Where are the tournament reports??

Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? Tournament reports in this venue consist of only a relatively lackluster list of finalists, the type of decks they played, and a decklisting of the tournament winner. Where's the drama? Where's the excitement? Where are the sneaky plays, the last minute reprieves, the wild battles, the coups, the blow- by-blow descriptions of pivotal battles?? I was disappointed to see just a few reports come out of Origins (and then only after I primed the pump) and a complete lack of any coherent description of the US Nationals at GenCon. Now, perhaps I'm spoiled, coming from a Magic background where tournament reports have developed into a fine art (although there are some crude ones too [joke alert]). And I certainly admit I haven't written anything up on GenCon either (my excuse being trying so hard to stay alive [e.g. Hamblin as a predator and Churchill as a prey in the Sabbat draft] that I neglect to remember what I did), but I will endeavour to in the future. IMHO, the drama, fun, and excitment of tournaments will help show V:tes for the dramatic, fun, and exciting game that it is to all those readers out there, compelling them to get off their rears and to join us in our fun. It doesn't have to be a major tournament or indeed any tournament -- it could be a local playgroup. It just has to be fun. Anyway, that's my rant for this month. Yours, Madman Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8nekb1$9kr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: > Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? > > Tournament reports in this venue consist of only a relatively > lackluster list of finalists, the type of decks they played, and a > decklisting of the tournament winner. > > Where's the drama? Where's the excitement? Where are the sneaky > plays, the last minute reprieves, the wild battles, the coups, the blow- > by-blow descriptions of pivotal battles?? Ah, you're so right. I only actually played in one Jyhad tournament at GenCon (because I am a terrible terrible failure and was late to both the Thursday constructed and the Friday Sabbat draft - well, I did play a couple games in the side-unsanctioned tourney on Friday, but I sucked there too). And I didn't take any notes (umm, of course I didn't, because it's against the tournament rules...), but here's what I can remember of the games. I was playing Brujah pot/cel rush (of course). Well, I say "of course", but I would have played something else if I'd had anything else good to play. I accidentally took my halfway decent Nos/other Obf/Pot/Aus 5th/Minion Tap/Pulse/stealth/ combat deck apart a couple weeks before GenCon, because I was tired of playing it, and then what I ended up with were: (a) an all-Sabbat !Malk stealth and bleed deck, which was not terrible but had very poor combat and vote defense; (2) a fairly silly mainly-Gangrel Ani/For deck with princes, 5ths, Minion Taps, a pile of Drawing out the Beast, Dawn Op, Skin of Steel, Amaranth, Ritual of the Bitter Rose, Absolution of the Diabolist (it didn't work very well for the obvious reason that if you didn't block it it couldn't bleed you for more than about two an action); (iii) a stupid presence-weenie deck of 40% master cards, including a bunch of Anarch Revolts, plus KRCs, ConAgs, Praxis Seizures, Third Tradition - Progenies, Presence skill cards for them, etc (this deck worked okay, except that it was always the most obvious threat on the table and so it was often immediately whacked); (d) the previously mentioned Brujah (and !Bru, and Jimmy Dunn) pot/cel Rush deck, which almost always kicks ass and takes names, but is only rarely able to get many victory points. So anyway, after seeing how much that DotB/Dawn Op deck sucked when playing in the side games on Friday, I decided to play the good old Brujah on Saturday. (Good old rock. Nothing beats rock.) First round, umm, I don't think I know any of the players' names. My prey was playing a Tremere deck with Cryptic Missions and dominate +bleed, looked like mainly small vamps, he may have had Society of Leopold in there but I never saw 'em. Grandprey was playing I think a pre/obf stealth-bleed deck, which was quite effective. Setites and others. Grand- predator was playing an !Malk stealth-bleed deck, which actually looked surprisingly similar to mine, except that he seemed to have more Kindred Spirits (I only have three, sadly). And my predator was playing, umm, some kind of weenie presence vote deck I believe. He made a bunch of princes early on, starting with Antoinette DuChump, moving on to Delilah Leaston, etc etc. So my deck kinda choked at the beginning there; I failed to draw the +hand damage and Grapples and Rushes all at the same time, so my prey got set up with about five princes in play and a couple Progeny and Embraces. But he wasn't doing all that much damage to me yet at that point; I dunno if he wasn't drawing KRCs and such or didn't even have 'em in. So I was bleeding my prey for a few, beating up his vamps once in a while, and trying to beat up my prey's vamps sometimes. (Oh yeah, the other reason I sucked is that my prey had Elysium the Arboretum out, and the votes to defend it, and I ditched a Rampage my first turn before I saw what he was playing.) So the table was humming along for a while, I was doing nothing much good but everyone else's deck seemed to be working pretty well. The first major threat seemed to be the stealth/bleed presence deck, since he was pretty consistently bleeding the !Malks for three or so an action, and !Malk guy was getting low on pool. I thought !Malk guy should have gotten serious about trying to oust Pre- weenie guy a little earlier, since Pre-weenie guy was fairly low on pool already (didn't seem to have gotten much pool gain). But when he finally did try it, he got him down to about one or two and then rolled over and died to the Pre bleeder, who naturally quickly followed up by killing the weenie voter. So at that point I tried to rush the stealth bleeder's guys into torpor, after attempting to offer him a deal where I wouldn't kill his vamps if he didn't bleed me for a turn or two (since I thought I could oust my prey, who was also low on pool, given that time). Sadly he saw right through me and refused since if I did oust my prey he figured I would then probably be able to take him down as well (which is exactly what I was figuring, but I was hoping he wouldn't notice). So I killed about one of his vamps and then he killed me dead, and took the sweep. Second round, my prey was Robyn (don't remember her last name, sorry) playing a Minion Tap/5th Nosferatu-type deck, plenty of stealth. Grandprey was Galen (again no last name) playing a Gangrel intercepty sorta deck with, apparently, a bunch of tricky stuff although I never saw that part work too well. Grandpredator was, umm, don't know his name, playing I think mostly-Ventrue bleed/vote? Apparently had lots of combat defense (or at least he said so). Predator was playing another 5th/Minion Tap deck, although he never actually got out a Prince, and so he died a horrible (though very slow) death to the first turn Antediluvian Awakening he put out (which also seemed to be a major destabilizing force on the table). So. Robyn kept getting out Princes and Tapping them and 5thing them, none of which I could do anything about. But pretty much whenever I desired, I could Rush one of her vamps and put it in torpor empty. Problem was, I didn't want to kill her *that* quickly, cause I wanted her to put some pressure on Galen first. Other problem was I was worried about staying alive against my predator and that damn Awakening - he never got any princes but he did bring out Cassandra - Optimagus Prime, and later I think Rebekka - Chantry Elder of Frikkin' Munich. So, she kept gaining pool *way* beyond what I could bleed for, and I kept bleeding for three or four a turn, and putting her princes in torpor when it seemed necessary. When it all started getting real ugly, I tried to talk Galen into trying to kill his prey, but he wouldn't do it; apparently he was too worried about Robyn and my predator walking away with the game with their 5th/Tap thing (although my predator never really seemed able to do anything in this game, Galen and his prey pegged him and Robyn early on as the ones to watch, due apparently to the 5thy stuff). So instead, my grandpredator killed my predator, and then I tried to Rush his ass, but he did indeed have some combat defense (lots of Majesty, which of course was pretty useless against my Grapples, but also some Skin of Steel, which slowed me down, and I think he got an Elysium too, though I think I managed to Rampage on that one), and so I died too when he got to me and sent some +bleed my way. Robyn was still in the game at that point, and I think she had just ousted Galen (or was just about to) with her piles of stealth. I don't know how the game turned out but I wouldn't be surprised if Robyn did end up winning, if she got out another replacement prince. Third round, my prey was, umm, forgot his name, playing Brujah pot/cel/dom combat/bleed/vote? Was definitely playing the Wonder Twins, though he only got out one (Constanza Vintner) to go with the Anvil he screwed me out of (I had two blood on my Anvil when he brought his up) and the Tura Vaughn who joined them later in the game. Grandprey was Frederick Scott, playing a weenie- horde thing with about a zillion Embrace, giving them Fortitude and apparently Potence, with what seemed to be the goal of preventing all your damage and Pulling your Fangs, or Disarming you, or both. It looked like a good plan, but having twelve minions out is a little too obvious, and he was the first to go. Grandpredator was playing a Giovanni deck with some intercept (Spectral Divination I think?) and some combat and some bleed. Predator was playing another 5th/Tap deck with Toreador; Anson (Grunge Prince of Seattle) came out early and his buddy Isabel de Leon bought him a ticket to the Toreador Grand Ball so he could do his 5ths unentangled with us lesser immortals. Later on Anneke showed up too. In this game, I bled my prey a bit early on, and then some more later, and some more after that, but it all came to naught. I think it was my third turn that my Dr. Dre, Chronic Leader of the Cold Dawn got superior Potence and came over to bleed, getting blocked by that traitorous Anvil. Testing the waters, you know. So I ripped off a Signpost, so did he, I smacked him around for about five and he smacked me around for about three, and we both Tasted. Hmmm. So much for those waters. So after that I bled when I felt like I had a good hand of combat cards, and I hoped he would get himself down to oust range by buying vampires. He nearly did, too, except that he had a couple Wakes in there, and managed to oust his prey (Mr. Scott and his horde of weenies) with a second damaging vote that the table let him pass (the first one was an Ancilla Empowerment that did about nine to F. Scott; I didn't think it was a good idea to get him killed, but I had no say since I only had about one vote if that, and my prey had four and my predator about five). So that put him out of range for me. At that point I figured I was just about totally screwed; I think I did something toward trying to keep my predator down (up till that point he had been doing essentially nothing to me - I don't think he'd even bled me once, just fiddled with his 5ths and Taps and masters and such), but it pretty much went nowhere what with the Secure Haven and stuff. Oh yeah, and I had contested Anvil when my prey was down to about two pool, figuring he'd have to yield or get ousted (or yield *and* get ousted, as I hoped), but instead he gained pool for ousting his prey and I went to the land of suck. I paid for Anvil for a couple more turns and got ousted somehow; it was probably some damaging vote that my predator called but I could be wrong. I was actually only half paying attention to the game at that point (bad Josh, I know) since I had just realized that I wasn't going to really have any time to mess with my Shadowfist decks before the Throne War finals started at 7, so I was taking them out and fiddling with them during other people's turns. So then I was ousted, and that was my tournament, with 0 VPs in three rounds. (Obviously I did not make the finals.) Boy, do I suck. I am like the suckiest suck that ever sucked. Let me reiterate that next time, if there is a next time, I will try to put more effort into bringing along some decks that are actually good, or at least that have some reasonable hope of getting lots of victory points. Josh long enough for ya? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:51:39 GMT, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? > >Tournament reports in this venue consist of only a relatively >lackluster list of finalists, the type of decks they played, and a >decklisting of the tournament winner. And that's improved from a year ago. =) >Where's the drama? Where's the excitement? Where are the sneaky >plays, the last minute reprieves, the wild battles, the coups, the blow- >by-blow descriptions of pivotal battles?? Well... you have to have a few things on hand before you can write a dramatic report of the finals of a tournament, much less any description of the rounds played. First, you have to have someone there watching the whole finals and paying attention, so's to actually remember things. Probably taking notes. Players' viewpoints will tend to be a bit one-sided, although that's better than nothing. This is a problem because most non-finalists tend to leak away for pickup games at some point. =) Second, that someone has to be capable of being eloquent enough to be able to WRITE something dramatic, exciting, etc. Lets a lot of people out. Third, that someone has to understand the game well enough to accurately describe the plays, read the players' intentions, and provide an opinion on "good" or "bad" for the crucial plays. This will make him unpopular, especially the first time he notes some "bad" calls being made by players. (geez... it sounds like football.) Fourth, someone has to be willing to do it, as well as the others. Probably the most difficult thing out of all of them. >Now, perhaps I'm spoiled, coming from a Magic background where >tournament reports have developed into a fine art (although there are I would be amazed that a Magic game could be written up as either dramatic or exciting, but I suspect that's just my antiMagic bias talking. =) I'd actually be somewhat surprised that a VTES game could be written up as dramatic/exciting, but the multiplayer format would provide for some additional cut-and-thrust, I suppose. >some crude ones too [joke alert]). And I certainly admit I haven't >written anything up on GenCon either (my excuse being trying so hard to >stay alive [e.g. Hamblin as a predator and Churchill as a prey in the >Sabbat draft] that I neglect to remember what I did), but I will >endeavour to in the future. Now you see the problem. =) Your focus as a player HAS to be on your own game, and even when it's not your turn you need to watch and see how the table politics are happening, who's about to fall, etc. A local playgroup would be even more difficult (certainly ours, where the empties get carted out en masse at the end of the night), since someone would double as a player/reporter. =) -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta

> >Where's the drama? Where's the excitement? [snip] > Well... you have to have a few things on hand before you can write a > dramatic report of the finals of a tournament, much less any > description of the rounds played. I have the solution. All we need is to get ESPN to televise the V:tes tournaments like they are the M:T$ tournaments and it'll be all good. :p Sorrow --- Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, and all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in...

Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> writes: >Third round, my prey was, umm, forgot his name, playing >Brujah pot/cel/dom combat/bleed/vote? Was definitely >playing the Wonder Twins, though he only got out one >(Constanza Vintner) to go with the Anvil he screwed me >out of (I had two blood on my Anvil when he brought his >up) and the Tura Vaughn who joined them later in the >game. Grandprey was Frederick Scott, playing a weenie- >horde thing with about a zillion Embrace, giving them >Fortitude and apparently Potence, with what seemed to be >the goal of preventing all your damage and Pulling your >Fangs, or Disarming you, or both. It looked like a good >plan, but having twelve minions out is a little too >obvious, and he was the first to go. Yep, that is an acknowledged problem with that deck. People see two or three embraced and a half dozen recruited weenies and absolutely panic, which I can appreciate. What I didn't know, living on the west side of the country where it's hard to get to many tournaments, was how popular Ancilla Empowerments were. I was also kind of surprised at the pure number of damage votes sprinkled into decks that are not "vote decks" per se. All through both constructed tournaments I saw a lot of decks that would start out with stealth/bleed and suddenly whip out a KRC or Conservative Agitation. Had I understood all this, I think I had a much better deck in reserve. (Though you can never tell what vulnerabilities a deck has that you didn't play.) I liked the fortitude weeny deck because it's much less vulnerable to someone pulling out an Atonement. But I never saw any Atonements, only those damn votes. ... >So after that I bled when I felt like I had a good hand >of combat cards, and I hoped he would get himself down >to oust range by buying vampires. He nearly did, too, >except that he had a couple Wakes in there, and managed >to oust his prey (Mr. Scott and his horde of weenies) >with a second damaging vote that the table let him pass >(the first one was an Ancilla Empowerment that did about >nine to F. Scott; I didn't think it was a good idea to >get him killed, but I had no say since I only had about >one vote if that, and my prey had four and my predator >about five). Hard to say. I don't blame him for fearing a table sweep but he did what a couple other people in other games did that I tried to warn him against. (It didn't help that my prey was going on and on about how easy it was to hold out with only a couple blood in your pool. I don't think he was convincing anyone but I think it may have distracted my predator from the real danger in the game.) He stopped looking at the rest of the table and failed to notice the Minion Tap/Fifth Tradition stuff going on behind you because he was so focused on my hordes and your combat. Oh well, live and learn. The lessons of Gencon will probably set me up perfectly to be just behind the eight ball in tech for whatever large tournaments I manage to get to next year. At least, that's how it usually works for me. Fred

