Fine. If everything is OK, the judge wouldn't mess. But is everything > ALWAYS goes right? I'd say that a bad judge just refuses to see any > problems. And that's awful. > I think you generate a lot of preconceived notions and fantasies about this topic, mostly in an attempt to justify what appears to be a very heavy handed application of penalties, by VTES standards. I'm really trying hard to pull whatever value I can from your posts, wrt your Magic background. Nothing has come up since the little historical nugget about the relative strengths of Game Loss in the original Duelist Convocation rules. I'm trying hard, here, Ector, reading everything you've written (painful as that is) and you're not giving me anything more. I largely don't see the need for such a hard-line approach to judging, but moreso, I don't understand why you fail to see that many interpret your level of intervention and highly servere penalties as "activist judging". ON the other side of the cheating coin, who is to say that an overly prosecutorial judge (not you, specifically) isn't doing so to somehow benefit certain players within the field? One has to be cautious with an "I Am the Law" attitude, it'll bite them in the ass the first time a player thinks the Judge might be applying a too-intense penalty for out of game considerations... >> >Compare this to the behaviour of a good judge. A good judge is always >> >near and always ready to answer any question and solve any problem. >> >> This is fine. And this does *not* require a judge floating over every >> single table the whole time. A quick question can be asked. I've been >> at tournaments where someone has yelled for me across a room. I go and >> answer question. Done. > The more questions your players will ask, the better judge you are. My > players don't hesitate to ask even the most newbish and the most > obvious questions if they aren't sure. > In what way do you think matters are _any_ different, if a less severe attitude is taken by the Judge wrt penalty magnitude? >> I've run nine table tournaments on my own without any trouble getting to >> a table to give a quick ruling, or look up a lengthy ruling now and >> then. The only difficult part about that sort of thing is trying to >> herd players back into the playing area after they've gone to get >> drinks, or whatever. > Well, things may seem to run smoothly, but, IMHO, if ANY player > refused to call a judge and decided to get an answer from the other > players on his table - that's very bad and can lead to serious > misrepresentations and violations of rules. Depends very much on the players involved, and whether an atmosphere of good will has been fostered. Usually, a pair of experienced players resolving a game play issue through the applicaiton of logic can arrive at a reasonable answer themselves, and appeal to a judge if a satisfactory answer for all is not found. >> >If you don't have any open scandals at the tournament, that doesn't >> >mean that everything is OK. >> >> How are you personally deciding that tournaments you're not at have so >> much disorder? > Easily. I can evaluate the number of problems that would be not solved > without my intervention. The number is quite high. > Once again, you are extrapolating from your personal experience onto the rest of the international player base, and not even realizing how your own attitude towards judging reinforces a bias towards more Judge involvement, not less... Cripes, if I knew the sort of penalties you apply for players resolving rules issues for themselves, I'd be calling you over five times a game, too, if only for fear of you slinging a GL at me for trying to resolve it myself. You've fostered the specific environment of your own tournaments, and it seems you have no direct experience with any alternatives. I hope you have the chance to see how others treat the VTES tournament scene some day. The lack of anarchy, fistfights, and gunfire will amaze you. >> We're not getting players coming out of the woodwork here, plying the >> newsgroup with anecdotes of "Man, there was this tournament and the >> judge was so bad, and the players were fucking each other over the >> tables, and performing satanic blood orgies, and it was crazy, and >> everything would have been better with two judges." > Surely not. But each player has its own vision of the game and its > rules, and only the judge is supposed to have the RIGHT vision. If > Noobie Tim asks the players at his table whether he can play card X o > not, the Bragging Joe will always say his opinion about it, and as > long as Tim considers him an experienced player, he won't doubt in his > words. Later, he may discover that Joe's ruling was wrong. We have > similar situations quite often. WHat do the other 3 players at the table do when Braggin Joe drops a wrong ruling? In not-Belarus, any exploitation of rules questions to a player's advantage over a newbie should be obvious to the others at the table, and then a Judge would be called over. >> >If rules questions are solved without the judge, that means that the >> >judge is AWFUL. >> >> Bullshit. >> >> Newbie: Do I get pool from the Edge in my untap phase or my master >> phase? >> Player A: Untap. >> >> Yeah, the judge is awful. >> >> Cry me a fucking river. > No need to cry at all. > Compare this to: "Hey, Judge! Do I get pool from the Edge in my untap > phase or my master phase?" This is 1000 times better, since the newbie > is absolutely sure that the judge will provide right and detailed > answer. > How can the newbie be so sure in the other players? How??? Its a five player game. If any one offers a wrong answer (to exploit the situation) the other three will call him on it... > Moreover, other players can get the unwanted advantage from the > question itself. For instance: "Can I play Archon Investigation now?" > My players tend to call me, show me the card and quietly ask: "Can I > play THIS now?" > And even if sometimes the question is so simple that every more-or- > less experienced player can easily answer (as in your example), > players should get accustomed to ask a JUDGE, since answering > questions is his job. That was my point, and it's far from being > "bullshit". > Meh. Its a weak point. Nearly all new players will recognize situations where they do not want the table to have information about the contents of their hand prior to obtaining a ruling. >> >Also, if your players tend to solve even rules >> >questions qithout a judge, nobody is going to notice such things as >> >unsportsmanlike behaviour, PTW violation, without even talking about >> >cheating. Don't you know that you're effectively playing without a >> >judge? >> >> But tournaments aren't being played without judges. > A judge that is hard to call, or a judge that doesn't oversee the > tables = no judge. > The situation you describe is non-existant. Tournaments aren't being polayed with judges that are "hard to call", and the multi-judge rule ensures that there is always oversight in smaller events. >> A judge can easily make everyone aware that he/she can - and should - be >> called over if any player has any doubts about anything at all. But by >> and large, players are mature and not retards trying to subvert the >> moral fibre of society. > Yes, he can. For a "bokkeeping judge" it would be "Call me if you > cannot solve the question yourself" :) By that description, no event I've ever attended had a "bookkeeping judge". >> I assume that in Belarus players are immature and are trying to subvert >> the moral fibre of society, based on your bizarre attitudes. > My attitude is absolutely normal. > You stand alone, in that opinion... >> Remember kids, decklists are required, no wait, recommended, no wait, >> what....? > I require the decklists for all my tournaments. And cannot see any > reasons to play without them. Reason #1: They are being selectively implemented in a fashion that artificially inflates the severity of the default penalty under 102 Illegal Deck (legal Decklist). They're not doing in VTES what you think they are doing. There are a myriad of ways to arrive at accurate rulings quickly and efficiently without them, which is why so many can see no obvious reasons to play with them, either. > Even the most lazy of my players are > able to submit them. > That's rich, in that it implies that those who don't use decklists are the lazy ones. I don't use decklists, therefore I'm lazy? Fuck you. I work a 60 hour week in a very intesnse job, I'm a father of two, a homeowner, and a damned good VTES player. The one thing no one can call me is lazy. I have no fear of any task, but the task has to be worth doing. Decklist advocates, yourself included, have failed to prove that worth. >> >"Relaxed approach" really "works", if you >> >mean that nobody takes a gun or knife, >> >> V:TES decks are not guns. >> >> You are not a policeman. >> >> Playing V:TES is not a crime. > It was just a my commentary to the word "works". How can a judge be > sure that everything is OK, if he doesn't oversee the tables? > If something is wrong, the players alert him. By your logic, if you are overseeing only one table at a time, how can you be certain that everything is OK at the other 4 tables at the same time? This attitude puts you in the situaion Etherial describes, where theres a judge for every player. Even you, Ector, rely upon your players to inform you when something is not-OK. DaveZ AW

crispyfloss <crisp...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1176935010....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > The beauty of having guidelines rather than bright-line rules is that > each judge can exercise her judgment to best reflect the needs and > wants of the local player base. Quoted for Truth... DZ AW

In article <1176933284....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Fine. If everything is OK, the judge wouldn't mess. But is everything > ALWAYS goes right? I'd say that a bad judge just refuses to see any > problems. And that's awful. And again, no one has ever claimed that there are never any problems. Are you familiar with the term "Straw Man"? That is when you make up a point to argue against that none of your opponents have actually made, just to strengthen your argument. This here is what we like to call a "Straw Man". No one has ever claimed that there are *never* any problems and that Judges don't occasionally need to fix stuff. There are occasionally problems, and Judges sometimes need to fix stuff--rules questions that no one can come to a consensus on, situations where there is a mess due to someone missing something and having the rewind the game a few steps, the occasional question/situation involving possible collusion and/or playing to win, whatever. In my experience, (and likely the experience of most of the folks on this here newsgroup) is that this is Judges do most of the time--they step in where needed or asked, fix things that need fixing, but otherwise, let the players do what they need to do. Which works fine as, again, most folks who play this game competetively are smart, reasonable folks who can fix minor errors and rules questions on their own and neither need a judge at their every beck and call or hovering over their game constantly. Again, where this interacts with decklists and all, is that the vast majority of the time, there is nothing that goes wrong that a decklist is needed to fix. Yes, you are correct that in the grand scheme, filling out decklists aren't a huge imposition (although they certainly will contribute to turnning some folks off tournaments), and if they aren't being used to DQ folks at the last second due to missing a single card, they can't really hurt anything. But much like having a judge hovering over every table all the time, they tend to cross the line into "not really necessary to do a good job as a judge". > The more questions your players will ask, the better judge you are. That is a strange comment. I'd never claim that people shouldn't ask questions--when I am judging an event, that is why I am there, and there are regularly folks shouting weird questions across the room. But I'd never equate "people asking me questions" with "being a good judge". But ok. > This number is based only on my experience. The largest VTES > tournament I've run had 21 players, and it was extremely difficult to > run it. I seriously doubt that I will be able to answer all questions > of 40 players and oversee 8 tables at once. Why was it difficult to run a 21 player tournament? What was difficult about it? I have run tournaments that big (although not much bigger), and other than getting everyone sitting down at their tables and ready to go (as it is like herding cats), nothing was remotely difficult about it. > Well, things may seem to run smoothly, but, IMHO, if ANY player > refused to call a judge and decided to get an answer from the other > players on his table - that's very bad and can lead to serious > misrepresentations and violations of rules. Why? How is that going to lead to "misrepresentation"? You are sitting at a table with 4 other people. If you have a rules question, you ask the table. Someone probably knows the answer. Multiple people probably know the answer. Someone will likely give you the right answer. If there is a question as to the validity of the answer, *then* you call the judge. Player A: "When do I get pool for keeping the edge?" Player B: "Untap." Player C: "Correct." Everyone moves on. Player A: " Can I play Majesty after you have Immortally Grappled me?" Player B: "Nope. Only hand strikes." Player A: "Are you sure?" Player B: "That's what is says on the card." Player C: "That's true." Player A: "I'm gonna ask the judge." Player B: "No problem." And everyone moves on. This isn't "refusing to call the judge". This is "playing a game with a lot of people sitting around you who probably know the rules". > How can the newbie be so sure in the other players? How??? Ah, yes, I forgot. You apparently live in a land of rampant corruption and lies. Where everyone is more likely to stab their own mother in the face if no one is watching than not. Again, the vast majority of the time, folks playing this game are going to be: A) Honest. B) Totally on the up and up. C) Probably correct about the rules. Even when playing in the finals of a large qualifier tournament. The vast majority of the time, if someone asks the table a rules question, they are going to get the correct answer from the table. And in the small number of instances where there is dispute or confusion, there is still a judge to fix things. > Note that the players aren't OBLIGED to provide the right or detailed answers, > and they can provide wrong answers. No, they aren't obliged to provide right or detailed answers. But the vast majority of the time, they will. 'Cause most people playing this game aren't, ya know, total dicks. Lying about the rules is stupid. Just like cheating is stupid. Most folks playing this game, when asked a rules question will give out the correct answer to the best of their knowlege. And if there is still ambiguity or someone isn't sure, or folks have a dispute, the judge can fix everything. > My attitude is absolutely normal. It is normal to assume that everyone is a lying, cheating bastard who constantly needs oversight and threats of punishment to not act in a reprehensible manner? That is pretty bleak, man. > It was just a my commentary to the word "works". How can a judge be > sure that everything is OK, if he doesn't oversee the tables? He can be reasonably confident that everything is ok without constant oversight. And in the end, when everyone has a good time and nothing horrible happens, he can continue to be reasonably confident that everything was ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Xns991761DE28...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > That's rich, in that it implies that those who don't use decklists are the > lazy ones. I don't use decklists, therefore I'm lazy? Fuck you. I work a > 60 hour week in a very intesnse job, I'm a father of two, a homeowner, and > a damned good VTES player. The one thing no one can call me is lazy. I > have no fear of any task, but the task has to be worth doing. Decklist > advocates, yourself included, have failed to prove that worth. Ector. I would like to point out that you have managed to push *Dave* near (over?) the edge here. That is some hard core pushing, I gotta tell you. Ya know how Derek is? Dave is pretty much the exact opposite end of the spectrum. Man. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1176929503....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Example 1: I wasn't a judge at the local Minsk Open tournament. One > player had Rumors of Gehenna that worked for several players. When > that player was ousted, players decided (incorrectly) that Rumors > should stay on the table, since it worked for several remaining > players. Nobody even thought about calling the judge, for some > mysterious reason. It was so obvious for them! When the same situation > appeared in the finals, I was watching the game and provided a correct > ruling. Then, the players argued that the card stayed on the table in > the preliminary game! And the judge then points out that it was played incorrectly in the first game. That happens. And it isn't a big deal. > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > animal. I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > called "misrepresentation". No, it is called "an error". That happens. And it isn't a big deal. Someone can point out the error and fix it. > I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did > go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I > really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. And yet the game continues to survive in the rest of the world where you are not. That has to tell you *something*. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1176978134.6...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I've provided two examples when they were WRONG, and now you are > telling me the opposite. Are you reading my posts at all? No serious > judge can rely on brilliant knowledge of his players. For instance, > Peter D. Bakija himself was mistakingly thinking that Skin of Night > can prevent Rotschreck - you can safely assume that the less > experienced players at his table going to believe his rulings. Yep. These things happen sometimes. And if I were judging a tournament, came up with that "ruling", and no one questioned it (which is incredibly unlikely, mind you), and we just went on with it, ya know what would happen? Nothing. The game would be fine. Eventually, someone would discover the actual rule, and the response would be "Huh. Ok then. We'll know next time." 'Cause even as a judge, I realize that I am not incapable of making mistakes. It happens. Even with the best Judge. Who is endlessly attentive. Which is why it is best not to get too caught up in the psychosis of "I AM GOOD JUDGE!!!!!". > I'm not > going to start any personal battles, just trying to demonstrate you > WHY a good judge should always be near and ready to answer any > questions. And yet ironically, if I was the judge and answered that question, I would have possibly answered it wrong. Throws your orderly world into a tizzy, don't it? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 19, 6:22 am, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > What "straw men" I was relying on? I'll point them out in this post. Refer to Peter Bakija's helpful definition for further understanding. > That's the whole point!!! Players often make such mistakes, ALL of > them, even the most experienced ones that regularly read this NG. See > Peter's example above. Playing the game takes a lot of efforts and > nerves, so even the most experienced players can do the stupid > mistakes. Pretending that all players (or even most players) know the > rules well enough to make such cases impossible is just naive! 1) Straw man. No one is arguing that all players will always be able to judge all situations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > Organizing and coordinating the event is the important part of judge's > work, but that isn't all. Penalties were supposed to maintain the > "fair play", NOT to maintain the "good times of players". I'm > completely sure that no cheater would spoil the "good time", for > instance - so are you suggesting to let him continue his cheating even > if you know that he cheats? 2) Straw man. No one is arguing that you should allow a player who's been caught cheating to continue to do so. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > Let's imagine that one player brought a portable TV and placed it on > the table. All players are enjoying watching the TV during the game. > Will you allow that player to leave the TV on the table? I guess you > will as long as you consider the game "recreational"... 3) Straw man. No one is arguing that this behavior would be acceptable. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > I feel like I'm talking with drug addicts or hippies! Not a straw man, but hilarious. I hear this being said in Sgt. Joe Friday's voice. > Is "making your players happy" your only goal? 4) Straw man. No one is arguing that this is a judge's only goal. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > People can be happy with very different > things. If some of your players think that changing some rules would > make them happier, you are going to allow them to play the different > game at the sanctioned tournament? Really? 5) Straw man. No one is arguing that players should be allowed to change the rules of the game. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > Players must obey the rules, judges must enforce the rules and > maintain order. Players are usually happy within those borders, but > they cannot cross them. Penalties for rules violation are never going > to make people happy - are you suggesting to drop them at all? 6) Straw man. No one is arguing that there should be no penalties for rules violations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. > Some rules violations would inevitably remain unnoticed, some rulings > provided by the players will inevitably appear to be wrong. As long as > I'm a judge, I cannot tolerate such things, and I'm obliged to do my > best to prevent them. Very simple, right? 7) Straw man. No one is arguing that, as a judge, you should tolerate rules violations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. Every time you make up an argument and respond to it, rather than responding to what someone else actually wrote, you're setting up a straw man to attack. Don't extrapolate from what someone else wrote - that leads to straw men. Just respond to what they actually wrote. (Boy, do I love copy+paste.) John Eno

