Threading may be broken, I couldn't get my newsreader to post
in response to Kevin's actual post. Sorry about that...
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> I will submit to you (all), for the third time in this thread, that if
> you think -- really THINK -- about *how often* someone plays in a
> "completely random way" and/or a "collusionary way" after gaining the
> Game Win, your
> collusion-can-happen-therefore-we-need-to-change-the-Game-Win-rule-and-a
> ssociated-rulings theory falls to pieces. If you *really* want to
> convince people that the current Game Win rule and/or associated rulings
> need to be changed, start keeping track of how often you believe players
> "play randomly" and/or "collude" after gaining the Game Win, and then
> come back and show us your data which demonstrates your supposition(s).
Sure. This probably hasn't happened much. But given that it's
allowed, I would not be surprised if it starts happening. If
you can, as the winning player, legally "give away" the last 2
VPs each round to someone, you might want to do that to influence
other people's standings. Or just because you like the cut of
their jib, whatever.
It's not barrable under collusion because the winner, having won,
can "do whatever he likes".
It's probably fine if we wait for it to become a problem (or not)
before doing anything about it; it's just that it sounds bad.
Josh
sitting in the bored room
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Threading may be broken, I couldn't get my newsreader to post
> in response to Kevin's actual post. Sorry about that...
>
Indeed, i faced the same problem here;
i'm glad to see that wasn't my news server up :-)
>
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> I will submit to you (all), for the third time in this thread, that
>> if you think -- really THINK -- about *how often* someone plays in a
>> "completely random way" and/or a "collusionary way" after gaining the
>> Game Win, your
>> collusion-can-happen-therefore-we-need-to-change-the-Game-Win-rule-and-a
>> ssociated-rulings theory falls to pieces. If you *really* want to
>> convince people that the current Game Win rule and/or associated
>> rulings need to be changed, start keeping track of how often you
>> believe players "play randomly" and/or "collude" after gaining the
>> Game Win, and then come back and show us your data which
>> demonstrates your supposition(s).>
> Sure. This probably hasn't happened much. But given that it's
> allowed, I would not be surprised if it starts happening. If
> you can, as the winning player, legally "give away" the last 2
> VPs each round to someone, you might want to do that to influence
> other people's standings. Or just because you like the cut of
> their jib, whatever.
>
> It's not barrable under collusion because the winner, having won,
> can "do whatever he likes".
>
> It's probably fine if we wait for it to become a problem (or not)
> before doing anything about it; it's just that it sounds bad.
>
I agree.
Anyway, answring to Kevin:
the fact that the hole in the rule isn't exploited on regular basis
doesn't mean that the hole isn't there, nor that, as Joshua points,
that it will turn in a problem to be deal with in the future.
For now, the lesser evil seems to let things as they are.
Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome
In message <b30sre$1fv30l$3...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>,
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>Threading may be broken, I couldn't get my newsreader to post
>in response to Kevin's actual post. Sorry about that...
Kevin changed the subject line. =)
>Sure. This probably hasn't happened much. But given that it's
>allowed, I would not be surprised if it starts happening. If
>you can, as the winning player, legally "give away" the last 2
>VPs each round to someone, you might want to do that to influence
>other people's standings. Or just because you like the cut of
>their jib, whatever.
doesn't that belong on alt.rainbow.warriors.nice.jib.jib.jib?
However, seriously, I don't EVER intend to give away VPs at a table --
if I have 1GW and 3VP, I fully intend to get the next 2, because 1GW and
5VP gets me closer to the final than 1GW and 3VP. I might sit in front
of two weenie Computer Hack decks or something the next two rounds, you
know?
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b30sre$1fv30l$3...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
> It's probably fine if we wait for it to become a problem (or not)
> before doing anything about it; it's just that it sounds bad.
It hasn't been a problem and I really don't think it will become a problem. I
can't recall being in a tournament with such a strong position that I was
guaranteed to be the top seeded finalist even if I were to give away 2 VPs.
Hell, just last weekend I accidentally gave away 2 VPs (oops!) and missed the
final because of it. Just the thought of doing that intentionally boggles my
mind. :)
-Robert
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7ec85vsnjl836329p...@4ax.com>...
> In message <b30sre$1fv30l$3...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>
> >Threading may be broken, I couldn't get my newsreader to post
> >in response to Kevin's actual post. Sorry about that...
>
> Kevin changed the subject line. =)
>
> >Sure. This probably hasn't happened much. But given that it's
> >allowed, I would not be surprised if it starts happening. If
> >you can, as the winning player, legally "give away" the last 2
> >VPs each round to someone, you might want to do that to influence
> >other people's standings. Or just because you like the cut of
> >their jib, whatever.
>
> doesn't that belong on alt.rainbow.warriors.nice.jib.jib.jib?
>
> However, seriously, I don't EVER intend to give away VPs at a table --
> if I have 1GW and 3VP, I fully intend to get the next 2, because 1GW and
> 5VP gets me closer to the final than 1GW and 3VP.
Agree, unless you know that you're already in the final having
scored, say, 5 Vps on the first round, and having scored
3 (= already won the table) in the current round
(given a 2+F tournament).
