European Championship 2006 Website

Hello all, the website for the European Championship 2006 is UP here: http://ec2006.vtes.it/en/ For pre-registration, the direct link is here: http://ec2006.vtes.it/en/index.php?p=3 --- if you have any questions, feel free to email the EC2006 staff at: in...@ec2006.vtes.it more, there's a dedicated online forum for the EC2006: http://www.italybynight.org/portale/viewforum.php?f=37 (you'll need to register to be allowed to post on the board). I hope to see you all in Turin, next november 2006 :-) best regards --- Emiliano, V:EKN Prince Of Rome EC 2006 Staff www.italybynight.org

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Hello all, > the website for the European Championship 2006 > is UP here: > > http://ec2006.vtes.it/en/ > "We will not accept different forms from the one provided here. Any irregularities in deck and/or decklist will result in the player being disqualified." Nice to know that the Decklist rules get more asinine every year. Last time the topic came up, we were assured that decklists would be easily handwritten at the event. I'm also amused that the decklist rules encourage you to slip cards into other people's decks to get them disqualified. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

There will be a lot of printed forms available for an easy handwriting decklist compilation at the event - More, isn't difficult to print down the decklist form in advance and getting it already compiled with the list at the event - it spares the risk of errors in decklist - About players putting unwanted cards in others deck, i'm sure players are vigilant enough about this, disqualification threat or not ;-) regards Emiliano "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1159213446....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

To be quite honest - deck lists suck. It doesn't stop a player from cheating between rounds generally as it's normally only finalists that are checked. I look at the past European events and the various players disqualfied for 'illegal decklists' non of which AFAIK were for nefarious reasons Also does it really make that much difference what form a player has to fill his deck in - they're still gonna be a stupid number of innocent errors for which it's pointless removing players for. And it's more likely that players lose cards in other peoples decks (fames, havens, whatever...) than put them in other peoples deliberately. Along with the sleeves issue this makes me wonder if most of Europe (and certianly Italy) has some kind of perceived problem with cheating. Also took you rather a long time to open this site.....I hope this doesn't bode ill for the event itself [ quoted text not captured ]

About "european" or "italian" being able to perceive cheating, AFAIK there's no "country breed" specific flaw in being able to tell a problem and getting a solution for it. We're pretty aware about cheating and what tournament organization implies, and all choiches presented on the website are for what we think it will be the best result. About the disqualification thing, i'll let the final word here to our head judge for the event - we adopted the same line with the italian qualifiers and championship past years, and all went fine. regards Emiliano <hugh.an...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1159225668.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

> Tetragrammaton wrote: > About "european" or "italian" being able to perceive > cheating, AFAIK there's no "country breed" specific flaw in being able to > tell a problem > and getting a solution for it. > We're pretty aware about cheating and what tournament organization implies, > and all choiches presented on the website are for what we think it will be > the best result. I've been active in the Swedish tournament scene as a judge for the last 3 years and I must tell that during these years I have never ever had to punish a player for premeditated (spelling?) cheating. I use sleeves and I use decklists at our bigger events. But still, this fear of cheating is getting a bit absurd. Can someone enlighten me about events when they have been forced to punish people for cheating? > About the disqualification thing, i'll let the final word here to our head > judge for the event - > we adopted the same line with the italian qualifiers and championship past > years, and all > went fine. Sure thing. Keep the decklists. But be aware that a good judge is a judge who can read a situation and act from it with objective fairness in his judgement. So I plead to you, use the decklist DQ's with sense. Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. For instance, player A gets into the final of the EC and the checking of his deck shows that he is missing a fame. If I were to follow the information that's on the EC 2006 website I as a judge would have to DQ him/her. Please don't do this, use decklists, but also use common sense when faced with incorrect decklists. Thats all for now! Alex Ek VEKN Prince of Gothenburg, Sweden