Public service announcement: (And no, this isn't directed particularly at John. Just the timing.) http://ic.net/~erasmus/DonQuixote.jpg (work-safe.) This really stopped going anywhere a while ago, I think... - D.J.

On Apr 19, 3:22 am, Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > On Apr 19, 1:23 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see the relevance here - are you saying it was a bad judge > > because the players didn't feel the need to call him over for > > something that was obvious? > > No. It was a bad judge just because he wasn't near the table at the > moment. Should he were near and be ready to answer, players would > definitely ask him. And while it may be obvious to you, it doesn't > have to obvious to your players. In my experience, no one has ever been deterred from asking a judge a question because the judge wasn't near by. In larger games, spread out across multiple rooms in a venue, we've paused a game for the 2 or 3 minutes it takes for someone to go find a judge to bring them back to ask a question. This hasn't ever been a problem. I wouldn't rush to blame it on the judge in this case. After all, if he was near this table, wasn't he necessarily far from another table, which would then not have a judge near it? > > This game is complicated. The interactions of so many cards > > frequently turn up with circumstances that players don't anticipate. > > Generally, if all players think something operates in a certain way, > > they're probably right. > > I've provided two examples when they were WRONG, and now you are > telling me the opposite. In the first case, it was a judge that was wrong, so that's not responsive to my point. If you were a player, and a judge issued a ruling that you knew was wrong, you would have to abide by it. > For instance, Peter D. Bakija himself was mistakingly thinking that > Skin of Night can prevent Rotschreck - you can safely assume that > the less experienced players at his table going to believe his rulings. Regardless of who says it, If he's the one playing Rotschreck, I would be inclined to believe him, because he's saying something that harms him. If he's the one playing Skin of Night, then I wouldn't disbelieve him, but I'd want a judge to verify it because he's saying something that is beneficial to him. So I'd call a judge over. Ironically, a less experienced player would probably trust a ruling by someone like Peter less than a more experienced player, since a more experienced player knows more of his reputation and has had more opportunities to see him exercise his judgment first hand. > If any player isn't completely sure about some ruling, he can call the > judge if the judge is near. This never hurts. If the judge isn't near, > the player isn't going to look for him. Simply enough. This is the problem that everyone keeps referring to. As far as I can tell this discussion started as something like: Organizing, hands-off judges are horrible and watchful, hands-on judges are great. If you qualified this at the beginning with "Our players don't ask questions, so we need to keep an eye on them to make sure you're playing right," then everyone would understand where you're coming from. It's that you assume that everyone knows this, and then make statements that say you think it's true of everyone. Which, I think understandably, rubs people the wrong way. > Any player can make a mistake about rules. Even the most serious one. Even a judge. And 5 good players will tend to give a better answer than 1 good judge. > > I think the reason that people here feel less of a need for judges is > > that so many players remain up to date and current on the rules, for > > example by reading this news group. > > That's the whole point!!! Players often make such mistakes, ALL of > them, even the most experienced ones that regularly read this NG. See > Peter's example above. Playing the game takes a lot of efforts and > nerves, so even the most experienced players can do the stupid > mistakes. Pretending that all players (or even most players) know the > rules well enough to make such cases impossible is just naive! And the reason some of us don't agree with what you say is that all judges are players, and prone to the same mistakes. Pretending that a judge knows the rules well enough to make such cases impossible is just as naive. Except, here's the thing: if you ask 5 players, the odds of a careless mistake goes down. The odds of seeing the right answer goes up. If you ask one judge, the odds of a careless mistake increases. Since careless mistakes are hard to see when you make them yourself. > Can you please tell me what of his reasons are "good" in your eyes? > VTES is "recreational" even at ECQ level? Players never cheat? Or > cheating with your deck isn't going to bring you any advantages? Or > something else? Cheating in this way doesn't give substantial advantages because it is a multiple-player game. The penalty is more likely to punish the innocent than the guilty. Individual cards simply aren't that powerful. Just accept this is an area where we disagree. > > > > Any talks that VTES is "friendly" or "recreational" are just naive, as > > > long as the game has such rules. > > >.... > > Rules about penalties are ALWAYS just guidelines, in all games, and > the judge should use his judgement. The current VTES Judge Guidelines > are minimal, and if the judge refuses to use even those, he actually > refuses to perform an important part of judge's work. > Nobody here feels that they are "on trial". But everybody knows that > the judge is near, and he isn't going to let the players cheat freely. > This really doesn't worry anybody, as we don't have the intentional > cheaters here (at least I believe so). That is what our judges do, too. Without deck lists. > > And we use penalties to correct behavior that is significantly > > detracting from the enjoyment of the game by others: penalties deter > > players from ruining the good times of other players. Which is why we > > keep arguing that the game is recreational. > > Organizing and coordinating the event is the important part of judge's > work, but that isn't all. Penalties were supposed to maintain the > "fair play", NOT to maintain the "good times of players". I'm > completely sure that no cheater would spoil the "good time", for > instance - so are you suggesting to let him continue his cheating even > if you know that he cheats? Any cheater would spoil the good times of players, because players come to play a game with certain rules. They deliberately agree not to do certain things, because not doing those things lets them show how good they are at playing. Finding out that another player is doing exactly that ruins the good time. Even as recreation. Fair play makes the game fun. People don't play games to win - they play to win according to rules they agree to with other players. > I feel like I'm talking with drug addicts or hippies! Is "making your > players happy" your only goal? Not the only goal, but a very important one. If people don't enjoy the playing the game, they won't play any more. The game is better the more players are in it, because it makes more interactions. Players enjoy the game because of the challenge. Players agree that the rules of the game are the best way to have that fun. > People can be happy with very different things. If some of your players > think that changing some rules would make them happier, you are going > to allow them to play the different game at the sanctioned tournament? > Really? No - but I might have a sanctioned tournament for the people that like the rules how they are, and an unsanctioned tournament for people that wanted to play by different rules. So that everyone can play and have a good time. > Players must obey the rules, judges must enforce the rules and > maintain order. Players are usually happy within those borders, but > they cannot cross them. Penalties for rules violation are never going > to make people happy - are you suggesting to drop them at all? A penalty for a rules violation will make all the players that are following the rules happy. That's most of the players. And if a good, honest player that had done very well in original rounds had an extra Reunion Kamut in his deck or was missing a Secure Haven in his deck, and was disqualified from the finals on that basis, that would probably make more players unhappy than it made happy. Because that's seen as being unfair. If in your group, people think that's fair, and want to catch those players, because otherwise they think they're being treated unfairly and therefore not having fun, then use decklists. Catch them. Punish them. But realize that we differ here, because it's what the players want. > I know very well what does the "relaxed" atmosphere mean. No satanic > blood orgies, for sure, but no penalties for rules violation, either. Then you don't understand what we mean when we say "relaxed atmosphere." Because appropriate penalties for rules violations are the norm. We disagree on what's appropriate, but again, that's not disagreeing with the rules. Just how much punishment is appropriate, and therefore how much effort should be put into finding violations. > Some rules violations would inevitably remain unnoticed, some rulings > provided by the players will inevitably appear to be wrong. As long as > I'm a judge, I cannot tolerate such things, and I'm obliged to do my > best to prevent them. Very simple, right? If you cannot tolerate such things. If your players want you to not tolerate such things. Then yes. If the players thing that's all ridiculous, then it would make sense to not do them, right? As long as you were still following the rules? Which give you all kinds of discretion about how to do things? You don't have to justify your discretion to anyone here, you have to justify it to your players. It's why it's called discretion.

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> No, Ector, you do not have to change the status quo. You have to >> admit that you are wrong about this, have been wrong about this, and >> that you will try to learn and apply that knowledge better next time. > > I'd sooner quit the game than admit that I'm wrong about this. Really. Everyone should take this statement at face value and STOP REPLYING TO ECTOR. This is the crux of the argument -- he won't listen, ***no matter what***. That is the definition of insanity. So stop trying to get him to listen and just let him be. The two official reps who are "required" to respond to him should be enough to answer his questions without the rest of us (yes, that includes me) attempting any futher discussions with him, since he is insane. 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