madma...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? All right, all right. So I played in the constructed tournament on Thursday. My deck was a Gangrel intercept deck with lots of untap/intercept/S:CE, lots of pool gain, a few Claws/Rotschreck, and Smiling Jacks. The deck is basically impervious to being killed. And, true to form, I never died. I got half a VP in each of the three rounds I played. I still maintain that I would have gotten more VP's if the rounds had been a couple hours longer... :) Anyway.... I also played in the Sabbat draft on Friday. The face-up Rochester style was something I had never done before with V:TES. I played in the booster draft at Origins, but this was definitely more interesting. About the only downside was the preponderance of duplicates in the eight cards that we flipped up. About 1/3 of the time, of the eight cards, there were two pairs. My plan going into the draft was to make a clan choice, and then stick to it. I wanted to first-pick a good, medium-sized vampire, and base a deck around it. I figured that this would at least make my deck consistent, if not good. Unfortunately, there was a little bump at the beginning; the first eight vampires' capacities were 2, 3, and 10. I ended up picking Lambach and his twin brother Lambach (I told you there were a lot of doubles), thinking I would corner the Vicissitude market. Then Ian Forestal came up, and I figured I'd corner the whatever-the-hell-I-wanted market. The !Tremere angle stayed pretty strong, so that's what I went with. The guy across the table drafted a bunch of guns, and I drafted six Soul Burns. I got pretty lucky with 3 Bonding, 2 Forced Awakening, 3 Redirection. I ended up with a !Tremere deck which splashed for Fortitude. I put Lambach in the crypt since he had votes, aggravated hand damage, and DOM AUS. The first round, my prey was Madman. I don't recall who the other players were. My predator was playing !Brujah combat and the across-the-table guy had a !Gangrel deck. I did a lot of bleeding early, and everyone else bent over backwards rescuing Madman's vampires in a vain attempt to keep him alive... at the end, it was Ian Forestal whipping Fortitude out of his pocket and Daring the Dawn to bleed Madman's last pool. The rest of the table fell soon after; I was about 2 minutes from bleeding out my predator when time was called. Having made a pretty good showing, I decided to drop out and do other cool stuff, like walk around the dealer room. Now, before you berate me for my lack of commitment, recall that this had been my _fourth_ game in a row playing up to the time limit. I needed a V:TES break. Besides, I had to play some Shadowfist... but that's another story. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "If I pull out my claymore, you're shit out of luck" -- Ween

>>long enough for ya?<< Well, it's not only long enough, it's damn funny, filled with a great wealth of detail and insight and even some advice. Now THAT is a tournament report, folks!!!!!! Keep 'em coming, Josh!! And don't get discouraged by your 0 VP. That's how many I got in the Sabbat draft (well, I did get 1/2, but that's somehow pathetic). Thanks loads, Madman [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:51:39 GMT, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? I played in one event at Gencon - the Sabbat draft. I had supposed that this would be the same format that I saw at Origins - open the booster, take a card, pass it on. Instead it was a Rochester draft - open the booster but don't look, put two cards in the middle and then draft from this common pool until all gone and then repeat. I like the other drafting method but this format was awful. Folk who were not intimately familiar with Sabbat (most of us) needed to look at the cards closely and this was only possible when it was your turn to pick a card. On our table, we put the cards on the back of a play-mat and passed it around. This procedure took forever because most of the time was dead-time - waiting for your turn to come round. You weren't even allowed to look at existing cards between picks. The drafting process took about 2 hours. I built a combat deck that didn't come out too well and I was ousted first on my table. I then happily escaped from this torture and entered the Shadowfist Can o' Whupass event. This was sealed deck - one starter and 3 boosters. I built a good hi-tech deck in about 10 minutes and then started kicking butt. That's more like it. The Sabbat event was sold out and so some keen players had to play pick-up instead. Why turn people away? I'd have thought another table of 5 could have been added without trouble. Anyway, I'm never going to try this format again and so that's one place freed up. Andrew

Josh Duffin: >>Grandprey was Frederick Scott, playing a weenie- >>horde thing with about a zillion Embrace, giving them >>Fortitude and apparently Potence, with what seemed to be >>the goal of preventing all your damage and Pulling your >>Fangs, or Disarming you, or both. It looked like a good >>plan, but having twelve minions out is a little too >>obvious, and he was the first to go. >Yep, that is an acknowledged problem with that deck. People see two >or three embraced and a half dozen recruited weenies and absolutely >panic, which I can appreciate. Being somewhat of a newbie, I too tend to play weenie decks that include Embraces, etc. And I found, too, to my amazement (well, I'm not so amazed anymore) that the rest of the table will jump on anyone who has a lot of ready minions. Me? I think it's silly. 5th/Tap decks are, IMHO, much more dangerous over the long run. >What I didn't know, living on the west side of the country >where it's hard to get to many tournaments, >was how popular Ancilla Empowerments were. Or try Domain Challenge, etc. Of course, my weenies rarely have much in the way of votes so I'm a sitting duck for that sorta stuff <sigh>. Any advice (other than "Don't play weenies") would be appreciated. Thanks, Madman [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com (Andrew S. Davidson) writes: >I played in one event at Gencon - the Sabbat draft. I had supposed >that this would be the same format that I saw at Origins - open the >booster, take a card, pass it on. Instead it was a Rochester draft - >open the booster but don't look, put two cards in the middle and then >draft from this common pool until all gone and then repeat. I like >the other drafting method but this format was awful. Folk who were >not intimately familiar with Sabbat (most of us) needed to look at the >cards closely and this was only possible when it was your turn to pick >a card. On our table, we put the cards on the back of a play-mat and >passed it around. This procedure took forever because most of the >time was dead-time - waiting for your turn to come round. You weren't >even allowed to look at existing cards between picks. Yea, that was a bad way to do it. You should have objected. Our table just left the cards in the center and gave the person currently drafting the priority if he wanted to turn all the cards in his direction. Usually, it wasn't necessary, so you could read any cards you needed to read while others were drafting. (The main problem was that most of the cards that needed reading, everybody needed to read them.) The problem I had with it was that you had so little control over what came up and when that a lot of it was almost as badly luck as sealed deck. You start concentrating on presense and a killer presense bleed cards comes up when you were drafting fifth so you're just screwed. I kept getting lousy choices when I drafted first and then first pick would rotate around to my left and the guy would get something absolutely sensational. Well, all right, I'm whining now and my problems in this tournament were a lot more self-inflicted than luck-inflicted but you get the point. Luck does play a major role in table draft - much more so, IMHO, than booster draft. >The Sabbat event was sold out and so some keen players had to play >pick-up instead. Why turn people away? Let's see, you can get 5 booster packs of Sabbat, current market price in the $40-50 range (that's right folks!!!), for $12 and you're wondering why they had a limit on players? Easy: 1) there's a limit to their largesse; and 2) with no limit, it would be hard to predict how many people you'd have to arrange to have Sabbat packs for. Did you think they just have boxes and boxes of the things stacked up in some White Wolf warehouse somewhere? Fred