Of course common sense will be used a lot in any judging question - the rules are presented for everyone to understand, but we do use common sense a lot in telling situation, including illegal deck/decklist. There's no fear at all about cheating - the decklist form just simplifies the cheking of the decklists on the same format . Sleeves are not mandatory for the event. For DQ for illegal decklist/deck, as stated, the question will be cleared in short time by the head judge for the event. best regards Emiliano "_angst_" <blood...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1159236160.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4%3Sg.1262$a71....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >For DQ for illegal decklist/deck, as stated, the question will be cleared >in short time by the head judge for the event. So what this means is... you're not going to disqualify everyone for an accidental decklist screw-up, but you're going to say on the website that you will? Why say one really stupid thing (which is, by the way, not the stance supported by the Judges Guide), but then do something else anyway? That makes very little sense indeed. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <4%3Sg.1262$a71....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nos...@none.com> writes: > >For DQ for illegal decklist/deck, as stated, the question will be cleared > >in short time by the head judge for the event. > > So what this means is... you're not going to disqualify everyone for an > accidental decklist screw-up, but you're going to say on the website > that you will? I'm not the head judge for the main event - so that means that i will let the final word (here) on this to the head judge - By the rules, "If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate." , so rule enforcement it's supported. As a personal note, players will have a lot of time to build their deck, to check them against the decklist, to compile their decklist accurately - So there's no significant reason why a decklist should be screwed by any means - Of course the judges will use common sense for telling illegal decklist/deck. > > Why say one really stupid thing (which is, by the way, not the stance > supported by the Judges Guide), but then do something else anyway? That > makes very little sense indeed. > I know that the final release of the website has been checked by WW in advance, and no warning about any "stupid" things was given by them to the webmaster. Either this rule enforcement gone unnoticed, or it was deemed legal. regards Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In France we allways ask decklist. And if there is a mistake, we ask the player to come back to the list. If there is 17 Shambling and you have 18, we gone remove a shambling and that's it. The only exeption is if ther is 4 Stealth bleed deck and suddently somone has 8 deflection that wasn't ther at all. But it never happend. I think we are all ok to say that if a fame is missing in your deck it's nearly shure you have forgontten it on a game... By doing this rule Italian will assume that player will take 10 to 20 minutes between round to cheque there deck... i hope they will put that in there shedul...

olivier...@gmail.com wrote: > By doing this rule Italian will assume that player will take 10 to 20 > minutes between round to cheque there deck... i hope they will put that > in there shedul... Um, have you guys forgotten how bad V:tES players are at shuffling their decks already? By taking 10-20 minutes to organize your deck to compare it to a decklist, you're adding at least another half an hour to each round. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1159260254.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, edo...@gmail.com writes: >I'm not the head judge for the main event - >so that means that i will let the final word (here) on this to the head >judge - >By the rules, "If the judge believes that the situation has >significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the >penalty as appropriate." , >so rule enforcement it's supported. This does not mean the judge can modify the default assumption, just because he or she feels like it. Similarly, the judge cannot just assume that players using (or not using) sleeves are cheaters and eject them. The judge is entirely able to exercise discretion. Saying "You will be disqualified for a decklist accident" is exactly the reverse of exercising discretion. It's changing the basic framework suggested by the Judging guidelines for no reason other than personal preference and *not* exercising discretion based on the circumstances. Because, you know, the circumstances haven't come up. What with the tournament not being in progress and all. >I know that the final release of the website has been checked by WW in >advance, and >no warning about any "stupid" things was given by them to the >webmaster. >Either this rule enforcement gone unnoticed, or it was deemed legal. Oh no, busy people don't read everything 100% carefully, and may not be experienced judges themselves. Welcome to the real world. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:daiYM4sZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1159260254.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > edo...@gmail.com writes: >>I'm not the head judge for the main event - >>so that means that i will let the final word (here) on this to the head >>judge - >>By the rules, "If the judge believes that the situation has >>significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the >>penalty as appropriate." , >>so rule enforcement it's supported. > > This does not mean the judge can modify the default assumption, just > because he or she feels like it. Similarly, the judge cannot just > assume that players using (or not using) sleeves are cheaters and eject > them. To be clear, i posted here to advertise about the website, not to dive in discussion about decisions and rulings, so i will not go further here on this. <snip> > Oh no, busy people don't read everything 100% carefully, and may not be > experienced judges themselves. > > Welcome to the real world. If WW will tell EC organizers that there's something to be changed on the website, it will be courtesy of the webmaster to change that content. regards Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Hello all, > the website for the European Championship 2006 > is UP here: > > http://ec2006.vtes.it/en/ > > For pre-registration, the direct link is here: > http://ec2006.vtes.it/en/index.php?p=3 A totally great site, neat design. I have a little suggestion though, for Sunday there are two options (Storyline and SoD), perhaps you should state if qualified players should check one of them, in case they don´t make day two. And why does one have to inquire for draft in a text field? Make it a checkbox, too. Additionally it would be nice if someone could see a list of pre-registered people (everyone seems to like that from our experience), of course no email and stuff just plain names and perhaps country. -- johannes walch