In message <1177010837.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, crispyfloss <crisp...@gmail.com> writes: >In my experience, no one has ever been deterred from asking a judge a >question because the judge wasn't near by. In larger games, spread >out across multiple rooms in a venue, we've paused a game for the 2 or >3 minutes it takes for someone to go find a judge to bring them back >to ask a question. This hasn't ever been a problem. Note also that the official tournament rules pretty explicitly allow for the fact that a judge won't necessarily be available immediately - lengthy rulings allow extra time, and the multi-judge system means that all judges will be busy when a ruling is needed. So you pause for a moment and move on. e.g. judges 1 and 2 might be in the middle of a complicated combat on another table, so you let them finish it before coming to give a ruling on another table. Particularly "troublesome"[0] in small tournaments, perhaps, where several judges may be tied up on one table. [0] In as much as responsible adults waiting a minute for a judge to finish a tricky play is ever "trouble". -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Apr 19, 4:34 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I think you generate a lot of preconceived notions and fantasies about this > topic, mostly in an attempt to justify what appears to be a very heavy > handed application of penalties, by VTES standards. I'm really trying hard > to pull whatever value I can from your posts, wrt your Magic background. > Nothing has come up since the little historical nugget about the relative > strengths of Game Loss in the original Duelist Convocation rules. I'm > trying hard, here, Ector, reading everything you've written (painful as > that is) and you're not giving me anything more. > I largely don't see the need for such a hard-line approach to judging, > but moreso, I don't understand why you fail to see that many interpret your > level of intervention and highly servere penalties as "activist judging". OK, let's make some things clear. 1). I agree that issuing GL for illegal deck is too harsh for most VTES tournaments. I told that from the very beginning. Your "VP Loss" would be a perfect penalty for such infraction. But for the ECQ, this penalty may be OK. In That Other Game judges were recommended to issue Match Loss for this infraction, and it's roughly the same as GL in VTES. Note that current DCI recommendations advice GL for all RELs, so we can easily consider it too harsh EVEN for ECQ. But as long as the current VEKN Judge Guidelines recommend GL, nobody cannot accuse the judge that followed that recommendation. We obviously need the new Guidelines. 2). I DON'T recommend issuing heavy penalties in any cases. Actually, I think that the judge should try to *prevent* any rules violations - it's easier to prevent a disease than to cure it. Did you notice my recommendations for avoiding issuing GLs in the finals? 3). I think that decklists never hurt, but can help sometimes. Thus, playing without them isn't very clever in any case. But suggesting to drop them as a way to avoid issuing GLs for illegal deck is a pure insanity! Judge can avoid issuing penalties that are too harsh even with decklists. 4). I don't believe that the judge can really rely on things like "players are friendly", "players know the rules" or something similar. In many cases, this appears to be wrong. 5). I cannot agree that VTES isn't a sport game, at least at high- level tournaments like ECQ, EC and Nationals. You may call this a bias, if you wish. Aren't most of my statements normal enough? Yes, I was drawn into the stupid discussion here, so most of my posts weren't much helpful. But that doesn't mean that I cannot produce any help, for sure. > ON the other side of the cheating coin, who is to say that an overly > prosecutorial judge (not you, specifically) isn't doing so to somehow > benefit certain players within the field? One has to be cautious with an > "I Am the Law" attitude, it'll bite them in the ass the first time a player > thinks the Judge might be applying a too-intense penalty for out of game > considerations... My "I Am the Law" attitude always means that I'm trying to maintain order, but not with the harsh penalties, if I can avoid them. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to issue these penalties if I have to, but that certainly doesn't mean that rules violations are nothing to me. Please compare: a). Hippie approach: "Players never cheat". Or at least "I have no chances of prevent cheating, so I won't bother". b). Maniac prosecutor approach: "Aha! You were cheating! DQ!!!" c). My approach: "Attention everybody! Please be VERY careful with your decklists. Check them twice prior to submitting them. Also, check the number of cards in your deck after each round. You may get GL for illegal deck, so let's avoid that, OK?" Add the quick card numbers check that I've recommended, and the chances of GL are seriously reduced. Yes, I may HAVE to issue GL even after that, and, obviously, I won't be happy doing that. Hope that difference is clear enough. > > The more questions your players will ask, the better judge you are. My > > players don't hesitate to ask even the most newbish and the most > > obvious questions if they aren't sure. > > In what way do you think matters are _any_ different, if a less severe > attitude is taken by the Judge wrt penalty magnitude? I just wanted to show that "hippie" approach to the judging (or "bookkeeper" approach, if you wish) inevitably leads to the decrease of the judge's support of the players. As long as the judge thinks that players are good and they can play without him, this is inevitable. As long as the judge doesn't demonstrate that he's willing to investigate the possible cheating/unsportsmanlike behaviour and issue the proper penalties, players won't even report the suspicial cases to him. And so on. > > Well, things may seem to run smoothly, but, IMHO, if ANY player > > refused to call a judge and decided to get an answer from the other > > players on his table - that's very bad and can lead to serious > > misrepresentations and violations of rules. > > Depends very much on the players involved, and whether an atmosphere of > good will has been fostered. Usually, a pair of experienced players > resolving a game play issue through the applicaiton of logic can arrive at > a reasonable answer themselves, and appeal to a judge if a satisfactory > answer for all is not found. Players may provide a wrong ruling, and be sure that the ruling is correct. This happens very often, even with the good and experienced players. A judge is supposed to know the rules very well. So, he should encourage the players to ask him, not the other players. > > Once again, you are extrapolating from your personal experience onto the > rest of the international player base, and not even realizing how your own > attitude towards judging reinforces a bias towards more Judge involvement, > not less... Cripes, if I knew the sort of penalties you apply for players > resolving rules issues for themselves, I'd be calling you over five times a > game, too, if only for fear of you slinging a GL at me for trying to > resolve it myself. You've fostered the specific environment of your own > tournaments, and it seems you have no direct experience with any > alternatives. I hope you have the chance to see how others treat the VTES > tournament scene some day. The lack of anarchy, fistfights, and gunfire > will amaze you. Why do you think that I'm issuing any penalties to players for resolving rules issues for themselves? There are no recommended penalties for that, and I don't invent the rules, I just follow them. No penalties for that, for sure, but I constantly tell my players to ask me, not the other players. And they really ask me - why not? > > WHat do the other 3 players at the table do when Braggin Joe drops a wrong > ruling? In not-Belarus, any exploitation of rules questions to a player's > advantage over a newbie should be obvious to the others at the table, and > then a Judge would be called over. In most cases, the other 3 players (or 2 players at the 4-players table) are just not sure enough to say that Joe's ruling is wrong. Or it just doesn't matter to them. Do you remember the example with Rumors of Gehenna? > > How can the newbie be so sure in the other players? How??? > > Its a five player game. If any one offers a wrong answer (to exploit the > situation) the other three will call him on it... Again, they MAY call. They may fail to recall the proper ruling, they may think about the different things at the moment, they may don't care about teaching the newbies, and so on. Note that even if somebody call a judge, and the judge will find out that the ruling was incorrect, that won't be enough to accuse that player in cheating, right? > Meh. Its a weak point. Nearly all new players will recognize situations > where they do not want the table to have information about the contents of > their hand prior to obtaining a ruling. Though weak, it's still a point. Believe me, some newbies regularly fail to recognize such situations. > > The situation you describe is non-existant. Tournaments aren't being > polayed with judges that are "hard to call", and the multi-judge rule > ensures that there is always oversight in smaller events. There are different levels of judge's support, as well as there are different levels of reading skill, for instance. Theoretically, every person can read after school, but if he has difficulties of reading anything besides comics, you can say that he is effectively illiterate. Similarly, every player can theoretically call a judge, but if it takes serious efforts, then EFFECTIVELY there are no judge. Yes, it may be an exaggeration, but not much. > > Yes, he can. For a "bokkeeping judge" it would be "Call me if you > > cannot solve the question yourself" :) > > By that description, no event I've ever attended had a "bookkeeping judge". I'm very happy to hear that! But I wasn't the first to bring the word "bookkeeper" into this discussion, it was a Finnish player. Hope that things aren't that bad there, too. > > I require the decklists for all my tournaments. And cannot see any > > reasons to play without them. > > Reason #1: They are being selectively implemented in a fashion that > artificially inflates the severity of the default penalty under 102 Illegal > Deck (legal Decklist). Let's prohibit kitchen knives, then! Reason #1: They were frequently used to kill people :D Decklists cannot be "guilty" of anything. They are just tools that should be implemented properly. > They're not doing in VTES what you think they are doing. There are a > myriad of ways to arrive at accurate rulings quickly and efficiently > without them, which is why so many can see no obvious reasons to play with > them, either. If you have decklists, then: 1). You can check every player's deck, should you need it. You aren't forced to perform a deckcheck, but as long as your players know that you can, they are going to be more careful with their decks. 2). You can help your players to restore their decks to their original status, should the need arise. 3). By examining a decklist, you can evaluate whether some player is violating PTW or not (i.e. whether he really has no reasonable chances to get VPs or not) without meddling in the game. 4). Your chances to notice cheating is higher. Cheating with the deck contents is obviously much more dangerous as long as the judge can check your decklist any time, but other kinds of cheating may be discovered, too. For instance, your chances to notice Cheating:Collusion without meddling in the game are much higher if you can examine the decklists. Yes, it's possible to play without the decklists. They are the "emergency tool", and you can be brave enough (or reckless enough) to play without them. But they are well worth their price, and sometimes they're really invaluable. > > Even the most lazy of my players are > > able to submit them. > > That's rich, in that it implies that those who don't use decklists are the > lazy ones. I don't use decklists, therefore I'm lazy? Fuck you. I work a > 60 hour week in a very intesnse job, I'm a father of two, a homeowner, and > a damned good VTES player. The one thing no one can call me is lazy. I > have no fear of any task, but the task has to be worth doing. Decklist > advocates, yourself included, have failed to prove that worth. You are angry without any reason. I'm happy that nobody can call you lazy, but as long as you can handle your very intense job, your two children and other duties, filling a decklist should be nothing to you. I guess you have a printer and a deckbuilder program, so it's going to take not more than 20-30 seconds of your precious time and one sheet of paper. Not a large price for the advantages that decklists provide (see above). Do you have some emergency tools to protect your house, your family and your property? I guess you do. Maybe, a fire extinguisher, an insurance, or even a gun. All these things cost you some time and money, but they are worth doing. Decklists work absolutely the same way. They can protect only your tournament, not your house or family, but they also cost you much, much less. Almost nothing, to be sure. Even though you're a damned good VTES player, you still can lose some cards from your deck (shit happens), and the decent judge will allow you to use proxies if the cards are in your decklist. If you're a judge, then you don't have to fill any decklists, so why was all this fuss? > > It was just a my commentary to the word "works". How can a judge be > > sure that everything is OK, if he doesn't oversee the tables? > > If something is wrong, the players alert him. By your logic, if you are > overseeing only one table at a time, how can you be certain that everything > is OK at the other 4 tables at the same time? This attitude puts you in > the situaion Etherial describes, where theres a judge for every player. > Even you, Ector, rely upon your players to inform you when something is > not-OK. The players will alert the judge only if they realize that something's wrong. This isn't always the case. Yes, I cannot oversee all tables at once, but I'm doing my best to quickly evaluate the situation at each table, and then I move to the next one. Sometimes the situation is very complicated, so I have to stay near the table for a while. My ultimate goal is creating the impression that I'm always near, and with 4-5 tables I usually can do it. Yours, Ector

On Apr 19, 5:52 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176933284.033741.42...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Fine. If everything is OK, the judge wouldn't mess. But is everything > > ALWAYS goes right? I'd say that a bad judge just refuses to see any > > problems. And that's awful. > > And again, no one has ever claimed that there are never any problems. You said that you don't need the decklists since all your players are never cheat. As long as you really consider that an argument that prove that decklists are not needed, you must be pretending that you never have problems against which the decklists were invented. Or should I consider that just a trash-talk? <skipped the definition of "straw man" that I know> > > Again, where this interacts with decklists and all, is that the vast > majority of the time, there is nothing that goes wrong that a decklist > is needed to fix. Yes, you are correct that in the grand scheme, filling > out decklists aren't a huge imposition (although they certainly will > contribute to turnning some folks off tournaments), and if they aren't > being used to DQ folks at the last second due to missing a single card, > they can't really hurt anything. But much like having a judge hovering > over every table all the time, they tend to cross the line into "not > really necessary to do a good job as a judge". Don't you think that "turning some folks off the tournaments" is a "straw man"? Or you really know some players that would refuse to play due to the necessity of filling a decklist? Also, are you trying to say that "having a judge hovering over every table" (or at least trying to hover) is worse than having a judge sitting at his comp and watching a movie? Okay, I'm exaggerating. But still, being close to the tables if better than being far away, right? And watching for the possible cheating is better than pretending that "our players don't cheat". Good that at least you admit that the decklists cannot hurt anybody if properly used. If you also admit that they can be very helpful sometimes, you will understand why they should be recommended. Hopefully... > > The more questions your players will ask, the better judge you are. > > That is a strange comment. I'd never claim that people shouldn't ask > questions--when I am judging an event, that is why I am there, and there > are regularly folks shouting weird questions across the room. But I'd > never equate "people asking me questions" with "being a good judge". But > ok. I meant "The more often people ask somebody else (not you), the worse it is for the tournament. If the players regularly ask somebody else, something should be wrong. > Why was it difficult to run a 21 player tournament? What was difficult > about it? I have run tournaments that big (although not much bigger), > and other than getting everyone sitting down at their tables and ready > to go (as it is like herding cats), nothing was remotely difficult about > it. It was difficult to watch over 5 tables. I guess I could miss a lot of things that I shouldn't miss. > > Well, things may seem to run smoothly, but, IMHO, if ANY player > > refused to call a judge and decided to get an answer from the other > > players on his table - that's very bad and can lead to serious > > misrepresentations and violations of rules. > > Why? How is that going to lead to "misrepresentation"? You are sitting > at a table with 4 other people. If you have a rules question, you ask > the table. Someone probably knows the answer. Multiple people probably > know the answer. Someone will likely give you the right answer. If there > is a question as to the validity of the answer, *then* you call the > judge. I've already answered this to Dave. Players are NOT responsible to provide the correct rulings (or to provide any rulings at all). They may want to answer if the question is trivial (like your example), but they may be not sure in more complicated cases and just decide to avoid answering. They can also think about the different things, or discuss a deal, or plan their next turn. Besides, if Player A asks Player B, why do you think that Players C and D must intervene? Just recall the Rumors of Gehenna example. There were 3 players left at the table, and they decided that it should stay. This really happened, not a hypothetical thing. > > How can the newbie be so sure in the other players? How??? > > Ah, yes, I forgot. You apparently live in a land of rampant corruption > and lies. Where everyone is more likely to stab their own mother in the > face if no one is watching than not. I don't know what's your land, but here people are just people, not angels. They can cheat, they can be wrong, and they can just say something to get rid of the newbie. Not that they do such things often, but that really can happen. > Again, the vast majority of the time, folks playing this game are going > to be: > > A) Honest. > B) Totally on the up and up. > C) Probably correct about the rules. Still, nobody can *rely* on that. Especially the judge. > And in the small number of instances where there is dispute or confusion, there is > still a judge to fix things. Yes, there is. But we are talking about the cases when there are no disputes, and players really think that everything is OK. > > Note that the players aren't OBLIGED to provide the right or detailed answers, > > and they can provide wrong answers. > > No, they aren't obliged to provide right or detailed answers. But the > vast majority of the time, they will. 'Cause most people playing this > game aren't, ya know, total dicks. Lying about the rules is stupid. Just > like cheating is stupid. Most folks playing this game, when asked a > rules question will give out the correct answer to the best of their > knowlege. And if there is still ambiguity or someone isn't sure, or > folks have a dispute, the judge can fix everything. Players that misinterprete the rules aren't "total dicks", either. Players that don't know the details for sure and believe in some "expert's" ruling aren't, either. Plus, there can be cheaters, who are really "total dicks". This may be more that enough for misinterpreting the rules. > > My attitude is absolutely normal. > > It is normal to assume that everyone is a lying, cheating bastard who > constantly needs oversight and threats of punishment to not act in a > reprehensible manner? That is pretty bleak, man. No, it's normal to assume that somebody CAN be "a lying, cheating bastard". Especially for a judge. And it's normal to assume that some rules violations can go unnoticed by the players. > > It was just a my commentary to the word "works". How can a judge be > > sure that everything is OK, if he doesn't oversee the tables? > > He can be reasonably confident that everything is ok without constant > oversight. And in the end, when everyone has a good time and nothing > horrible happens, he can continue to be reasonably confident that > everything was ok. According to your words, he can be reasonably confident that everything will be OK even without a judge, right? Why not? And after saying such immense BS, you will accuse me in creating "straw men" when I will argue against it? One time is enough for me. Yours, Ector