>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:51:39 GMT, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >that this would be the same format that I saw at Origins - open the >booster, take a card, pass it on. Instead it was a Rochester draft - >open the booster but don't look, put two cards in the middle and then >draft from this common pool until all gone and then repeat. I like >the other drafting method but this format was awful. Folk who were >not intimately familiar with Sabbat (most of us) needed to look at the >cards closely and this was only possible when it was your turn to pick >a card. On our table, we put the cards on the back of a play-mat and >passed it around. This procedure took forever because most of the >time was dead-time - waiting for your turn to come round. You weren't >even allowed to look at existing cards between picks. > Yea, that was a bad way to do it. You should have objected. Our table just left the cards in the center and gave the person currently drafting the priority if he wanted to turn all the cards in his direction. Usually, it wasn't necessary, so you could read any cards you needed to read while others were drafting. (The main problem was that most of the cards that needed reading, everybody needed to read them.) The problem I had with it was that you had so little control over what came up and when that a lot of it was almost as badly luck as sealed deck. You start concentrating on presense and a killer presense bleed cards comes up when you were drafting fifth so you're just screwed. I kept getting lousy choices when I drafted first and then first pick would rotate around to my left and the guy would get something absolutely sensational. Well, all right, I'm whining now and my problems in this tournament were a lot more self-inflicted than luck-inflicted but you get the point. Luck does play a major role in table draft - much more so, IMHO, than booster draft. >The Sabbat event was sold out and so some keen players had to play >pick-up instead. Why turn people away? Let's see, you can get 5 booster packs of Sabbat, current market price [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 00:07:11 GMT, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >>Yep, that is an acknowledged problem with that deck. People see two >>or three embraced and a half dozen recruited weenies and absolutely >>panic, which I can appreciate. > >Being somewhat of a newbie, I too tend to play weenie decks that >include Embraces, etc. And I found, too, to my amazement (well, I'm >not so amazed anymore) that the rest of the table will jump on anyone >who has a lot of ready minions. Me? I think it's silly. 5th/Tap >decks are, IMHO, much more dangerous over the long run. Whew. Perhaps in the long run, but if you have intercept, that 5th isn't going to get off and that vampire is going to be dead. Simply put, more actions is ALWAYS better, and a guy with eight minions HAS to be made dead, or he is extremely likely to sweep. The guy with two minions doing MT/5th is a threat, yeah, but you have a good chance of ousting a prey or two on your own before the MT/5 deck gets up and running. The guy with 8 minions is likely to get you at any point in time. >Any advice (other than "Don't play weenies") would be appreciated. Bad news. "Don't play weenies" is the only -useful- advice. Weenies are strong. They take lots of actions for little cost. But they generally go "pop!" in combat, they tend to have problems with votes (no inherent titles and vulnerable to Domain Challenge/Ancilla Empowerment), and they're a BIG-ass target. Short of a generous supply of Delaying Tactics or a hideous Weenie Vote Deck, I don't see a way to keep yourself from getting mugged by people dropping one or two Ancillas in their deck as weenie defense. your advantage, though, is that not many people include Ancillas as weenie defense - except in tournaments. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Aug 2000 00:20:29 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Yea, that was a bad way to do it. You should have objected. Our table >just left the cards in the center and gave the person currently drafting >the priority if he wanted to turn all the cards in his direction. Usually, >it wasn't necessary, so you could read any cards you needed to read while >others were drafting. (The main problem was that most of the cards that >needed reading, everybody needed to read them.) No - that was the only way to do it. If the cards were just left in the middle then a) I would not be able to read them at all (I was sat at the end) b) there would be physical struggles over the cards. >The problem I had with it was that you had so little control over what >came up and when that a lot of it was almost as badly luck as sealed >deck. I agree with you there. >Let's see, you can get 5 booster packs of Sabbat, current market price >in the $40-50 range (that's right folks!!!), for $12 and you're wondering >why they had a limit on players? Easy: 1) there's a limit to their >largesse; and 2) with no limit, it would be hard to predict how many >people you'd have to arrange to have Sabbat packs for. Did you think >they just have boxes and boxes of the things stacked up in some White >Wolf warehouse somewhere? LSJ does have boxes and boxes of the things - I've seen them. With the cards about to be reprinted, these are a wasting asset. From a financial POV, it seems that the big mistake was charging $12 for the event ticket. So far as I know, this means that all the money went to WotC. It would have been better to charge a lower fee for the event and then charge a separate fee for the boosters to recover their cost. This doesn't have to be current market rate - they used to be a lot cheaper in the past, right? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > >Let's see, you can get 5 booster packs of Sabbat, current market price > >in the $40-50 range (that's right folks!!!), for $12 and you're wondering > >why they had a limit on players? Easy: 1) there's a limit to their > >largesse; and 2) with no limit, it would be hard to predict how many > >people you'd have to arrange to have Sabbat packs for. Did you think > >they just have boxes and boxes of the things stacked up in some White > >Wolf warehouse somewhere? > > LSJ does have boxes and boxes of the things - I've seen them. With The "boxes and boxes" you've seen have all been handed out at Dragon*Con, Origins, and Gen*Con - Gen*Con represented the end of those "boxes and boxes". I had been expecting another hundred or so booster packs from some newly discovered stash in some WotC warehouse, but unfortunately that set didn't make it to Origins, so I had to limit the event to what product was available. Which meant that I could raise the limit from the scheduled 32 to 36 (instead of to the 50 that I was planning on accomodating). My apologies to all those who got blocked out of the event, and congratulations to all of you who managed to get tickets and receive some mighty cheap Sabbat boosters in addition to six (or more) hours of play. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

a...@csi.com (Andrew S. Davidson) writes: >On 17 Aug 2000 00:20:29 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > >>Yea, that was a bad way to do it. You should have objected. Our table >>just left the cards in the center and gave the person currently drafting >>the priority if he wanted to turn all the cards in his direction. Usually, >>it wasn't necessary, so you could read any cards you needed to read while >>others were drafting. (The main problem was that most of the cards that >>needed reading, everybody needed to read them.) > >No - that was the only way to do it. If the cards were just left in >the middle then > >a) I would not be able to read them at all (I was sat at the end) >b) there would be physical struggles over the cards. Hmmm. We didn't have these problems. The person who sat on the end of our table was easily as close to the cards as anyone. Oh well, I guess you guys found the way that worked best for you. >>Did you think they just have boxes and boxes of the things stacked up >>in some White Wolf warehouse somewhere? > >LSJ does have boxes and boxes of the things - I've seen them. With >the cards about to be reprinted, these are a wasting asset. Even if there were more undistributed stock, I would disagree with this. Remember, Sabbat War will be a different set. If there's more left (or more can be found), I'll bet it will still draw just as much or more interest in the future despite having a portion of the cards (less than 25%, apparently) reprinted. Fred

In article <8nf9ok$3qa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >>long enough for ya?<< > Well, it's not only long enough, it's damn funny, filled with a great > wealth of detail and insight and even some advice. Now THAT is a > tournament report, folks!!!!!! Hee, hee. You flatterer. > Keep 'em coming, Josh!! And don't get discouraged by your 0 VP. > That's how many I got in the Sabbat draft (well, I did get 1/2, but > that's somehow pathetic). Yeah, I'll keep 'em coming if I actually get to play in more tournaments. I mean, not that I'm dropping the game or anything, but there are usually not that many tournaments around here. (And for 'right around here' I'd be the one organizing them, and then I might not be playing...) Still, next time I get to one, I promise to do another report. Unless I don't. Josh VEKN Chantry Elder of Frickin' Washington DC [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8nevmp$auf$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: [snip my description of F Scott's deck at GenCon] > Yep, that is an acknowledged problem with that deck. People see two > or three embraced and a half dozen recruited weenies and absolutely > panic, which I can appreciate. What I didn't know, living on the > west side of the country where it's hard to get to many tournaments, > was how popular Ancilla Empowerments were. I was also kind of surprised > at the pure number of damage votes sprinkled into decks that are not > "vote decks" per se. All through both constructed tournaments I saw > a lot of decks that would start out with stealth/bleed and suddenly > whip out a KRC or Conservative Agitation. I am actually not that used to seeing that kind of thing myself. I'm not sure where my prey that game was from; he did say something about that being common practice in his area, but I don't think I've seen people do it that much in the East Coast tournies I've played in. > Had I understood all this, > I think I had a much better deck in reserve. (Though you can never > tell what vulnerabilities a deck has that you didn't play.) I liked > the fortitude weeny deck because it's much less vulnerable to someone > pulling out an Atonement. But I never saw any Atonements, only those > damn votes. Yeah, I don't think I ever saw an Atonement either. Well, maybe one. James Hamblin might've been playing 'em on Thursday though, and if he wasn't he might as well have been... (lots of untaps) > Oh well, live and learn. The lessons of Gencon will probably set me up > perfectly to be just behind the eight ball in tech for whatever large > tournaments I manage to get to next year. At least, that's how it > usually works for me. heh! Is there really that much of an eight-ball in tech to be behind in Jyhad? I haven't noticed that many 'new things' sweeping the nation over the past few years. I mean, there are Legbiter's insane concoctions, and the Temptation of Greater Power thing, and the Drawing out the Beast thing, and the Cryptic/Society thing, but I don't even know that those didn't exist earlier, and I don't think any of them have either become wildly popular or wildly successful throughout the tournament circuit. (Such as it is.) I mean, it seems like the real tech is to guess right as to what will be popular among the other players this time around. At GenCon it seemed to be 5th/Tap decks, or at least they seemed like the biggest thing I saw. And those are, I don't know, several years old by now. Josh 'I can't believe I fell for the oldest trick in the book!' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8nfab3$4er$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, madma...@my-deja.com wrote: > Being somewhat of a newbie, I too tend to play weenie decks that > include Embraces, etc. And I found, too, to my amazement (well, I'm > not so amazed anymore) that the rest of the table will jump on anyone > who has a lot of ready minions. Me? I think it's silly. 5th/Tap > decks are, IMHO, much more dangerous over the long run. As Derek said, 5th/Tap decks can be very strong (and annoyingly hard to kill) in a long game - if they live that long. Which usually means, if they don't get their 5ths blocked. Or get their vamps rushed and killed. Early on, it can be a delicate deck because you only have one or two vamps to work with. [frederick scott, then madman] > >What I didn't know, living on the west side of the country > >where it's hard to get to many tournaments, > >was how popular Ancilla Empowerments were. > > Or try Domain Challenge, etc. Of course, my weenies rarely have much > in the way of votes so I'm a sitting duck for that sorta stuff <sigh>. > > Any advice (other than "Don't play weenies") would be appreciated. As Derek mentioned, Delaying Tactics is really quite good for vote defense, especially if you're playing a fast deck where you'll only need to be defended for a few turns before you get an oust. You can Wake and Delay if you need to act with all your minions, too. For combat defense with weenies, I like disciplineless Dodge (combined with Fake Outs if you're really paranoid). If they're not trying too hard, they may not be able to get past it, and if they are a serious combat deck, they have to use their serious combat cards every time to beat your Dodge, and you may get to save some of your poor weak vampires that way. For bleed defense, well, I guess weenies don't really have any. Archon Investigation (oh how cruel) for the big bleeds; for the smaller ones you're pretty much stuck with racing (ie oust your prey before your predator ousts you). Josh send $19.95 now for the fifteen-minute guide to weenie decks! money back guarantee! those bullies won't kick sand in your face anymore! [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote in message <399B14DA...@math.wisc.edu>... >madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >> >> Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? > >All right, all right. > >Having made a pretty good showing, I decided to drop out and do other >cool stuff, like walk around the dealer room. Now, before you berate me >for my lack of commitment, recall that this had been my _fourth_ game in >a row playing up to the time limit. I needed a V:TES break. Besides, I >had to play some Shadowfist... but that's another story. > >James Sorry James, but there is a real need to berate you here. Did you realize there where at least 9 players that really wanted to play in this tournament and could not get in? As one of the 5 that came all the way from Los Angeles and only got to play in the nationals, because the Sabbat draft was sold out, I think that really sucks. You should have determined you had enough VTES before you entered such a long tournament. Entering and dropping out after the first round not only makes life more diffcult for the judge but prevents someone else from playing. Someone that would have loved to play the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft and it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 people dropped out after the first round... I guess I'm really pissy about this because Keith and I where the next two in the line that didn't make it in the tournament. Steve Bucy "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn

Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] The reason people where turned away is there was a limited number of Sabbat packs. LSJ counted them out and found out there was only room for 32 (or was it 36). After that there was not enough packs for another player. I guess you didn't really understand the situation, but I still feel the need to say thanks for entering and dropping out so some of us didn't even have a chance to play. Steve Bucy -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, now see, Andrew, this is NOT a tournament report. It's really a bunch of whining and griping. Of course, there's a certain level of whining and griping in most tournament reports, but you need action and excitement, too. Now, to get to your complaints, the fact is that there IS some luck involved in the process, but this is not a new process -- Rochester drafts were used at GenCon both in '98 and '99. And, yes, it is difficult to excel at this format -- you need knowledge of the cards, flexibility, knowledge of the game, a prodigious short term memory, and a knowledge of the set, and to know how to create a deck. But, everyone else worked under the same conditions and some came up winning (not me, but some others). So, quit whining. Madman [ quoted text not captured ]

Wait. Of course playing in one round and then dropping out is preventing you from playing. Just like playing in the entire tournament and not dropping out would have prevented you from playing. I'm sorry that the event filled up, but that's not my fault. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough product for all the people that wanted to play (though, according to LSJ, there was supposed to be). You're saying that because you would have played in the whole tournament, I should have given up my spot to you? Why? I thoroughly enjoyed playing the amount that I did. You have every right to be pissed that you couldn't play, but I don't understand why I'm the object of your pissiness. James Steve Bucy wrote: > > Sorry James, but there is a real need to berate you here. Did you realize > there where at least 9 players that really wanted to play in this tournament > and could not get in? As one of the 5 that came all the way from Los Angeles > and only got to play in the nationals, because the Sabbat draft was sold > out, I think that really sucks. You should have determined you had enough > VTES before you entered such a long tournament. Entering and dropping out > after the first round not only makes life more diffcult for the judge but > prevents someone else from playing. Someone that would have loved to play > the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft and > it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could > even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 people > dropped out after the first round... > > I guess I'm really pissy about this because Keith and I where the next two > in the line that didn't make it in the tournament. > > Steve Bucy > > "The only human commander to survive combat with > the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. > If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Something's under the bed / Now it's out in the hedge There's a big black crow sitting on my window ledge And I hear something scratching through the wall." -- Shivaree

madma...@my-deja.com writes: >Well, now see, Andrew, this is NOT a tournament report. It's really a >involved in the process, but this is not a new process -- Rochester >drafts were used at GenCon both in '98 and '99. > >And, yes, it is difficult to excel at this format -- you need knowledge >of the cards, flexibility, knowledge of the game, a prodigious short >term memory, and a knowledge of the set, and to know how to create a >deck. > >But, everyone else worked under the same conditions and some came up >winning (not me, but some others). So, quit whining. Huh? I don't think that's an answer to his complaint. Of course, someone won. Someone HAS to win. It's a rule. Raffles are all luck, yet someone inevitably wins those, too. Agreed, all them "skill" things you just mentioned do come into play. That doesn't say anything about the relative importance of these skills vs. the luck factor. It just means they're also elements in the end result. I agree with Andrew - keeping in mind that this was my first experience with it and I might change my mind in the future. To me, it seems like booster drafts would (no experience in Jyhad, only Magic to date) involve relatively less luck and relatively more skill. Thus, I think I would prefer them. One thing that was good about table draft in a Sabbat format, though. All the rares came up at the same time so there was less aggravating about choosing good tournament cards vs. good cards for you collection to use in future constructed decks. (Or making sets or just pulling out and looking at, if that be your thing.) It might have been even better if both rare slots had been drafted in the same round. Fred

the Jackbooted Thug of Atlanta wrote: >I would be amazed that a Magic game could be written up as either >dramatic or exciting, but I suspect that's just my antiMagic bias >talking. =) Check out some tournament reports at www.thedojo.com. Most of these are rather so-so but there are some good ones too. >I'd actually be somewhat surprised that a VTES game could be written >up as dramatic/exciting Well, check out Josh's description earlier in this thread, or even (he says immodestly) my report from Origins. >Now you see the problem. =) Your focus as a player HAS to be on your >own game, and even when it's not your turn you need to watch and see >how the table politics are happening, who's about to fall, etc. Of course, tournament reports are generally first-person, and usually do *not* focus on the winners, except if the writer is a winner or if s/he actually plays against the winner. But they can be insightful, funny, dramatic, and fun at any level, whether beginner or craftly veteran. Yours, [ quoted text not captured ]

It's an issue of waste. Did you have the right to play? Yes. Did you get there first, buy the ticket, and show up? Yes. However it was a waste of a slot in the _tournament_. What is the point playing in a tournament when you have no intention of playing the entire tournament? You could have played in the pick up game and had a good time playing. The point of the tournament is to compete in a organized event against other players and determine a final winner. It's not to play one game, have a good time, decide your tired of VTES, and then leave. You knew the time and demands involved in playing in a VTES tournament. Why did you bother to start if you where already getting tired of the game? It's like a guy walking up to the snack bar and jumping in front of someone else who is starving. He buys the last sandwich takes two bites and throws the rest in the garbage disposal. Did he have the right to do so? Yes. Did he enjoy his two bites? Yes. However it's a terrible waste that really screws the guy who is starving. Does the starving guy have a right to be pissed? I think so. In short, yes I do think you should have sold the slot to someone waiting in line. If the tournament is really so unimportant, enough so you would drop out after the first round, why take up the slot. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn James Hamblin wrote in message <399C3272...@math.wisc.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >It's an issue of waste. Did you have the right to play? Yes. Did you get >there first, buy the ticket, and show up? Yes. However it was a waste of a >slot in the _tournament_. What is the point playing in a tournament when you >have no intention of playing the entire tournament? You could have played in >the pick up game and had a good time playing. The point of the tournament is >to compete in a organized event against other players and determine a final >winner. It's not to play one game, have a good time, decide your tired of >VTES, and then leave. You knew the time and demands involved in playing in a >VTES tournament. Why did you bother to start if you where already getting >tired of the game? Much though I sympathize with your point of view, I think the Sabbat Draft is kind of a special thing. The chance to draft Sabbat cards is probably - in this case - the tail that wags the tournament dog. (Though one might think it worthwhile to hang around 3 whole games and receive the fifth pack, if so.) If any of these guys had pushed you out of the US Open or the Thursday constructed, I'd probably agree more. Fred, who happily hung around for 3 games getting waxed because he was starving for the competition...