Emiliano
"Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:52f0d87d.03022...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
2 GW and 8 VPs in a 2+F event still isn't a guarantee of top seed. With top
seed being a substantial finals tie-breaker, it's pretty foolish to toy with
giving away VPs.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
rob...@vtesinla.org
Robert Goudie wrote:
> 2 GW and 8 VPs in a 2+F event still isn't a guarantee of top seed. With top
> seed being a substantial finals tie-breaker, it's pretty foolish to toy with
> giving away VPs.
Not to mention the advantage that comes from being the last to choose
your seat. That choice can mean the difference between falling back on
the tie-breaker and winning outright.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
In message <52f0d87d.03022...@posting.google.com>,
vam...@usa.com (Tetragrammaton) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7ec85vsnjl836329p...@4ax.com>...>> However, seriously, I don't EVER intend to give away VPs at a table --
>> if I have 1GW and 3VP, I fully intend to get the next 2, because 1GW and
>> 5VP gets me closer to the final than 1GW and 3VP.>
>Agree, unless you know that you're already in the final having
>scored, say, 5 Vps on the first round, and having scored
>3 (= already won the table) in the current round
>(given a 2+F tournament).
Positioning in the final makes all the difference in the world. How do
I know that someone else hasn't scored 5VP in the first and is on their
way to 4VP in the current?
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Of course you can't :-)
But you could know that the one you're letting the remaining
2 Vps will get into the final too by that.
Sure, "bad" collusive players would love, at that point,
to get both into the final,
maybe arranging then there as soon as they could
a(nother) 3x2 deal.
In fact, i was discussing about this matter
(the possibility to "give away" 2 vps by current rule)
mostly in regard of potential collusion
(even though such collusions don't show up
on a regular basis)
Emiliano
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7ec85vsnjl836329p...@4ax.com>...
<snip the rib about the jib>
> However, seriously, I don't EVER intend to give away VPs at a table --
> if I have 1GW and 3VP, I fully intend to get the next 2, because 1GW and
> 5VP gets me closer to the final than 1GW and 3VP. I might sit in front
> of two weenie Computer Hack decks or something the next two rounds, you
> know?
Yeah, I'd never want to give away VP's that could just fall into my
lap, but at the same time once I've won a table I may want to be able
to reward the people who've helped my get to that position (and are
still apparently in the game) by being able to give them a VP. I'm
worried that a change would semantically change the ability of a
player to deal at a table where they have a strong postion.
Alternately, once you know your status at a table, the rules seem to
permit you to choose the manner of you play. It would seem consistant
to make that true for the winner and the loser at a table.
Cameron Domer
LSJ wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
>>> 2 GW and 8 VPs in a 2+F event still isn't a guarantee of top seed.
>> With top seed being a substantial finals tie-breaker, it's pretty foolish to
>> toy with giving away VPs.>
>
> Not to mention the advantage that comes from being the last to choose
> your seat. That choice can mean the difference between falling back on
> the tie-breaker and winning outright.
Yes, but then you're playing for "best standing in the tournament", and in
this case that also means you're actually playing to "maximize VPs". So
you're no longer simply following the official rule of "play to win, if not
possible, try to maximize VPs".
So what you're saying is that the 'loophole' I want to close doesn't need
closing because most players don't play strictly by the official rule, but
actually follow the rule that I proposed to close that loophole.
:)
Flux
In message <b33857$1i2jba$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>,
"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote:>>
>> Positioning in the final makes all the difference in the world. How
>> do
>> I know that someone else hasn't scored 5VP in the first and is on
>> their
>> way to 4VP in the current?>
>Of course you can't :-)
>But you could know that the one you're letting the remaining
>2 Vps will get into the final too by that.
I'm just as likely to know this as I am to know that someone has scored
5VP in the first and is getting 4VP in the current; that is to say, not
very unless OTHER violations of the rules are also occurring.
>Sure, "bad" collusive players would love, at that point,
>to get both into the final,
> maybe arranging then there as soon as they could
>a(nother) 3x2 deal.
Extra crunchy. I like it! Especially if it gives me a seating position
advantage because of it.
>In fact, i was discussing about this matter
>(the possibility to "give away" 2 vps by current rule)
>mostly in regard of potential collusion
Collusion is a separate issue, though. Collusion needs to be punished
as collusion, not as game-throwing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against game-throwing too, but I'm also pointing
out that strong players know very well that they need to get as many VP
as possible to ensure the best place coming into the final. If weak
players cheat, and it doesn't help them...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray wrote:
> In message <b33857$1i2jba$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>,
> "tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
> about:
>>> Derek Ray wrote:
<snip>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm against game-throwing too, but I'm also
> pointing out that strong players know very well that they need to get
> as many VP as possible to ensure the best place coming into the
> final. If weak players cheat, and it doesn't help them...
Yes, however a strong player walking
the thin line between game-throwing
and collusion (being "strong" doesn't mean
that you can't take advantage of a rule hole,
either if it grants you a game-throwing or
a mutual collusion with someone else)
can benefit too much from the "give away Vp"
thing.
More, apart the "get into the final" aspect, in
the final round itself that "give away Vp" could really
alter the second place in the tournament; as the rule
stands now, potential king-making (once you scored 3 Vp)
for the second place is legal
Imho, of course :)
EMiliano