On Apr 19, 6:03 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1176929503.604546.75...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > And the judge then points out that it was played incorrectly in the > first game. That happens. And it isn't a big deal. Surely. The problem is that nobody made the correct ruling in the preliminary game. Nobody called the judge. I would consider it a serious problem if I were the judge... > > Example 2: I was judging a tournament and noticed that a player played > > Pack Alpha for Homunculus. Nobody except for me noticed that it was > > illegal, since Pack Alpha allows only animals, and Homunculus isn't > > animal. I'm pretty sure that the player wasn't cheating - this is > > called "misrepresentation". > > No, it is called "an error". That happens. And it isn't a big deal. > Someone can point out the error and fix it. Again, the problem is: nobody besides the judge noticed the problem. So, without the judge it would go unnoticed. > > I can provide much more examples where the game could go (or even did > > go) crazy without a good judge. His importance is so obvious that I > > really cannot understand how people can refuse to see it. > > And yet the game continues to survive in the rest of the world where you > are not. That has to tell you *something*. Did I ever pretend that the game will die? Surely not. Nobody really cares about cheaters or preventing rules' violations. As long as there are no scandals, everything seems to be OK. Until the real scandal will appear, which is inevitable when judges aren't trained well enough. Yours, Ector

On Apr 19, 6:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Yep. These things happen sometimes. And if I were judging a tournament, > came up with that "ruling", and no one questioned it (which is > incredibly unlikely, mind you), and we just went on with it, ya know > what would happen? Nothing. The game would be fine. Eventually, someone > would discover the actual rule, and the response would be "Huh. Ok then. > We'll know next time." > > 'Cause even as a judge, I realize that I am not incapable of making > mistakes. It happens. Even with the best Judge. Who is endlessly > attentive. Which is why it is best not to get too caught up in the > psychosis of "I AM GOOD JUDGE!!!!!". I will say "I will know next time", too. But this doesn't change the fact that I should know it THIS time. Making a wrong ruling is always a shame for me. Did I tell that I'm constantly answering the rules questions even outside the tournaments? I want to know ALL the rules to able to quickly resolve any problem. > > I'm not > > going to start any personal battles, just trying to demonstrate you > > WHY a good judge should always be near and ready to answer any > > questions. > > And yet ironically, if I was the judge and answered that question, I > would have possibly answered it wrong. Throws your orderly world into a > tizzy, don't it? If this would happen, you should feel a shame. The fact that we aren't ideal should not prevent us from attempting to reach the ideal :) Yours, Ector

In article <1177069463.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > I will say "I will know next time", too. But this doesn't change the > fact that I should know it THIS time. Making a wrong ruling is always > a shame for me. I find your use of the term "shame" in this context puzzling. This is a game with a lot of rules. Sometimes people get them wrong. It happens. No one dies. Due to the inherent falibility of judges, it makes sense to ask a bunch of folks for opinions on such things, and see what happens. And then go from there. But even then, if something goes wrong (i.e. you make an incorrect ruling and no one notices or everyone just goes with it), the worst possible end result is after the event, somone discovering the actual ruling and saying "hey--you got that wrong, it actually goes like this...", and everyone moves on. And no one has to feel "shame". It is just a minor error. And as such, not a big deal. > Did I tell that I'm constantly answering the rules > questions even outside the tournaments? I want to know ALL the rules > to able to quickly resolve any problem. Sure. But you don't know all the rules. And once and a while, you'll give a wrong answer. And unless you are absurdly wrapped up in your identity of "judge", it isn't a big deal. > If this would happen, you should feel a shame. The fact that we aren't > ideal should not prevent us from attempting to reach the ideal :) I gotta tell ya--I'm not so wrapped up in my identity as "judge" that I feel "shame" for getting a ruling wrong. I go "Oh, hey, what do you know. Next time I'll get that right." and we move on. I'd prefer that I got rules questions right, but as when I am running a tournament I usually have 3 or 4 other judges to work with (one of the many advantages of the "multi-judge" system), whenever there is a rules question that is not readily apparent, there are enough opinions available to figure out the actual answer most of the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1177068853.1...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Nobody really cares about cheaters or preventing rules' violations. This right here is one of the huge problems with your argument. Where did anyone indicate that nobody really cares about cheaters and preventing rules violations? Really. You like to answer questions. Answer this one--how did you get the impression that nobody really cares about cheaters or preventing rules violations? I'm think that you have no ability to understand that there is a middle ground between a (metaphoric) police state and absolute anarchy. You seem to be a big fan of the police state. I'm not a big fan of a police state. I'm also not a big fan of absolute anarchy. So it seems likely that I, like most folks, live in the middle somewhere, generally further from absolute anarchy than you'd think. Yet I am unconvinced that you can understand that there is a middle ground there. As you seem to think that the only options are police state or murderous anarchy. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes: > Nobody really cares about cheaters or preventing rules' violations. And there you go, slandering and insulting us yet again. Goodbye. *PLONK* -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

In article <1177067451....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > You said that you don't need the decklists since all your players are > never cheat. No, I said that we don't use decklists because: A) Players are *unlikely* to cheat. B) The decklists are *unlikely* to actually be necessary or useful. C) The decklists, if used for deck checks, are *likely* to cause more damage than they prevent (i.e. punishing innocent folks for honest mistakes). Nowhere did I ever say anywhere, ever, that no one ever cheats. I said that the vast majority of people don't cheat. 'Cause they don't. > As long as you really consider that an argument that > prove that decklists are not needed, you must be pretending that you > never have problems against which the decklists were invented. Or > should I consider that just a trash-talk? You can consider it anything you want. In the many, many tournaments I have run, I have never run into a problem where having a decklist would have helped (i.e. I have never been in a situation where I was like "Man. If only I had a decklist right now..."). I have never been at a tournament where having decklists would have helped anything. Is it possible that someone, somewhere, intentionally cheated as a result? Yes, it is possible. Although pretty unlikely, and very few people, if any, would have done this. 'Cause most folks don't cheat, as it is stupid to cheat at a card game like this, and 'cause cheating like this doesn't really help you out enough to make it seem like a good idea. > <skipped the definition of "straw man" that I know> So then you *know* that you are making up arguments that no one is actually presenting in the name of propping up your argument. > Don't you think that "turning some folks off the tournaments" is a > "straw man"? No. > Or you really know some players that would refuse to play > due to the necessity of filling a decklist? Yep. I know people who, when I'm running a tournament, who are less committed players, and if I said "hey--we need a 12th player so we don't have 11! Can we con you into playing?" who would not have a decklist handy, and would find filling in a decklist to be yet another reason to not get conned into playing. > Also, are you trying to say that "having a judge hovering over every > table" (or at least trying to hover) is worse than having a judge > sitting at his comp and watching a movie? Okay, I'm exaggerating. Yes, you are. > Good that at least you admit that the decklists cannot hurt anybody if > properly used. If you also admit that they can be very helpful > sometimes, you will understand why they should be recommended. > Hopefully... They will not ever be useful enough to justify requiring them in my eyes. And if used for deck checks, they are just as likely to cause unacceptable damage as not. And if they *aren't* being used for deck checks, the likelihood of them having any impact at all is incredibly minimal. Thus, useless. Sure, filling them out and having them around isn't going to hurt anyone. But checking them and handing out penalties for missing a card is. > It was difficult to watch over 5 tables. I guess I could miss a lot of > things that I shouldn't miss. You don't think that the other *players* were catching things that you missed? Or do you think that when you aren't standing directly over a table, everyone at the table cheats wildly. Oh, wait. You *do* think that. > I've already answered this to Dave. Players are NOT responsible to > provide the correct rulings (or to provide any rulings at all). So you think they are going to lie. Someone asks "When do I get pool from the edge?" and because players are not responsible to provide correct rulings (and by "rulings", I assume you mean "the rules"), everyone at the table is going to remain silent? Or someone is going to say "during your influence phase", and no one is going to correct that? Oh, wait. You *do* think that. > They > may want to answer if the question is trivial (like your example), but > they may be not sure in more complicated cases and just decide to > avoid answering. So then they call a judge. > Players that misinterprete the rules aren't "total dicks", either. Well yes, they are. Misrepresentation involves intention. You may be using the word "misrepresentation" incorrectly, as you are not a native English speaker. > According to your words, he can be reasonably confident that > everything will be OK even without a judge, right? Why not? Well, I play VTES all the time without a judge, and the games work just fine. And no one cheats. When playing a tournament, yeah, it helps to have a judge around to make sure things run nicely and complicated rulings are made by someone impartial. But the difference between playing around a table with some friends and playing at a tournament is pretty minimal. > And after saying such immense BS, you will accuse me in creating > "straw men" when I will argue against it? You create straw men all the time. All over this discussion. Left and right. > One time is enough for me. Apparently not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 20, 12:07 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] But Kevin, then we would have no more amusing statements like the the fact that all players cheat, nobody but Ector is a good judge, that LSJ sucks, and hmmm, sure there was more, but hey you get the gist.

On Apr 19, 8:48 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's the whole point!!! Players often make such mistakes, ALL of > > them, even the most experienced ones that regularly read this NG. See > > Peter's example above. Playing the game takes a lot of efforts and > > nerves, so even the most experienced players can do the stupid > > mistakes. Pretending that all players (or even most players) know the > > rules well enough to make such cases impossible is just naive! > > 1) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that all players will always be able to judge all > situations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a > void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. Several posts had statements like "Players are generally able to solve..." and so on. Peter even said "in vast majority of time". Can you provide me a hint how these shatements should be dealt, then? Do you think they should be ignored as a pure flood? > > Organizing and coordinating the event is the important part of judge's > > work, but that isn't all. Penalties were supposed to maintain the > > "fair play", NOT to maintain the "good times of players". I'm > > completely sure that no cheater would spoil the "good time", for > > instance - so are you suggesting to let him continue his cheating even > > if you know that he cheats? > > 2) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that you should allow a player who's been caught > cheating to continue to do so. You made that argument up here, but > you're arguing into a void, because no one ever said what you're > claiming they said. You've noticed only the last exaggeration that was meant to laugh at the "good times of players" point. Most of the time judge isn't sure that somebody is cheating, but catching the cheater and punish him, or at least making cheating more difficult is still a judge's responsibility, even if this means spoiling somebody's "good time". > > Let's imagine that one player brought a portable TV and placed it on > > the table. All players are enjoying watching the TV during the game. > > Will you allow that player to leave the TV on the table? I guess you > > will as long as you consider the game "recreational"... > > 3) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that this behavior would be acceptable. You made > that argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one > ever said what you're claiming they said. This was NOT an argument. My favorite kind of mocking joke that I prefer to use instead of the words like "bullshit" and other insults. Here it was to demonstrate that the game ISN'T just "recreational", and "good time" isn't the most important thing. > > I feel like I'm talking with drug addicts or hippies! > > Not a straw man, but hilarious. I hear this being said in Sgt. Joe > Friday's voice. Yet again, whom would you expect to value "fun", "recreation" and "good time" over such things as "competition", "sport", "willing to win"? A typical Hippy's behaviour. > > Is "making your players happy" your only goal? > > 4) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that this is a judge's only goal. You made that > argument up here, but you're arguing into a void, because no one ever > said what you're claiming they said. As far as I understood, Derek was trying to say that "making your players happy" is more important than trying to prevent the possible violations of rules. Should I just ignore that? > > People can be happy with very different > > things. If some of your players think that changing some rules would > > make them happier, you are going to allow them to play the different > > game at the sanctioned tournament? Really? > > 5) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that players should be allowed to change the rules > of the game. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a > void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. Definitely. Just another mocking joke of mine, and not very polite. Surely not an argument at all. Derek's post was really very strange. > > Players must obey the rules, judges must enforce the rules and > > maintain order. Players are usually happy within those borders, but > > they cannot cross them. Penalties for rules violation are never going > > to make people happy - are you suggesting to drop them at all? > > 6) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that there should be no penalties for rules > violations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a > void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. And yet another mocking joke. The best way to deal with the absolutely absurd statements, IMHO. Again, not an argument. > > Some rules violations would inevitably remain unnoticed, some rulings > > provided by the players will inevitably appear to be wrong. As long as > > I'm a judge, I cannot tolerate such things, and I'm obliged to do my > > best to prevent them. Very simple, right? > > 7) Straw man. > > No one is arguing that, as a judge, you should tolerate rules > violations. You made that argument up here, but you're arguing into a > void, because no one ever said what you're claiming they said. Now, this was an argument at last. Why do you pretend that "No one is arguing that, as a judge, you should tolerate rules violations", when it's obvious that the decklists help to notice some rules violations, and some people still insist on playing without them? Did you notice that somebody suggested dropping the decklists as a SOLUTION of the "hungarian problem"? This isn't even "tolerating" rules violations, this is completely ignoring them! So, this "man" isn't "straw"... > Every time you make up an argument and respond to it, rather than > responding to what someone else actually wrote, you're setting up a > straw man to attack. > > Don't extrapolate from what someone else wrote - that leads to straw > men. Just respond to what they actually wrote. You cannot even imagine how it's difficult to determine "what they actually wrote". And did they actually wrote something at all :) Yours, Ector

On Apr 20, 4:22 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But Kevin, then we would have no more amusing statements like the the > fact that all players cheat, nobody but Ector is a good judge, that > LSJ sucks, and hmmm, sure there was more, but hey you get the gist. No statement is more amusing than yours :) You really made me laugh. Thanks!