"Steve Bucy" wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote in message <399B14DA...@math.wisc.edu>... > >madma...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> > >> Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? > > > >All right, all right. > > > >Having made a pretty good showing, I decided to drop out and do other > >cool stuff, like walk around the dealer room. Now, before you berate me > >for my lack of commitment, recall that this had been my _fourth_ game in > >a row playing up to the time limit. I needed a V:TES break. Besides, I > >had to play some Shadowfist... but that's another story. > > > >James > > > Sorry James, but there is a real need to berate you here. Did you realize > there where at least 9 players that really wanted to play in this tournament > and could not get in? Having been to GenCon and Origins for about 7 years running now, I am wondering why those players who wanted so badly to play in this tournament not preregister for it? They would have had tickets, and they would have had them at $10, since the prereg price was $2 lower for the draft. Steve, you have been to cons before, and you know how rare Sabbat cards are! > As one of the 5 that came all the way from Los Angeles > and only got to play in the nationals, because the Sabbat draft was sold > out, I think that really sucks. You should have determined you had enough > VTES before you entered such a long tournament. Entering and dropping out > after the first round not only makes life more diffcult for the judge but > prevents someone else from playing. I want to say that it was great seeing you and so many other newsgroupers in person, even though you probably don't remember me! I appreciate seeing everyone support the game, and coming so far for it. Assuming the players told LSJ they were dropping out immediately, I'm not sure it made life more difficult for LSJ, did it? It looked as if his spreadsheet accounted for that easily. > Someone that would have loved to play > the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft and > it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could > even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 people > dropped out after the first round... All I can say is, prereg to make sure you get the tickets. James and I actually waited in the Events Registration line *the day before the draft* just to make sure we each had a ticket. When we got there, which was only about 18 hours in advance of the tournament, there were **26** empty slots (out of 32, btw), and it took us about 15 minutes total to get a ticket for each of us. I did feel badly for those of you that didn't get to play, especially you newsgroupers, but I don't understand how not getting a ticket for the event when you could have, leads to getting on someone's case for not playing in all three rounds. I don't believe *any* of those people took the cards and ran. They all actually *played*. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" wrote: > It's an issue of waste. Did you have the right to play? Yes. Did you get > there first, buy the ticket, and show up? Yes. However it was a waste of a > slot in the _tournament_. What is the point playing in a tournament when you > have no intention of playing the entire tournament? You could have played in > the pick up game and had a good time playing. Not with Sabbat cards. > The point of the tournament is > to compete in a organized event against other players and determine a final > winner. It's not to play one game, have a good time, decide your tired of > VTES, and then leave. You knew the time and demands involved in playing in a > VTES tournament. Why did you bother to start if you where already getting > tired of the game? Because they were Sabbat cards. > It's like a guy walking up to the snack bar and jumping in front of someone > else who is starving. He buys the last sandwich takes two bites and throws > the rest in the garbage disposal. Did he have the right to do so? Yes. Did > he enjoy his two bites? Yes. However it's a terrible waste that really > screws the guy who is starving. Does the starving guy have a right to be > pissed? I think so. The proper analogy would be: It's like a starving guy walking up to the snack bar before another someone else who is starving walks up to the snack bar. SG1 buys one of the rare, expensive sandwiches, takes two bites, and throws the rest in his pocket. Did he have the right to do so? Yes. Did he enjoy his two bites? Yes. Did he not finish the sandwich, but rather, put the rest of it in his pocket, instead of offering his place in line to SG2 before he even purchased the sandwich? Yes. Does SG2 have a right to be pissed? Pissed because he (and everyone else!) is starving, yes. > In short, yes I do think you should have sold the slot to someone waiting in > line. If the tournament is really so unimportant, enough so you would drop > out after the first round, why take up the slot. Because he is starving. > Steve Bucy > > -- > "The only human commander to survive combat with > the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. > If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn > > > James Hamblin wrote in message <399C3272...@math.wisc.edu>... > > > >Wait. Of course playing in one round and then dropping out is > >preventing you from playing. Just like playing in the entire tournament > >and not dropping out would have prevented you from playing. I'm sorry > >that the event filled up, but that's not my fault. Unfortunately, there > >wasn't enough product for all the people that wanted to play (though, > >according to LSJ, there was supposed to be). You're saying that because > >you would have played in the whole tournament, I should have given up my > >spot to you? Why? I thoroughly enjoyed playing the amount that I did. > >You have every right to be pissed that you couldn't play, but I don't > >understand why I'm the object of your pissiness. > > > >James > > > > > >Steve Bucy wrote: > >> > >> Sorry James, but there is a real need to berate you here. Did you realize > >> there where at least 9 players that really wanted to play in this > tournament > >> and could not get in? As one of the 5 that came all the way from Los > Angeles > >> and only got to play in the nationals, because the Sabbat draft was sold > >> out, I think that really sucks. You should have determined you had enough > >> VTES before you entered such a long tournament. Entering and dropping out > >> after the first round not only makes life more diffcult for the judge but > >> prevents someone else from playing. Someone that would have loved to play > >> the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft > and > >> it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could > >> even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 > people > >> dropped out after the first round... > >> > >> I guess I'm really pissy about this because Keith and I where the next > two > >> in the line that didn't make it in the tournament. > >> > >> Steve Bucy > >> > >> "The only human commander to survive combat with > >> the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. > >> If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:21:21 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@home.com> wrote: >I want to say that it was great seeing you and so many other newsgroupers in >person, even though you probably don't remember me! I appreciate seeing >everyone support the game, and coming so far for it. Assuming the players >told LSJ they were dropping out immediately, I'm not sure it made life more >difficult for LSJ, did it? It looked as if his spreadsheet accounted for >that easily. Actually, dropouts INVARIABLY make life more difficult for the tournament organizer. The spreadsheets are there, true, but it still requires a good chunk of work to redo things and ensure nobody is in the same initial predator/prey relationship twice. Even one person dropping out messes things up - fortunately LSJ has dealt with it often enough that he knows what needs to be done. >> Someone that would have loved to play >> the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft >and >> it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could >> even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 >people >> dropped out after the first round... > >All I can say is, prereg to make sure you get the tickets. James and I When was the last time any V:TES event actually sold out or was in the situation of having "too many" players? That can be frankly explained as quite a surprise to EVERYONE, especially for those with prior experience in V:TES stuff. At DragonCon, we tried to prereg only to find that prereg wasn't even being TAKEN for the V:TES events. Not terribly surprising, when we thought about it - we'll take any new players we can get, even if it means wedging them in. >especially you newsgroupers, but I don't understand how not getting a ticket >for the event when you could have, leads to getting on someone's case for >not playing in all three rounds. I don't believe *any* of those people took >the cards and ran. They all actually *played*. No, really, they didn't. They played a round and poof, were gone. It'd be very difficult to just buy the entry, get your packs, and stand up from the table and walk away, so you're pretty much locked into playing one round. This annoyed me at DragonCon, this annoys me to hear about from Origins and GenCon as well. It screws up the seating, it screws up the possible VPs, it pisses people off, and it makes the game look bad to others. ("Oh, some people had so little fun they dropped out.") The repeat dropout performances have personally convinced me that we shouldn't do draft tournaments with any cards that are actually in demand. I notice that the Jyhad Draft run at DragonCon didn't have this problem - only one person out of 25 dropped out, and that was because they were in the process of having a nasty allergic reaction. It's only when we get these rare, hard-to-get cards that are being offered at dirt-cheap prices in comparison to the going rate that we get this kind of thing happening. SIX dropouts? Very poor showing, guys. Am I directly accusing anyone of only entering to get the Sabbat cards at cheap-ass prices? Nope. But I'll say if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm not likely to walk up to it and say "Nice kitty." [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:21:21 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@home.com> >wrote: > >>I want to say that it was great seeing you and so many other newsgroupers in >>person, even though you probably don't remember me! I appreciate seeing >>everyone support the game, and coming so far for it. Assuming the players >>told LSJ they were dropping out immediately, I'm not sure it made life more >>difficult for LSJ, did it? It looked as if his spreadsheet accounted for >>that easily. > >Actually, dropouts INVARIABLY make life more difficult for the >tournament organizer. The spreadsheets are there, true, but it still >requires a good chunk of work to redo things and ensure nobody is in >the same initial predator/prey relationship twice. Even one person >dropping out messes things up - fortunately LSJ has dealt with it >often enough that he knows what needs to be done. I was thinking about that as Scott was walking around reseating everybody - for approximately 25 minutes in the 3rd round of the US Open because trying to observe the no-same-start-position/no-same-opponents rules with that many dropouts was just about driving him batty. I think this is a perfect application for the right software. Not just software to seat the prospective players the first time each round (taking into account previous rounds and possibly even trying to seed them as much as possible) but a second program specifically for *re*seating players. This would take the output of the first program (the original seating chart) and then allow the judge to type in dropouts. The output would tell him where to move the minimum number of players to stay within the NSSP/NSO rules. Of course, it's possible just writing the software would drive a person batty. That would save time right there! Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:21:21 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@home.com> >wrote: > >>All I can say is, prereg to make sure you get the tickets. James and I > >When was the last time any V:TES event actually sold out or was in the >situation of having "too many" players? That can be frankly explained >as quite a surprise to EVERYONE, especially for those with prior >experience in V:TES stuff. What? For the Sabbat Draft?!? You must be joking. The only thing I found surprising was that as few people got locked out as there was. Remember, this is a $12 event for 5 Sabbat boosters. I had my ticket at 10:20 AM on Thursday morning. (For those not preregistering for the con, the soonest you could get a ticket was 24 hours in advance.) >No, really, they didn't. They played a round and poof, were gone. >It'd be very difficult to just buy the entry, get your packs, and >stand up from the table and walk away, so you're pretty much locked >into playing one round. This annoyed me at DragonCon, this annoys me >to hear about from Origins and GenCon as well. It screws up the >seating, it screws up the possible VPs, it pisses people off, and it >makes the game look bad to others. ("Oh, some people had so little >fun they dropped out.") I think if you simply explain the fact that they're getting rare boosters extremely cheap that most reasonable people will understand. The analogy in Magic would be a tournament which offered players the chance to draft out of something like Unlimited or even Beta boosters. I have little doubt you'd see the same behaviour. In some ways, I think it would make the game look very good. I wonder what kind of draw a Rage tournament you would have if you offered War of the Amazon boosters. At least Jyhad has lots of players which will show up to fight over the boosters of a rare, hard to get printing. >The repeat dropout performances have personally convinced me that we >shouldn't do draft tournaments with any cards that are actually in >demand. Frankly, I just don't see the problem. It's unfortunate that some people will show up for the cards rather than both the cards and the competition but it's human nature, I think. And aside from spending time reseating people in the last round (which actually wasn't too bad IIRC), I'm not sure what's so bad about any of this. I think the answer to the lockout problems is to do your best to offer enough that no one gets locked out (sounds like they tried and just couldn't quite pull it off). And to offer enough tournaments at the con so it would be hard for players to feel a loss because they missed a single tournament. To the final end, I sort of wish they'd changed at least one of those two duel tournaments to a constructed of some sort, preferable (IMO) just vanilla rules like on Thursday. I would like to have seen at least three VEKN rules constructed over the four days, myself. And duels are a pretty specialized form of play to have two events dedicated to them. >Am I directly accusing anyone of only entering to get the Sabbat cards >at cheap-ass prices? Nope. But I'll say if it looks like a duck and >quacks like a duck, I'm not likely to walk up to it and say "Nice >kitty." I don't think that makes much of an accusation. It's not a crime, IMO. It's just to be expected. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > To the final end, I sort of wish they'd changed at least one of those two > duel tournaments to a constructed of some sort, preferable (IMO) just > vanilla rules like on Thursday. Not possible, due to the time constraints: single elim duel tourneys require a time commitment of 2.5 hours. Multi-player tournaments require at least a seven hour time commitment (for a abbreviated 2+F situation). > I would like to have seen at least three > VEKN rules constructed over the four days, myself. And duels are a pretty > specialized form of play to have two events dedicated to them. The two events weren't "dedicated" to them - the duels were simply put into the schedule to fill holes that couldn't be filled by regular tournaments (at least by my schedule). One (the Friday night duel) was even scheduled to begin at the same time as the Sabbat Draft finals in order to maximize the opportunities players would have to play. Without the duels, those "events" would simply have been non-events. The duels didn't replace any other events. Anyone desiring more VEKN constructed events (at major conventions or not) is free to make that happen. See the web page for information on sanctioning tournaments through the VEKN. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote in message <5m6n5.6751$ZI2.2...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>... > >"Steve Bucy" wrote: >> >> James Hamblin wrote in message <399B14DA...@math.wisc.edu>... >> >madma...@my-deja.com wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey, doesn't anyone write tournament reports here?? >> > >> >All right, all right. >> > >> >Having made a pretty good showing, I decided to drop out and do other >> >cool stuff, like walk around the dealer room. Now, before you berate me >> >for my lack of commitment, recall that this had been my _fourth_ game in >> >a row playing up to the time limit. I needed a V:TES break. Besides, I >> >had to play some Shadowfist... but that's another story. >> > >> >James >> >> >> Sorry James, but there is a real need to berate you here. Did you realize >> there where at least 9 players that really wanted to play in this >tournament >> and could not get in? > >Having been to GenCon and Origins for about 7 years running now, I am >wondering why those players who wanted so badly to play in this tournament >not preregister for it? They would have had tickets, and they would have >had them at $10, since the prereg price was $2 lower for the draft. Steve, >you have been to cons before, and you know how rare Sabbat cards are! Unfortunately I was not even sure I could go until after the pre-registration period was over. >> As one of the 5 that came all the way from Los Angeles >> and only got to play in the nationals, because the Sabbat draft was sold >> out, I think that really sucks. You should have determined you had enough >> VTES before you entered such a long tournament. Entering and dropping out >> after the first round not only makes life more diffcult for the judge but >> prevents someone else from playing. > >I want to say that it was great seeing you and so many other newsgroupers in >person, even though you probably don't remember me! I appreciate seeing >everyone support the game, and coming so far for it. Assuming the players >told LSJ they were dropping out immediately, I'm not sure it made life more >difficult for LSJ, did it? It looked as if his spreadsheet accounted for >that easily. It always makes like more difficult. I judge tournaments here in L.A.. It's a pain. It often requires seating to be rearranged, creates paperwork problems, and can even cause seating problems if the tournament is not large. Try running a 12 person tournament and having someone drop out because they are "tired of VTES". >> Someone that would have loved to play >> the entire tournament. We where all very excited about the Sabbat draft >and >> it was a real bummer to find out it was already sold out before we could >> even get registered. It was even more of a bummer when we found out 6 >people >> dropped out after the first round... > >All I can say is, prereg to make sure you get the tickets. Next time I will. Now I know this can be a problem I will take action to avoid this situation. >James and I >actually waited in the Events Registration line *the day before the draft* >just to make sure we each had a ticket. When we got there, which was only >about 18 hours in advance of the tournament, there were **26** empty slots >(out of 32, btw), and it took us about 15 minutes total to get a ticket for >each of us. I did feel badly for those of you that didn't get to play, >especially you newsgroupers, but I don't understand how not getting a ticket >for the event when you could have, leads to getting on someone's case for >not playing in all three rounds. I don't believe *any* of those people took >the cards and ran. They all actually *played*. 3 BIG problems the L.A. group faced: 1) The on line schedule did not even list the Sabbat draft tournament. We only found out about it when Robert Goudie happened to hear about from LSJ. 2) We did not arrive at Gencon until about 9:30 on Friday morning after flying all night. We thought the tournament started at 12, not 10. 3) Why would I assume a VTES tourny of any type would be sold out. This is the first one I have ever seen sell out. I didn't have an option to get the ticket unfortunately. Circumstance and late planning. At any rate I'm on his case (and anyone else who drops out of tournaments) because I personally think it's pretty lame to start a tournament and then drop out. Technically he "played" but his actual impact on the tournament was to prevent someone else from playing the entire tournament, walking off with the VP's from the first round game, and making the judges life more difficult. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote in message ... >"Steve Bucy" wrote: >> It's an issue of waste. Did you have the right to play? Yes. Did you get >> there first, buy the ticket, and show up? Yes. However it was a waste of a >> slot in the _tournament_. What is the point playing in a tournament when >you >> have no intention of playing the entire tournament? You could have played >in >> the pick up game and had a good time playing. > >Not with Sabbat cards. Hmmm... uhh... what does it matter what kind of cards they are if you are not going to play the tournament? >> The point of the tournament is >> to compete in a organized event against other players and determine a >final >> winner. It's not to play one game, have a good time, decide your tired of >> VTES, and then leave. You knew the time and demands involved in playing in >a >> VTES tournament. Why did you bother to start if you where already getting >> tired of the game? > >Because they were Sabbat cards. Ahhhh, now I see. It was all about getting the Sabbat cards and it didn't matter at all there was a tournament. I think that really sucks too. If it was the cards these people wanted I would have gladly made a deal to play the tournament and let them have the stinking cards when I was done. I just wanted to play the stinking tournament. It's really lame and selfish to join a tournament to grab the cards and then drop out. At least have the courtesy to play the tournament. I guess I now see what the real reason for the drop outs was. Take the cards and run... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Ahhhh, now I see. It was all about getting the Sabbat cards and it didn't >matter at all there was a tournament. I think that really sucks too. If it >was the cards these people wanted I would have gladly made a deal to play >the tournament and let them have the stinking cards when I was done. I just >wanted to play the stinking tournament. Unfortunately, that's not the same thing. People want to draft their own cards. I suppose that might have worked for a non-ante sealed deck tournament, were it legal to "sell" your spot in an event - which I don't think it was. >It's really lame and selfish to join a tournament to grab the cards and then >drop out. At least have the courtesy to play the tournament. I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've accumulated over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone to whom these cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who couldn't afford them at market prices, I think you're being rather judgementmental. It's unfortunate you missed one tournament. But that's all it is. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > > Actually, dropouts INVARIABLY make life more difficult for the > tournament organizer. The spreadsheets are there, true, but it still > requires a good chunk of work to redo things and ensure nobody is in > the same initial predator/prey relationship twice. Even one person > dropping out messes things up - fortunately LSJ has dealt with it > often enough that he knows what needs to be done. About the only thing that was made more difficult for LSJ was the fact that (due to a misunderstand on my part) I waited too long to tell him that I was dropping. This forced him to restart the seating arrangement which he had already started. I totally understand that this was "my bad" and I apologized for that. > When was the last time any V:TES event actually sold out or was in the > situation of having "too many" players? That can be frankly explained > as quite a surprise to EVERYONE, especially for those with prior > experience in V:TES stuff. The reason Kevin and I stood on line to get into the draft the night before was exactly because we thought the event would be sold out, due to the rarity and popularity of Sabbat. I was still surprised that the event was sold out, but that wasn't my fault. > >especially you newsgroupers, but I don't understand how not getting a > >ticket for the event when you could have, leads to getting on someone's > >case for not playing in all three rounds. I don't believe *any* of those > >people took the cards and ran. They all actually *played*. > > No, really, they didn't. They played a round and poof, were gone. > It'd be very difficult to just buy the entry, get your packs, and > stand up from the table and walk away, so you're pretty much locked > into playing one round. This annoyed me at DragonCon, this annoys me > to hear about from Origins and GenCon as well. It screws up the > seating, it screws up the possible VPs, it pisses people off, and it > makes the game look bad to others. ("Oh, some people had so little > fun they dropped out.") It seems to me that you're implying that if I could have just grabbed the discount packs and ran, that I would have. You're completely wrong. I enjoyed playing the round I was in. Then I realized I was very tired and wanted to go do other stuff. That is completely within my rights. People drop out of events all the time. Does it screw things up and piss people off? Apparently. But that's not the point. > The repeat dropout performances have personally convinced me that we > shouldn't do draft tournaments with any cards that are actually in > demand. Having draft tournaments with cards that are in demand is what gets people to play in those tournaments. This is true in Magic, for example; there are draft tournaments with hard-to-get card sets which attract a lot of people for that reason. Some people go into those tournaments to grab some cards and run. Why is that a problem? And, once again: that is not what I did. I played in the tournament and decided to drop after one round. I did not go into the tournament intending to drop after the first round. But even if I had, there shouldn't be a problem with that. > I notice that the Jyhad Draft run at DragonCon didn't have > this problem - only one person out of 25 dropped out, and that was > because they were in the process of having a nasty allergic reaction. > It's only when we get these rare, hard-to-get cards that are being > offered at dirt-cheap prices in comparison to the going rate that we > get this kind of thing happening. SIX dropouts? Very poor showing, > guys. You make it sound like I'm some sort of horrible person for managing to get my event ticket before you, and then (in your opinion) misusing it. I really resent this implication. If it had been a Jyhad draft, I would have dropped out at the same time for the same reason. But AGAIN: even if I hadn't, I would still have felt completely justified. > Am I directly accusing anyone of only entering to get the Sabbat cards > at cheap-ass prices? Nope. But I'll say if it looks like a duck and > quacks like a duck, I'm not likely to walk up to it and say "Nice > kitty." One word: "Meow." -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "I cannot stop to comfort them. I'm busy chasing up my demon." -- Kate Bush