In message <NAjSg.2894$a71....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton [ quoted text not captured ] So when a flaw is pointed out, the EC Organizers will only change it if White Wolf tell them to? Why not just follow the documented rules that, you know, White Wolf released? Those documents are *already* White Wolf telling you that your website is wrong. If you want to change the rules so that you can automatically DQ anyone for a decklist irregularity by default, rather than the range of penalties for decklist irregularities which start with *A WARNING* (which has zero impact on a player, if there are no other infractions that day, whereas a DQ has a bloody huge impact), petition V:EKN to change the rules. You might have a case to make. You might not. However, you make the case to them, not just unilaterally change rules because it gets you off. Do not instigate a rules change by virtue of putting demonstrably and delibarately incorrect interpretations of the rules on a website, then pouting like a petulant teenager when someone points out that they're wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > So when a flaw is pointed out You haven't pointed out a flaw, You have expressed an opinion. >petulant teenager No comment.

I feel it's better to say : "you should be disqualified if your decklist is wrong" instead of : "You will be disqualified if your decklist is wrong" it allows the head judge to give a warning (or whatever) instead of disqualify a player if the HJ feels it's appropriate. Gracie

Vragozakas wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > So when a flaw is pointed out > > You haven't pointed out a flaw, You have expressed an opinion. The flaw has been pointed out. The fact that disqualification is automatic (according to the EC2006 web site: "Any irregularities in deck and/or decklist will result in the player being disqualified") is both unfair and excessive, and against the Judges' Guide, where such infractions have either a "warning" penalty or a "game loss" penalty. Perhaps some of you do not know that issuing a disqualification penalty to a player with a wrong deck/decklist was addressed for the first time in a Continental Qualifier/Championship (AFAIK) in the Barcelona EC (2003). However, that was not a disqualification by default, but a speciffic penalty issued instead of a game loss happening prior to the start of the final round, because the Archon cannot handle a game loss in such circumstances, so disqualifying the infractor was the only way for the Archon to move the next highest ranked player to the final round. EXCERPT FROM THE EC 2003 JUDGING CRITERIA Illegal decks: Decks will be inspected at random during the three preliminary rounds of both the Spanish Qualifier and the European Championship. And all of the finalists' decks will be inspected before the start of the final. If a player's deck is proven illegal after the third round has finished (before the start of the final), and the appropriate penalty for the infraction in the V:EKN Judges Guidelines is a game loss, judges will disqualify that player instead. The next highest ranked player in the tournament will then take his or her place in the final round. If a judge determines that a deck has been improperly reassembled (if you accidentally scoop up a Haven Uncovered on one of your minions and place it in your library resulting in a 91-card library between rounds, for instance), that deck will not be considered illegal, and that player should make any changes necessary to make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