In article <1177083720.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Several posts had statements like "Players are generally able to > solve..." and so on. Peter even said "in vast majority of time". Can > you provide me a hint how these shatements should be dealt, then? They should be read to mean that players are generally able to solve problems on their own, and the vast majority of the time, things work themselves out, and when they don't, there is a judge to fix it. They should not be read to mean that because many of us don't think deck lists and deck checks are necessary or helpful, and in fact are often harmful, that we play in a world of blood soaked anarchy. Which seems to be how you are reading these things. > Yet again, whom would you expect to value "fun", "recreation" and > "good time" over such things as "competition", "sport", "willing to > win"? A typical Hippy's behaviour. Man. I hate hippies. > Now, this was an argument at last. Why do you pretend that "No one is > arguing that, as a judge, you should tolerate rules violations", when > it's obvious that the decklists help to notice some rules violations, > and some people still insist on playing without them? Holy crap. How did we get back here again? Decklists and deckchecks can help notice some rules violations, yes. They can also unfairly punish people for honest mistakes. And considering that the likelyhood of someone intentionally cheating by changing their deck between rounds is very low, and the likelyhood of then catching that person doing that with random deck checks is very low, you are arguably *more* likely to end up punishing someone for an innocent, honest mistake than you are to actually catch someone cheating. How is this helping anything? > Did you notice > that somebody suggested dropping the decklists as a SOLUTION of the > "hungarian problem"? This isn't even "tolerating" rules violations, > this is completely ignoring them! Not having decklists and deckchecks is not tolerating rules violations. It is gambling on the incredibly high likelihood that there aren't going to be any rules violations that decklists and deckchecks exist to prevent. If a rules violation becomes evident, even without decklists and deckchecks, that rules violation is never tolerated. 'Cause cheating isn't to be tolerated. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 20, 9:02 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > Yet again, whom would you expect to value "fun", "recreation" and > > "good time" over such things as "competition", "sport", "willing to > > win"? A typical Hippy's behaviour. > > Man. I hate hippies. Always trying to ruin competitions with their good times. I'm just left wondering whether having fun should be considered a violation of play-to-win, or sportsmanship. After all, they don't call it play-to-play. Or funmanship.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey man, hippies are, like, you know, cool man, and, you know, they don't, like, you know, hurt anyone man. And at least, like, they don't, you know, have, you know, like, baseball bats, you know, up their, like, you know, asses? man, dude, hey, like, you know? Seriously though, straw man. Only hippies wanna have a good time and relax. I recommend we buy Hector a ticket to the next Monster truck rally where there are a bunch of people "enjoying" themelves and having "fun". Then have Ector call them hippies. And sit back and watch the carnage... Ector, who would I expect to value fun, recreation and generally having a good time over competition and an overwhelming urge to win? An urge so strong in fact that these people will go out of their way to cheat at a card game? People who have no sense of fun, don't know how to relax, and are so full of their own insane self importance that they are ego maniacal control freaks. Remind you of anyone, mr Uber- judge "i am the LAW" Ector? PS Funmanship is going in my net dictionary, that word rocks! That okay Crispyfloss?

Ector wrote: > Several posts had statements like "Players are generally able to > solve..." and so on. Peter even said "in vast majority of time". Can > you provide me a hint how these shatements should be dealt, then? Do > you think they should be ignored as a pure flood? Those statements should be dealt with as they're written. Go back and re-read them if you need to. You do understand the difference between "generally able to solve/ majority of the time" and "all players/impossible," right? In the territory of that difference is the Straw Man Factory. > You've noticed only the last exaggeration that was meant to laugh at > the "good times of players" point. The internet is too noisy a channel of communication to allow you to get away with exaggerating. This is particularly true in your case, given that you're prone to making extremely broad, absolutist generalizations. > This was NOT an argument. My favorite kind of mocking joke that I > prefer to use instead of the words like "bullshit" and other insults. No. You created a hypothetical situation, asked another person how they would respond to it, and then answered that question for them before they had a chance to do so themselves. This is arrogant, insulting, and worthless as a rhetorical argument. It's also what's known as a "straw man" - you've set up your opponent's position and attacked it, rather than attacking an actual position your opponent established. > As far as I understood, Derek was trying to say that "making your > players happy" is more important than trying to prevent the possible > violations of rules. Should I just ignore that? Again: You do understand the difference between "making your players happy is more important than preventing cheating" and "making your players happy is your only goal," right? In the territory of that difference is the Straw Man Factory. If you're having a hard time with this, go back and re-read what was actually written. > Definitely. Just another mocking joke of mine, and not very polite. > Surely not an argument at all. Derek's post was really very strange. No. You created a hypothetical situation, asked another person how they would respond to it, and then answered that question for them before they had a chance to do so themselves. This is arrogant, insulting, and worthless as a rhetorical argument. Trying to later brush this off by commenting, "But I was only JOKING!" is the worst, most cowardly kind of internet dickery there is. > And yet another mocking joke. The best way to deal with the absolutely > absurd statements, IMHO. Again, not an argument. No. You created a hypothetical situation, asked another person how they would respond to it, and then answered that question for them before they had a chance to do so themselves. This is arrogant, insulting, and worthless as a rhetorical argument. > Now, this was an argument at last. Why do you pretend that "No one is > arguing that, as a judge, you should tolerate rules violations", when > it's obvious that the decklists help to notice some rules violations, > and some people still insist on playing without them? Did you notice > that somebody suggested dropping the decklists as a SOLUTION of the > "hungarian problem"? This isn't even "tolerating" rules violations, > this is completely ignoring them! a) Your straw man had nothing to do with decklists. Stop trying to change the subject in order to draw attention away from your mistakes. b) It has been pointed out to you many, many, many times in this thread that there is a difference between punishing cheaters and requiring decklists. You're perfectly within your rights to disagree with that position, but conflating the two in order to try to make the people who disagree with you look foolish is insulting to them and transparently weak. > You cannot even imagine how it's difficult to determine "what they > actually wrote". Just read it. I'm totally allowing for ESL confusion here. That's not what the problem is. You're creating positions for your opponents and then attacking those, rather than respond to what they actually wrote. You do this too consistently for it to be an ESL issue. John Eno

Howdy, [ quoted text not captured ] Man. Just as I was wondering why the hell I was still bothering to read this thread... This makes it all (OK, only mostly, but still) worth it! Thanks, Alex PS - Do they even _have_ hippies in Belarus? Would Ector recognize one if it bit him on the ass? Is Ector a reincarnation of Joe Friday?

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude, don't you get it yet? Ector is Joe Friday's frikkin Drill sergeant. And hippies are those who are out to spread satanic blood orgies at all VtES tournaments. Preferably without decklists.....

wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> writes: > Howdy, > > On Apr 20, 9:36 am, crispyfloss <crispyfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 9:02 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > Ector <E...@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > Yet again, whom would you expect to value "fun", "recreation" and > > > > "good time" over such things as "competition", "sport", "willing to > > > > win"? A typical Hippy's behaviour. > > > > > Man. I hate hippies. > > > > Always trying to ruin competitions with their good times. > > > > I'm just left wondering whether having fun should be considered a > > violation of play-to-win, or sportsmanship. After all, they don't > > call it play-to-play. Or funmanship. > > Man. Just as I was wondering why the hell I was still bothering to > read this thread... This makes it all (OK, only mostly, but still) > worth it! There is a great quote I came across and saved, from another newsgroup: "This is what I always say to people. All this "can't we all just get along" shit is a waste of time. The good stuff always comes out of the trouncings." -Erwin Hessle As soon as I finish my master's degree, I am *so* going to make a satanic blood orgy theme deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand wrote: > On Apr 20, 9:37 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Is Ector a reincarnation of Joe Friday? > > Dude, don't you get it yet? Ector is Joe Friday's frikkin Drill > sergeant. I think Ector is some kind of Gaming Avatar. It would explain both his general batshit craziness (from our merely mortal point of view) and his "The game is LIFE!" comments. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] If only Orgy of Blood didn't suck SOOOO much. There are 3 infernal Sabbat vamps, Valerius and Dylan Advanced, and Midget. And you can't use Valerius and Dylan in the same deck. Good luck Janne. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

> > As soon as I finish my master's degree, I am *so* going to make a satanic > > blood orgy theme deck. > > If only Orgy of Blood didn't suck SOOOO much. > > There are 3 infernal Sabbat vamps, Valerius and Dylan Advanced, and > Midget. And you can't use Valerius and Dylan in the same deck. Dude, Eze the Demon Prince, Elihu, Informants, Red LIst and ORGY OF BLOOD! Mwhahaha! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: >>> As soon as I finish my master's degree, I am *so* going to make a satanic >>> blood orgy theme deck. >> If only Orgy of Blood didn't suck SOOOO much. >> >> There are 3 infernal Sabbat vamps, Valerius and Dylan Advanced, and >> Midget. And you can't use Valerius and Dylan in the same deck. > > Dude, Eze the Demon Prince, Elihu, Informants, Red LIst and ORGY OF > BLOOD! > > Mwhahaha! > It's getting worse and worse... You could use Jibade, since he can actually recruit the Informants, or perhaps Mata Hari. And of course, since the Informants don't have a recruitment cost, you get little benefit from your Orgies. But, if you Red List them, you can at least get your Trophies on. Orgy of Blood Combat Requires a ready Sabbat vampire. Only usable when a minion you control burns an ally controlled by another Methuselah. Each of your vampires gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the recruitment cost of the ally. (Remove excess blood.) Another reason for some to hate Imbued, they don't have a recruitment cost, thereby continuing to render this card nigh useless. And this card took up a rare slot in Sabbat. Feh. Are we getting to far afield now? [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > But Kevin, then we would have no more amusing statements > like the the fact that all players cheat, nobody but Ector is a > good judge, that LSJ sucks, and hmmm, sure there was more, > but hey you get the gist. <sigh> To each his own, I guess. lol:) [ quoted text not captured ]

librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: > XZealot wrote: > >>> As soon as I finish my master's degree, I am *so* going to make a satanic > >>> blood orgy theme deck. > >> If only Orgy of Blood didn't suck SOOOO much. > >> > >> There are 3 infernal Sabbat vamps, Valerius and Dylan Advanced, and > >> Midget. And you can't use Valerius and Dylan in the same deck. > > Dude, Eze the Demon Prince, Elihu, Informants, Red LIst and ORGY OF > > BLOOD! > > Mwhahaha! > > > > > It's getting worse and worse... > > You could use Jibade, since he can actually recruit the Informants, or > perhaps Mata Hari. And of course, since the Informants don't have a > recruitment cost, you get little benefit from your Orgies. But, if you Red > List them, you can at least get your Trophies on. > > > Orgy of Blood > Combat > Requires a ready Sabbat vampire. Only usable when a minion you control burns > an ally controlled by another Methuselah. Each of your vampires gains X blood > from the blood bank, where X is the recruitment cost of the ally. (Remove > excess blood.) That's incorrect. It no longer requires a ready Sabbat vampire. The current text is: Orgy of Blood [Sabbat:R, SW:R] Cardtype: Combat Only usable when a minion you control burns an ally controlled by another Methuselah. Each of your vampires gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the recruitment cost of the ally. (Remove excess blood.) > Another reason for some to hate Imbued, they don't have a recruitment cost, > thereby continuing to render this card nigh useless. And this card took up a > rare slot in Sabbat. Feh. True. :-( But if one looks at the art instead of names, there are several great looking cards, such as Sabbat Ascendance. HG [ quoted text not captured ]

> I doubt that there is any difference between the level of "seriousness" > (or committment) between the average US and Euro player, although I *have* > noticed a difference between the older, original VTES playgroups and > newer, more recently established playgroups, perhaps due to perceived > loyalty and fan "ownership" of a game that was dead for many years. > > 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 Just out of curiosity, would you like to expand on that?

crispyfloss wrote: > > In my experience, no one has ever been deterred from asking a judge a > question because the judge wasn't near by. In larger games, spread > out across multiple rooms in a venue, we've paused a game for the 2 or > 3 minutes it takes for someone to go find a judge to bring them back > to ask a question. This hasn't ever been a problem. How can you say that no one was deterred? In many cases, players have their own opinion and call a judge just for a confirmation. In many cases, they just refuse to call a judge if that appear to be difficult. Surely, when they feel that they NEED a judge, they will find him and wait until he arrives, but, unfortunately, they don't always feel that way! > I wouldn't rush to blame it on the judge in this case. After all, if > he was near this table, wasn't he necessarily far from another table, > which would then not have a judge near it? I wanted to say that a good judge should create an impression that he's ALWAYS near. If he is 3 metres away and watching the another table, it isn't too far to call him for any reason. If he is 20 metres away, and players cannot even see him, then he is too far away. > > > This game is complicated. The interactions of so many cards > > > frequently turn up with circumstances that players don't anticipate. > > > Generally, if all players think something operates in a certain way, > > > they're probably right. > > > > I've provided two examples when they were WRONG, and now you are > > telling me the opposite. > > In the first case, it was a judge that was wrong, so that's not > responsive to my point. If you were a player, and a judge issued a > ruling that you knew was wrong, you would have to abide by it. This wasn't my point. In the first example, nobody even called the judge in the preliminary round! This was my real point. > > For instance, Peter D. Bakija himself was mistakingly thinking that > > Skin of Night can prevent Rotschreck - you can safely assume that > > the less experienced players at his table going to believe his rulings. > > Regardless of who says it, If he's the one playing Rotschreck, I would > be inclined to believe him, because he's saying something that harms > him. > > If he's the one playing Skin of Night, then I wouldn't disbelieve him, > but I'd want a judge to verify it because he's saying something that > is beneficial to him. Do you call a judge each time when a player says things that are beneficial to him? I guess you don't, since such behaviour would spoil the "friendly" atmosphere around you. I guess you're going to believe that player, especially if you know him as a honest and experienced player (like Peter, for instance). Thus, the improper ruling is going to remain not fixed. Besides, what if the "rule-monger" isn't one of those players, but both players trust him as a more experienced player? This happens all the time. The only right way is: ask ONLY the judge, and the judge must be ALWAYS near. After several tournaments, no player would even think about solving such questions without a judge. Wonderful! Note that Skin + Rot isn't a very complicated question - there are much, much more complicated. And if somebody plays Jalan-Aajav or Karsh that have "inbuilt" Skin of Night, such situation is very likely to happen. > So I'd call a judge over. > > Ironically, a less experienced player would probably trust a ruling by > someone like Peter less than a more experienced player, since a more > experienced player knows more of his reputation and has had more > opportunities to see him exercise his judgment first hand. People usually call a judge only if they doubt in something, and that "something" really matters to them. There are many situations where the "obvious" ruling is wrong, as in this case. Everyone can believe that the vampire who treats aggravated damage as normal cannot be affected by Rotschreck at all, even the experienced player. Why should they call a judge if the experienced player already described everything? Again, the only solution is to ask ONLY the judge. > > If any player isn't completely sure about some ruling, he can call the > > judge if the judge is near. This never hurts. If the judge isn't near, > > the player isn't going to look for him. Simply enough. > > This is the problem that everyone keeps referring to. As far as I can > tell this discussion started as something like: > > Organizing, hands-off judges are horrible and watchful, hands-on > judges are great. > > If you qualified this at the beginning with "Our players don't ask > questions, so we need to keep an eye on them to make sure you're > playing right," then everyone would understand where you're coming > from. It's that you assume that everyone knows this, and then make > statements that say you think it's true of everyone. Which, I think > understandably, rubs people the wrong way. People are different, but some "common" behaviour still can be determined. I can easily believe that there are players that NEVER ask another players and always look for a judge, but I don't think that such behaviour can be common, since it wouldn't be the "friendly and relaxed" game anymore. Also, keeping an eye on the players is always good, since they can do stupid mistakes - yes, even the experienced players can. And, really, there can be cheaters, too! > > Any player can make a mistake about rules. Even the most serious one. > > Even a judge. And 5 good players will tend to give a better answer > than 1 good judge. Yes, a judge can make a mistake too. But the chance of his mistake with the rules is much less than a chance of player's mistake (or 5 players' mistake, or even 100 players' mistake). Because judging the game and playing the game require completely different skills. A player may play for 10 years and encounter, say, 20 cases when he was unable to provide an immediate ruling and was forced to look at the NG. A judge may judge for one year and have more than a hundred of such cases, because handling such cases is his job! So, a well- experienced judge will almost never make mistakes about rules, but a well-experienced player (even a champion) still can mistake. Sometimes, ALL my players were confused about the rules, but I still provided the correct ruling. Certainly, this happened in Magic, since I'm not that good VTES judge (yet), but you should get the picture... > And the reason some of us don't agree with what you say is that all > judges are players, and prone to the same mistakes. Well, you know, I never play in the tournament I'm judging, since I don't believe in the "six-judges" even a single bit. This, unfortunately, means that I play very rarely, and I'm a bad player. But I hope to become a good judge instead, since we really need a good judge. > Pretending that a judge knows the rules well enough to make such cases > impossible is just as naive. Not "impossible" for sure, but "much more rare" is still good enough. > Except, here's the thing: if you ask 5 players, the odds of a careless > mistake goes down. The odds of seeing the right answer goes up. If > you ask one judge, the odds of a careless mistake increases. Since > careless mistakes are hard to see when you make them yourself. Who is going to ask at all? Player is just playing the game without noticing that he made a mistake. Other players are also playing the game, and only the judge *specializes* on watching the game. Only the judge isn't interested in the outcome, only the judge cares nothing besides maintaining the order, and only his mind isn't filled with game plans. That's why one judge has much better chances to notice the careless mistake that all 5 players on the table. > > Can you please tell me what of his reasons are "good" in your eyes? > > VTES is "recreational" even at ECQ level? Players never cheat? Or > > cheating with your deck isn't going to bring you any advantages? Or > > something else? > > Cheating in this way doesn't give substantial advantages because it is > a multiple-player game. > The penalty is more likely to punish the innocent than the guilty. > Individual cards simply aren't that powerful. > Just accept this is an area where we disagree. I agree that the current penalty is too harsh, but not with the other statements. Cheating this way can give very substantial advantages, and even if they appear to be minimal, it's still cheating and must be punished. Some individual cards are extremely powerful - besides, who said that a cheater cannot change 20 cards, not just one? If you're playing without the decklists, the potential cheaters know that you CANNOT catch them, so they can safely change 20 cards, or even more. The right penalty for Illegal Deck should be something different between a Warning (which would encourage cheaters) and a Game Loss (which is too harsh for non-cheaters). Once again, a judge must use his judgement, and issue only Warning for the lost Haven Uncovered, for instance. > > Nobody here feels that they are "on trial". But everybody knows that > > the judge is near, and he isn't going to let the players cheat freely. > > This really doesn't worry anybody, as we don't have the intentional > > cheaters here (at least I believe so). > > That is what our judges do, too. Without deck lists. Without the decklists you actually let your players to cheat with their decks freely, since you have no way to catch possible cheaters. Yes, you may think that your players don't cheat, as I do. But this can be compared with an open door: Do you leave your door open wide when you leave your place? I guess not. You may think that there are no thieves in your neighbourhood, but you cannot know this for sure, and *encouraging* stealing would be just silly. So you have a door lock. You may realize that a well- trained criminal is going to open your door in a second, but the lock will deter the bad-trained ones or at least help to catch them (they will be forced to spend some time on picking the lock or breaking in the door) Decklists do absolutely the same. You guess there are no cheaters, but you cannot know this for sure (especially if you neved played with the decklists). When you play without the decklists, you *encourage* cheating, since they can get an advantage without any risk of being caught. Again, a very good cheater can cheat even with the decklists, but they will deter the poorly-trained or help the judge to catch them. So, why do you argue against the decklists, as long as you have the door lock? > Fair play makes the game fun. > > People don't play games to win - they play to win according to rules > they agree to with other players. You are talking about the GOOD players. But you cannot be sure that ALL players are good. People are different, you know. While a good player may have fun for trying to win according to the rules, a cheater may have fun for winning WITHOUT the rules. Or even for the very fact that he violated the rules and wasn't catched. > > I feel like I'm talking with drug addicts or hippies! Is "making your > > players happy" your only goal? > > Not the only goal, but a very important one. If people don't enjoy > the playing the game, they won't play any more. The game is better > the more players are in it, because it makes more interactions. > Players enjoy the game because of the challenge. Players agree that > the rules of the game are the best way to have that fun. This is the major point of the discussion: what is more important - "fun" or "order"? As long as you agree that there cannot be fun when people violate the rules (i.e. without order), you are going to place "order" over the "fun". Then it will be just logical to use decklists, since they can really help to maintain order, and they almost never spoil somebody's fun[0][1]. Simple enough? Now you can start wondering why there are so many people here that pretend to place "fun" over the "order", as I'm wondering from the very beginning. [0] A GL for illegal deck can really spoil the fun, but decklists aren't "guilty" here. We simply need the new Judge's Guidelines. [1] Somebody may pretend that filling the decklist and having to count his cards after each game spoils the fun, but actually this takes small amount of time, and it's beneficial for the player. Who likes to play with incomplete deck? > > Players must obey the rules, judges must enforce the rules and > > maintain order. Players are usually happy within those borders, but > > they cannot cross them. Penalties for rules violation are never going > > to make people happy - are you suggesting to drop them at all? > > A penalty for a rules violation will make all the players that are > following the rules happy. That's most of the players. > > And if a good, honest player that had done very well in original > rounds had an extra Reunion Kamut in his deck or was missing a Secure > Haven in his deck, and was disqualified from the finals on that basis, > that would probably make more players unhappy than it made happy. > > Because that's seen as being unfair. Trust me, I fully understand this attitude. And I would even feel the same should I play at that tournament. But let's answer to the two classical questions of Russian literature: "Who is guilty?" and "What should be done?" * Who is guilty here? Partially, the player is, since he wasn't accurate enough with his deck (or his decklist). Does he deserve GL in the finals? Probably not. So, is the judge guilty? He cannot be, since he just followed the Guidelines. So, the Guidelines are "guilty" here. * What should be done? Obviously, the Judge's Guidelines must be reworked. A "VP Loss" would be an adequate penalty for such infraction. Plus, they should recommend to check the decks as soon as possible, not just wait for the finals and then discover the deck problems. This case has absolutely nothing common with the decklists usefulness or "harmfulness". Should these players play the finals with the illegal decks, it would NOT be a good solution. Actually, this would be even worse. > If in your group, people think that's fair, and want to catch those > players, because otherwise they think they're being treated unfairly > and therefore not having fun, then use decklists. Catch them. Punish > them. But realize that we differ here, because it's what the players > want. Judges should NOT depend on what people think. This is just funny - can you imagine a cop asking people: "What do you think - two years of prison would be enough for him or not? Let's make a poll!" Rules should be the same (or nearly the same) for all playgroups. That's why we need a new Guidelines, too. > > I know very well what does the "relaxed" atmosphere mean. No satanic > > blood orgies, for sure, but no penalties for rules violation, either. > > Then you don't understand what we mean when we say "relaxed > atmosphere." Because appropriate penalties for rules violations are > the norm. We disagree on what's appropriate, but again, that's not > disagreeing with the rules. Just how much punishment is appropriate, > and therefore how much effort should be put into finding violations. Looks like I really didn't understand what "relaxing atmosphere" means, and, especially, why it was used as an argument against using the decklists. Is there any player who cannot relax after filling a decklist? More importantly, doesn't knowing that you can always use your decklist to restore your deck to its original state make you MORE relaxed? > > Some rules violations would inevitably remain unnoticed, some rulings > > provided by the players will inevitably appear to be wrong. As long as > > I'm a judge, I cannot tolerate such things, and I'm obliged to do my > > best to prevent them. Very simple, right? > > If you cannot tolerate such things. > > If your players want you to not tolerate such things. Players are different. Some are going to tolerate almost everything, as long as they are intact. Others really appreciate a good order. > You don't have to justify your discretion to anyone here, you have to > justify it to your players. It's why it's called discretion. I never had much problems with my players. Most of the time they believe my words, and I never issue penalties if I'm not sure that they are deserved. They aren't disciplined enough, but I'm not a very good judge, too... Yours, Ector