In message <1159352438.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Vragozakas <vrago...@yahoo.it> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> So when a flaw is pointed out > >You haven't pointed out a flaw, You have expressed an opinion. The website expressly contradicts the stated V:EKN Rules. This is not an opinion, this is a verifiable fact. The V:EKN rules show what the penalties are for decklist problems. They do NOT include automatic disqualification. What *you* are expressing is an opinion based on wilful denial of reality. If you want to change the V:EKN Rules, petition V:EKN. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans wrote: > Perhaps some of you do not know that issuing a disqualification penalty > to a player with a wrong deck/decklist was addressed for the first time > in a Continental Qualifier/Championship (AFAIK) in the Barcelona EC > (2003). However, that was not a disqualification by default, but a > speciffic penalty issued instead of a game loss happening prior to the > start of the final round, because the Archon cannot handle a game loss > in such circumstances, so disqualifying the infractor was the only way > for the Archon to move the next highest ranked player to the final > round. Exactly that was the situation when I had to make the same decision for the EC2004 in Heidelberg. Nevertheless I corrected the results afterwards and the affected players "only" received a game loss (for the final round) so they were ranked 6th and 7th afterwards. After many thoughts on this issue I hold the position that either a constant "punishment" (game loss for next round) is applied or we discard the whole idea of decklists (I would be absolutely fine with that). Any other solution smells of collusion. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > After many thoughts on this issue I hold the position that either a constant "punishment" (game loss for next round) is applied or we discard the whole idea of decklists (I would be absolutely fine with that). Any other solution smells of collusion. The judge's guide is purposefully not "zero tolerance" for a reason. We have judges. They use their judgment when assigning penalties.

In message <efg4tr$lei$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >After many thoughts on this issue I hold the position that either a >constant "punishment" (game loss for next round) is applied or we >discard the whole idea of decklists (I would be absolutely fine with >that). Any other solution smells of collusion. If you have concerns that the judge(s) is colluding with the players, you have way, way bigger problems than decklists. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <efg4tr$lei$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: > >>After many thoughts on this issue I hold the position that either a >>constant "punishment" (game loss for next round) is applied or we >>discard the whole idea of decklists (I would be absolutely fine with >>that). Any other solution smells of collusion. > > > If you have concerns that the judge(s) is colluding with the players, > you have way, way bigger problems than decklists. > That is not my concern. My concern is that if the judge makes an actual judgement in such a major case instead of applying some pre-set rules he will be prone to accusations and enerving discussions in public forums for weeks after the event. Having experienced this problem myself I really want to spare any judge from it because it will most likely keep me from judging any major event again, ever. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > >>After many thoughts on this issue I hold the position that either a > >>constant "punishment" (game loss for next round) is applied or we > >>discard the whole idea of decklists (I would be absolutely fine with > >>that). Any other solution smells of collusion. > > > > > > If you have concerns that the judge(s) is colluding with the players, > > you have way, way bigger problems than decklists. > > > > That is not my concern. My concern is that if the judge makes an actual judgement in > such a major case... Since when is accidentally leaving my Temptation with someone else's deck a "major case"? I haven't bugged Jesse about getting it back since the first week it disappeared. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <efiqu8$nh2$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> If you have concerns that the judge(s) is colluding with the >>players, >> you have way, way bigger problems than decklists. >> > >That is not my concern. My concern is that if the judge makes an actual >judgement in such a major case instead of applying some pre-set rules >he will be prone to accusations and enerving discussions in public >forums for weeks after the event. Having experienced this problem >myself I really want to spare any judge from it because it will most >likely keep me from judging any major event again, ever. At major events, judges very often have to make decisions which are seen as controversial by some subset of the people there - such as those people detrimentally affected by them, the people who travelled with them, people from the same playgroup/town/country as them, people who have a preferred play-style (such as those who view any sort of VP split deal-making as bad, and whose tolerance for such deals is significantly below what the judge regards as being appropriate, based on his or her understanding of the rules on the subject). Judges having to make controversial decisions is not a new problem. And rigid application of rules when there are obviously screwed up circumstances (a table was knocked over, causing decks to be scattered, for example) will be similarly controversial. If people think that rigid application of over-the-top rules without regard to, you know, sanity will prevent controversial decisions being made, they're wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]