In article <1177141620....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Do you call a judge each time when a player says things that are > beneficial to him? I guess you don't, since such behaviour would spoil > the "friendly" atmosphere around you. I guess you're going to believe > that player, especially if you know him as a honest and experienced > player (like Peter, for instance). Thus, the improper ruling is going > to remain not fixed. Fer fuck sake. There is a table full of people playing this game. Between the lot of them, they know most of the rules. If someone says something that seems conviniently beneficial to their own position, if it is dubious, 4 other players at the table can be like "Uh, I don't think that works like that..." And then call the judge if they still don't know the actual answer. That has nothing to do with a "friendly" (drug smoking, hippy, anarchistic?) atmosphere. I don't know about the rest of the world, but our "friendly" atmosphere is rife with spite and killing. And when there are rules questions, folks are like "Huh, I don't know if that works like that--hey, guy over there, is this how this works?" And half the time that, say, I clarifiy something, someone else is like "Huh. I don't think that is how that works...", and we figure it out. Again, you seem to have this really warped view of either your own playgroup, or playgroups in general. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Aha, Monger needs an upgrade then... >> Another reason for some to hate Imbued, they don't have a recruitment cost, >> thereby continuing to render this card nigh useless. And this card took up a >> rare slot in Sabbat. Feh. > > True. :-( > > But if one looks at the art instead of names, there are several great looking > cards, such as Sabbat Ascendance. > > HG > > Ah yes, well, your deck will be one of the best looking, no doubt. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ector wrote: > crispyfloss wrote: > > I wouldn't rush to blame it on the judge in this case. After all, if > > he was near this table, wasn't he necessarily far from another table, > > which would then not have a judge near it? > I wanted to say that a good judge should create an impression that > he's ALWAYS near. If he is 3 metres away and watching the another > table, it isn't too far to call him for any reason. If he is 20 metres > away, and players cannot even see him, then he is too far away. Our judges give that impression. > > In the first case, it was a judge that was wrong, so that's not > > responsive to my point. If you were a player, and a judge issued a > > ruling that you knew was wrong, you would have to abide by it. > This wasn't my point. In the first example, nobody even called the > judge in the preliminary round! This was my real point. If it mattered, and they didn't, they learned to do it next time. Learning: it's where players that know the rules come from. Having someone else learn for you: it's where players that always need a judge around come from. Okay, I understand your motivation now. > > Regardless of who says it, If he's the one playing Rotschreck, I would > > be inclined to believe him, because he's saying something that harms > > him. > > > > If he's the one playing Skin of Night, then I wouldn't disbelieve him, > > but I'd want a judge to verify it because he's saying something that > > is beneficial to him. > Do you call a judge each time when a player says things that are > beneficial to him? I guess you don't, since such behaviour would spoil > the "friendly" atmosphere around you. I guess you're going to believe > that player, especially if you know him as a honest and experienced > player (like Peter, for instance). Thus, the improper ruling is going > to remain not fixed. This is the "straw man" that others have referred to. You're assuming something that ignores what I said, and then using it to make a conclusion that I just responded to. > Besides, what if the "rule-monger" isn't one of those players, but > both players trust him as a more experienced player? This happens all > the time. If it's wrong, and they get the short end of the stick, they learn not to trust people on things that matter. See above re: "learning." > The only right way is: ask ONLY the judge, and the judge must be > ALWAYS near. After several tournaments, no player would even think > about solving such questions without a judge. Wonderful! > Note that Skin + Rot isn't a very complicated question - there are > much, much more complicated. And if somebody plays Jalan-Aajav or > Karsh that have "inbuilt" Skin of Night, such situation is very likely > to happen. To throw your own question back at you: what do they ask questions on? Everything? Everything beneficial to the other player? You need to trust players to have some basic level of competence, and to know that limit. Otherwise the only way to reach this "right way" nirvana of yours is to have a judge watch everything that happens in each game. See previous message re: "16% of your players have to be judge- caliber, good luck with that." > > Ironically, a less experienced player would probably trust a ruling by > > someone like Peter less than a more experienced player, since a more > > experienced player knows more of his reputation and has had more > > opportunities to see him exercise his judgment first hand. > People usually call a judge only if they doubt in something, and that > "something" really matters to them. There are many situations where > the "obvious" ruling is wrong, as in this case. Everyone can believe > that the vampire who treats aggravated damage as normal cannot be > affected by Rotschreck at all, even the experienced player. Why should > they call a judge if the experienced player already described > everything? Your point has drifted to: players can't be trusted to know what they don't know, and they will make horrible errors if they do something wrong. Having a judge watch everything fixes this. I expect you will find that even more players disagree with this point (if it's different, feel free to clarify) than disagree with you on decklists. > People are different, but some "common" behaviour still can be > determined. I can easily believe that there are players that NEVER ask > another players and always look for a judge, but I don't think that > such behaviour can be common, since it wouldn't be the "friendly and > relaxed" game anymore. Also, keeping an eye on the players is always > good, since they can do stupid mistakes - yes, even the experienced > players can. And, really, there can be cheaters, too! You think wrong. Asking for a judge is never seen as hostile. It's just a question of knowing when is appropriate. "Wow, that combination is really strong - I never thought it worked that way! I'm going to ask a judge, because I always thought ..." > Yes, a judge can make a mistake too. But the chance of his mistake > with the rules is much less than a chance of player's mistake (or 5 > players' mistake, or even 100 players' mistake). Because judging the > game and playing the game require completely different skills. Being a good judge requires experience. Experience is gained by playing, because you see how cards interact, you have questions come up in bizarre combinations, and you see what might be too powerful that might make you think you're doing it wrong. > A player may play for 10 years and encounter, say, 20 cases when he was > unable to provide an immediate ruling and was forced to look at the > NG. A judge may judge for one year and have more than a hundred of > such cases, because handling such cases is his job! So, a well- Someone that reads the NG will almost never make mistakes about the rule, someone that doesn't still can. Since someone that reads the NG will see every single case that has a ruling made; and be able to express an opinion; and have the person that decides the rules tell them if they're right or not. This is far more important than whether your "job" is to judge or not. You only see as many hard cases as your players provide. Experienced players provide fewer easy cases, and more hard cases. Inexperienced players provide the opposite. Which may be why you overstate the number of incidents that require the keen watchful eye of the judge. > > And the reason some of us don't agree with what you say is that all > > judges are players, and prone to the same mistakes. > Well, you know, I never play in the tournament I'm judging, since I > don't believe in the "six-judges" even a single bit. This, > unfortunately, means that I play very rarely, and I'm a bad player. > But I hope to become a good judge instead, since we really need a good > judge. You can actually be a player and a judge but not both at the same time. Really! We don't have any professional judges. We have judges that have played so much they really know this stuff. I think you will find that playing more often - even if you're bad - makes you a much better judge. > > That is what our judges do, too. Without deck lists. > Without the decklists you actually let your players to cheat with > their decks freely, since you have no way to catch possible cheaters. > Yes, you may think that your players don't cheat, as I do. But this > can be compared with an open door: It can be compared with not using decklists. Very effectively, in fact. I don't think someone walked off with my TV last time I left a secure haven in their deck. > > People don't play games to win - they play to win according to rules > > they agree to with other players. > > Not the only goal, but a very important one. If people don't enjoy > > the playing the game, they won't play any more. The game is better > > the more players are in it, because it makes more interactions. > > Players enjoy the game because of the challenge. Players agree that > > the rules of the game are the best way to have that fun. > This is the major point of the discussion: what is more important - > "fun" or "order"? As long as you agree that there cannot be fun when > people violate the rules (i.e. without order), you are going to place > "order" over the "fun". Then it will be just logical to use decklists, > since they can really help to maintain order, and they almost never > spoil somebody's fun[0][1]. Simple enough? In a black/white world. Which we don't live in. Some amount of order is necessary, some amount of fun is necessary. Some amount of fun comes from having order. Some amount of resentment and frustration comes from having too much. Like if you play 3 honest games and then have to sit out of a final because someone else left a secure haven in your deck. > Now you can start wondering why there are so many people here that > pretend to place "fun" over the "order", as I'm wondering from the > very beginning. You might wonder why so few agree with you. Probably because we don't have such problems. > > If in your group, people think that's fair, and want to catch those > > players, because otherwise they think they're being treated unfairly > > and therefore not having fun, then use decklists. Catch them. Punish > > them. But realize that we differ here, because it's what the players > > want. > Judges should NOT depend on what people think. This is just funny - > can you imagine a cop asking people: "What do you think - two years of > prison would be enough for him or not? Let's make a poll!" Judges have to depend on what people think, or people won't consent to be judged by them. I couldn't imagine a VTES judge comparing himself to law enforcement and throwing people in prison until now, so there's something new for both of us :-).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > On Apr 19, 4:34 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I think you generate a lot of preconceived notions and fantasies about this >> topic, mostly in an attempt to justify what appears to be a very heavy >> handed application of penalties, by VTES standards. > > OK, let's make some things clear. > 3). I think that decklists never hurt, but can help sometimes. This is the core of your mistake. Requiring deck lists does hurt, because it annoys the shit out of many players to have to fill them out in the first place. Ector, I am now going to grant unto you a Fabulous Insight. Are you ready? If you are capable of accepting this Insight, then you may finally begin to understand why everyone is kicking you in the nuts over this, and why you are just plain wrong. YOU CAN NEVER CONTROL WHAT OTHERS THINK. Oh my god. We better hear that one again. YOU CAN NEVER CONTROL WHAT OTHERS THINK. Wow, he really said it! So what does it mean, Great Guru, what does it mean? Well, what it means is: If your players are annoyed at the hoops you're making them jump through just to PLAY A GAME and HAVE SOME FUN, then sitting there on your high horse and telling them "But you shouldn't feel that way" ...REGARDLESS OF THE REASON... is not only inconsiderate, it's just plain fucking stupid. It's even more plain fucking stupid when one of your primary reasons is "to make it easier on me, the judge." If you want your players to not be annoyed, then you have to make some sort of effort to not annoy them. If deck lists are annoying your players sufficiently, then you should consider how actually necessary they really are. And what THAT all comes down to is: deck lists are not necessary to play the game, run a tournament, or even hold a Continental Qualifier. Therefore, rather than annoy the players for the convenience of the judge, deck lists must go. And it's that simple. Oh, wait. You want me to spell out why it's bad to annoy players? Annoyed players find something else to do with their spare time (in which they had hoped to have fun), something that _is_, in fact, fun. When players aren't playing the game, it is _always_ worse than when they are, no matter what. > 4). I don't believe that the judge can really rely on things like > "players are friendly", "players know the rules" or something similar. > In many cases, this appears to be wrong. You made the part about "in many cases" up on the spot. You have no idea about "many cases" because you have no experience outside Belarus. All the tournaments ever played in Belarus aggregated together are not even remotely enough to constitute "many cases". This is why people don't respect you. You pretend to have a strict moral code and then you resort to outright fabrication to support your points. > 5). I cannot agree that VTES isn't a sport game, at least at high- > level tournaments like ECQ, EC and Nationals. You may call this a > bias, if you wish. No, I may call this outright stupidity. Again, you cannot control what people think. Your desperate, insane need to identify with a "serious" CCG and be recognized as a judge of same does not change the facts. People do not view V:TES as a serious game. They may play the game seriously, with intent to win, but it is still all funsies at the end of things. You cannot control this. You cannot declare what they "should" think, just to make it match what you want to be true. > b). Maniac prosecutor approach: "Aha! You were cheating! DQ!!!" > c). My approach: "Attention everybody! Please be VERY careful with > your decklists. Check them twice prior to submitting them. Also, check > the number of cards in your deck after each round. You may get GL for > illegal deck, so let's avoid that, OK?" If you don't see how this is effectively the same as b), then you really are as insane as Kevin says you are. >> WHat do the other 3 players at the table do when Braggin Joe drops a wrong >> ruling? In not-Belarus, any exploitation of rules questions to a player's >> advantage over a newbie should be obvious to the others at the table, and >> then a Judge would be called over. > In most cases, the other 3 players (or 2 players at the 4-players > table) are just not sure enough to say that Joe's ruling is wrong. You made this up on the spot. You have no idea about "most" cases, because your experience is entirely limited to Belarus. Your entire argument is thus rendered null and void. STOP FABRICATING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGK66BtQZlu3o7QpERAvsiAJ0WvC5Q5nFCC7qSlrM2baf2n6zYpwCfXuyu KhlnXlMlTfmjFeESMxXxsQ0= =gnLS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ector wrote: > On Apr 19, 5:28 am, Derek Ray > <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: >> Ector, the problem is that you do not know the difference. >> >> Could M:TG experience be helpful? Possibly. Could it hurt? We know at >> least two ways in which it can, since you've mentioned two mistakes >> you've made where you tried to apply M:TG concepts to V:TES. >> >> But you aren't even experienced enough to know when it'll help and when >> it might hurt ... and that renders it useless. > > This isn't that simple. The more I know and the more VTES judging > experience I get, the more useful my past Magic experience becomes. And the more mistakes you make. Right now, in this thread, you have made many, many mistakes. You are telling us that you are preparing to make more mistakes in the future. And you think your Magic experience is useful somehow? > Especially considering the fact that Judge's Guidelines are minimal, > and most judges aren't willing to use even those. You made the part reading "most judges" up on the spot. Don't fabricate evidence to support your arguments. >>> BTW, does anyone think that football players are "rampant cheaters"? >> First, I'm going to assume that you mean round-ball football. >> >> Second, yes, actually, diving is rampant in football, as are a number of >> little pushes, shoves, knees, elbows, ... ALL outside the rules and all >> of which should be called immediately. Why aren't they? The referee >> cannot see because the offender is not close enough. So yes, I do think >> football players are "rampant cheaters"; I just think that due to the >> circumstances, both sides are permitted an equal opportunity to cheat, >> so the game remains fair. > No football judge would agree with such opinion. How much would you like to bet me on that? I don't think you watch football very much at all, and I am certain that you have never played it, or this would not even be a topic of discussion. > Players are supposed > to play fair, and they are severely punished for violation of rules. Not true. They are severely punished for violations of the rules that the referee sees. If the referee does not see the violation, he does not take the word of the other team that a violation has occurred; he just warns everyone and continues on, and penalizes the ones he does see. > Sorry, but "permitted an equal opportunity to cheat" sounds just > crazy. Are you going to say that the penalized players just exceeded > that "allowed" opportunity to cheat? They selected a poor time to cheat; while the referee was watching. Any football player will tell you that... if you can win without cheating, do so, but if you have to cheat, don't get caught. > More importantly: why do you think that VTES players don't have "equal > opportunity to cheat", too? This game also has its "little pushes, > shoves, knees and elbows". You may look at the other player's hand, > intentionally or not, you may "unintentionally" draw an extra card > (and then put it back), and so on. I don't think they don't have opportunity. I think they have no motive. The game is played for fun. There are no enormous cash prizes at the end; there's almost nothing, in fact. Only complete sociopaths cheat just to cheat people. While the number of complete sociopaths who play V:TES is assuredly greater than 0, my experience traveling across this nation to multiple cities to play, combined with meeting the players who have come here from Europe and Australia to play, combined with the players I have conversed with in other locations on RGTCJ and IRC allows me to be fully confident that it is also a number I can count on the fingers of a single hand. >> Note that this is different from the players not _wishing_ to call the >> judge because they believe they can resolve the situation on their own. > > Yes, it's different. A judge should encourage players to ask him > questions, not to "resolve on their own". You meant to say "A judge should encourage players to ask him questions if they have any doubts at all about the situation." > If the players don't wish to > call a judge, the judge should investigate why (after the tournament, > of course). Maybe, he was too far away, or he was too busy? Maybe some > people don't respect his knowledge? This is a serious problem for a > person who wants to become a good judge. However, the answer that is most common for "Why didn't you call a judge?" is still "Because we didn't think we were wrong." >> Because everyone was happy with the situation. As long is everyone is >> playing by the same rules, even though the rules are incorrect, then the >> game remains fair. No, really. Believe it, it's a fact. > > LSJ, are you reading this??? Do you think that it's normal and can be > tolerated, too? Of course it's normal. Ector, the fact that you don't play the game really does affect your viewpoint here. You should play more and judge less. > I'm totally shocked with this. Any player that do everything, as long > as he can convince the table to be happy :) That "convincing the table" part that you gloss over here? Yeah, that's a whole hell of a lot harder than it sounds. Imagine this situation, where A preys on B on C on D on E. A is a clueless newbie and makes a play. B declares that the play is illegal because of "Y". Do you really think that C is going to not speak up and call a judge if he believes that B is providing wrong information? What about D and E? And that doesn't even rule out A himself doing it. No, Ector. If you are going to claim that it is easy to convince the table to go along with any old hare-brained statement, then I must correct you: you are wrong. It is only easy to convince the table to go along with you when everyone else agreed with you before you started convincing. If you played more, you would know this. >> You overestimate the desire for perfect, rigid order among players. >> This is a game, Ector. It will never be more than a game. You are not >> capable of making it more than a game; nobody is, but certainly not you. >> It will always be a game. >> >> There will never be another Magic, or another Pokemon, or even (thank >> god) another Yu-Gi-Oh. CCGs are a dying fad. People have moved on and >> are doing other things now. >>From my perspective, CCGs are still very popular, and their popularity > is only increasing here. Unfortunately, Belarus is not the marker by which an American-based company will make its decisions on whether to continue printing cards for a game that has long outlived its expected lifespan in a dying genre. It is still a fact that V:TES will only be a game, and there is nothing you will ever be able to do to change that. You need to accept it. > And I really can't stand such words as "it's only a game". It's a > GAME!!! You could say "It's only a life". I take my life far more seriously than I do V:TES. I cannot imagine losing my perspective on reality in such a fashion as to take V:TES equally as seriously as I do with the rest of my life. It IS only a game. I'm sorry that you are sufficiently unstable that you cannot accept this. I recommend competent therapy, and an immediate "cold turkey" quit from V:TES. > Spending your time at the > things that doesn't really matter to you isn't very clever. So, > players that don't take the game seriously are going to leave, but the > rest players will remain. I don't ever want to play with players who think V:TES is on an equal priority with the rest of their life. They are insane; dangerous to themselves and others. Life is life. Games are games. Confusing the two is a terrible, terrible mistake. >> People want to have fun. They want to play seriously to a certain >> degree, as well. But they want to have fun, first and foremost. If >> everyone at a table agrees that a play is correct and you are not >> present to see the incorrect play, THAT IS OK. The players are all >> still happy, and are having fun. > > People want to *win*, first and foremost. False. For a few twisted souls, winning is the only path to fun. But everyone else is playing to have fun, and their secondary goal is to win (because, well, it _is_ more fun.) > Having fun is great, as long as it doesn't prevent you from playing to > win. Correct. But in general, if someone is not having fun, then they will not even play in the first place. >> If someone is that concerned that the >> 'correct' ruling be made, then they will call the judge over, trust me. >> I can tell you from personal experience that US players have no fear of >> saying "Let's get an official ruling on that. Hey, Judge!", and I doubt >> that players in Belarus are much different. > > Yes, they can call a judge, if they feel that the judge is ready and > willing to answer the questions. Well, then there's no problem, right? Most of our judges over here are both ready and willing to answer questions, and are usually to be found within ten feet of the tournament playing area. I certainly was when I judged, and I know all other judges who take pride in their ability also are. There have been poor judges in the past, but very very few, and none of those people are still judges today... in some cases because there is no longer a playgroup in that area. (Everyone quit the game.) >> Sometimes, people will *gasp* play incorrectly, and nobody at the table >> will notice. In the grand scheme of things, however, it just does not >> matter. It is each player's responsibility to know the rules himself, >> and to summon the judge for a ruling if he believes those rules have >> been violated. If nobody summons the judge, nobody gets to complain >> later "but that wasn't fair". > > This is false, which was demonstrated by LSJ himself when we discussed > "correcting the game state". If you noticed that your vampire was > improperly burned a turn ago, you still can call a judge, and the > judge would have to correct the game state according to his judgement. And that judgement might involve not restoring your vampire to play, because too much has happened since then and it would be impossible to rewind. The statement remains true: if you don't summon a judge at the time the question arises, you don't get to complain later. Or, more accurately stated, you can complain all you want but you have no assurance that the ideal remedy will be available. >> The classic case of a Haven Uncovered being found in someone's vote deck >> is, in fact, the best example here. It is obviously not the vote >> deck's. It is easy to ask the player "Who was playing Havens on you?" >> and confirm with the Archon that, in fact, the player he named was at a >> previous table. Then you ask the named player if his deck is intact, >> and sure enough, he will say "No, I'm missing a Haven". You restore >> both decks to the correct state, issue a verbal warning to "be more >> careful next time", and JUST. MOVE. ON. > > Yes, this is a decent way to resolve the problem if the HU was > discovered between rounds. I never said that a player deserves a > penalty for leaving HU. But every player is responsible for STARTING > EACH ROUND with the same deck. What are you going to do if that voting > deck player DRAW that HU during the game, for instance? Find out whose deck it belongs to, put it in that player's ash heap, issue the players involved a verbal warning ("be more careful"), and move on. Oh, and make the vote deck's player draw another card. Why does anything else need to happen? Are you somehow under the delusion that the game was significantly affected by the vote deck's player drawing a card that wasn't in his deck? I can assure you it wasn't. If you played more, you would know this. What about the player whose deck was short one Haven? That is almost certainly a disadvantage; this problem is self-correcting, move on. >> For fuck's sake, if you need an intermediate penalty between Warning and >> Game Loss, then just ASSIGN ONE. Alternately, just issue a warning and >> say "Next warning, for whatever reason, will be an automatic GL." > > I do this regularly. But issuing penalties without any guidelines is > too much responsibility for a single man, IMHO. People shouldn't be > punished without the law. It's just a game. Stop worrying so much. It's not like a murder was committed or anything. >> My god, are you incapable of thinking for yourself? > > I always have my opinion. But it's just my opinion, not the sanctioned > recommendation, and I need the LAW. A simple "yes" would have been sufficient. > Without the proper law, players > are free to complain about the penalties being "too harsh" or "too > weak". And the law should be logical, without issuing GL for illegal > deck. The players can complain all they want. If my penalties truly ARE too harsh or too weak, it will become patently obvious in the magnitude and number of complaints I receive, and I will ask another judge to go over the rulings with me. However, if the only person complaining is the person I ruled against, I am most certainly going to turn a deaf ear. >>> But the philosophy of >>> these rules is the same for ALL CCGs, so I cannot see why Magic >>> experience cannot help here. >> Because you are wrong. The philosophy is NOT the same. > > At least it's explained in the same words. Why should it be different, > then? Because the rules are simply the guidelines by which the game is played. The culture of the game and the individual players determine the philosophy of the game. >> Well, Ector, it's a fact. V:TES is both friendly AND recreational. >> Even the tournaments. It won't ever be anything but, no matter how much >> you try to make it. >> >> Don't like it? Better quit the game now. > > Our tournaments aren't "recreational" for sure. Players get really > tired after them. Eight hours of play is tiring, whether a tournament is purely for recreation or life-or-death serious. This evidence does not support the point you were hoping to make. > And even if the tournaments are "friendly", that > doesn't mean that tournaments are not sport events here. No need to > quit the game for me. It does, however, mean that you are taking this all far too seriously, and making enormous mountains out of what really are just molehills. >> No, Ector, you do not have to change the status quo. You have to admit >> that you are wrong about this, have been wrong about this, and that you >> will try to learn and apply that knowledge better next time. > > I'd sooner quit the game than admit that I'm wrong about this. Really. Oops! Looks like there really IS a need for you to quit the game. Because you _are_ wrong, you know. You've been wrong this entire thread. You just refuse to admit it, even after multiple different people have explained why you are wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a more closed-minded person in my entire life, honestly. > You have your own way and pretend that it's the best way - me too. I > don't think that my disciplined players will have any problems at the > foreign tournaments, and I don't think that foreign players are going > to have any serious problems here: Ector, I wouldn't ever play in one of your tournaments. As someone else has mentioned, I'd be scared to death that I'd get hit with a Game Loss for some obscure corner-case trivial issue that nobody cared about, just because "the judge's guidelines say i must issue this to you." Your players would probably have a blast at some of ours, though. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGK7jmtQZlu3o7QpERAspJAKCQoQwLamDRKiZTBc12Cc2HS9FzKgCg7yzX z73Hu6Bhv9YMD5k/rSkb1tA= =nNqd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Apr 22, 9:35 pm, Derek Ray <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> wrote: > > You have your own way and pretend that it's the best way - me too. I > > don't think that my disciplined players will have any problems at the > > foreign tournaments, and I don't think that foreign players are going > > to have any serious problems here: > > Ector, I wouldn't ever play in one of your tournaments. As someone else > has mentioned, I'd be scared to death that I'd get hit with a Game Loss > for some obscure corner-case trivial issue that nobody cared about, just > because "the judge's guidelines say i must issue this to you." > > Your players would probably have a blast at some of ours, though. > > - -- > Derek I am hereby starting the official fund drive for sending missionary judges to Belarus. The goal is to stop the play group there from ending their relationship with VtES due to psychotic judging. Any takers? And also, any players in Belarus that want to play without tonnes of bullshit, and have transport/internet connections, post here, come to #vtes on irc, (sorcery.net), or play online. Or even just play without Ector. It's possible, the world will not end... > > insert clever quotation here > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <moot@idont_check_the_spamtrap_anyway.com> schreef in bericht > Ector, I am now going to grant unto you a Fabulous Insight. Are you > ready? If you are capable of accepting this Insight, then you may > finally begin to understand why everyone is kicking you in the nuts over > this, and why you are just plain wrong. > > YOU CAN NEVER CONTROL WHAT OTHERS THINK. > > Oh my god. We better hear that one again. > > YOU CAN NEVER CONTROL WHAT OTHERS THINK. > > Wow, he really said it! > > So what does it mean, Great Guru, what does it mean? > > Well, what it means is: > I never met Derek in real life, so I don't know how his voice sounds, but the above statements sounded like Bill Hicks in my hear for whatever reason :-)

d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I doubt that there is any difference between the level of >> "seriousness" (or committment) between the average US and Euro >> player, although I *have* noticed a difference between the older, >> original VTES playgroups and newer, more recently established >> playgroups, perhaps due to perceived loyalty and fan "ownership" >> of a game that was dead for many years. > > Just out of curiosity, would you like to expand on that? What do you find curious about the statement? It seems self-explanitory to me, but perhaps you can ask me a more specific question. [ quoted text not captured ]

>... in my hear.... That should be heaDDDD of course :s

> I'd sooner quit the game than admit that I'm wrong about this. Really. This is possibly the Funniest thing I have ever read on the newsgroup. Every time I read it, it just gets funnier and funnier and funnier. Ector, you have really painted yourself into a corner with that comment. I hope you like the color. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well we all know he's wrong. I have started a betting pool, my opening bet is standing at 5 hours. Thats the amount of time I think it will take before Ector goes back on his word........

On Apr 23, 6:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I am starting an open bet about how long it will take Ector to go back on his word. Opening bet is 5 hours. Any takers? (By the way, any comment along the line of "I was exagerating/joking/ not being serious" will be seen as reneging on his word)

On Apr 23, 6:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I am opening the bet that Ector reneges on his promise above within 1 day. Any takers? PS: Any comments from Ector along the line of "I was joking/not being serious/ exaggerating" will be seen as going back on his word, m'kay?

Um, guys. This isn't helping. If you think someone is painting himself in a corner, help him get out of the corner, hopefully with as much face saving as possible. Seriously. This thread is long enough. Lets restrict ourselves to constructive comments rather than grandstanding. Be part of the solution. (Which mostly means: when composing a response to any message in this thread, when you've finished writing it, take a break. Come back in five minutes. Read your composition. Admire its wit. Then delete it without sending.)

On Apr 25, 4:39 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am opening the bet that Ector reneges on his promise above within 1 > day. Any takers? > > PS: Any comments from Ector along the line of "I was joking/not being > serious/ exaggerating" will be seen as going back on his word, m'kay? You've lost your bet. I wasn't joking/exaggerating. I like this game too much to admit that it's nothing more than a "recreation". A game that isn't a serious sport doesn't deserve a serious work. And if there's nothing to do, there's no point to play. When I need a recreation, I play RPGs or computer games. How much was your bet? :D Sorry for not responding, gentlemen, but I really had no time in the past few days. Plus, I've already said all I could say about this matter, and, undoubtfully, I said much more than I should (this doesn't mean that I was exaggerating in the mentioned statement). I have a lot of work (incliding my April newsletter), so I'm out. Yours, Ector

Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in news:1177582718.653574.305470 @o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > On Apr 25, 4:39 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am opening the bet that Ector reneges on his promise above within 1 >> day. Any takers? >> >> PS: Any comments from Ector along the line of "I was joking/not being >> serious/ exaggerating" will be seen as going back on his word, m'kay? > > You've lost your bet. I wasn't joking/exaggerating. I like this game > too much to admit that it's nothing more than a "recreation". A game > that isn't a serious sport doesn't deserve a serious work. And if > there's nothing to do, there's no point to play. When I need a > recreation, I play RPGs or computer games. How much was your bet? :D > > Sorry for not responding, gentlemen, but I really had no time in the > past few days. Plus, I've already said all I could say about this > matter, and, undoubtfully, I said much more than I should (this > doesn't mean that I was exaggerating in the mentioned statement). I > have a lot of work (incliding my April newsletter), so I'm out. > > Yours, > Ector > > ...A 6X multi-post? Gosh, have I said that Google Gropus sucks lately..? DZ AW