Steve Bucy wrote: > > I didn't have an option to get the ticket unfortunately. Circumstance and > late planning. At any rate I'm on his case (and anyone else who drops out of > tournaments) because I personally think it's pretty lame to start a > tournament and then drop out. Technically he "played" but his actual impact > on the tournament was to prevent someone else from playing the entire > tournament, walking off with the VP's from the first round game, and making > the judges life more difficult. I'm sorry that you think it's lame. But I'm going to drop out of whatever tournament I'm in if I feel like it. I didn't drop out in the middle of a game, and I didn't affect the tournament to the extent you think: (1) I prevented you from playing just as much as I would have had I played in the entire tournament. (2) So I had some VP's from the first round. So what? If anything, I made it possible for someone with fewer VP's to make it into the finals. (3) The only reason LSJ's life was made harder was because I waited (due to a misunderstanding) to tell him I was dropping. If I had told him at the instant I knew I was dropping (some 3-4 minutes earlier) it wouldn't have been a problem. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "As the people here grow colder / I turn to my computer And spend my evenings with it / Like a friend." -- Kate Bush

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 07:51:23 -0400, LSJ wrote: >The "boxes and boxes" you've seen have all been handed out at Dragon*Con, >Origins, and Gen*Con - Gen*Con represented the end of those "boxes and >boxes". I see. It's academic now but you could have stretched the available supplies by forgoing the 5th booster in the third round and using these to fill up another table or two. I wouldn't have minded. The format might be improved if there was less up-front drafting and additional drafting between each round. I've done something similar with Shadowfist events - just giving each player a starter at the outset and then table drafting a booster after each round, starting with the winner. This provides a good incentive to win each game and breaks up the drafting into less wearisome interludes. If we'd only drafted 2 Sabbat boosters each at the outset, say, then the initial drafting time would have been halved (~1 hour instead of 2) and the first round might have been over more quickly as the starting decks would be tend to be smaller. There would then have been time and incentive to stick around for a second round of drafting rather than exiting after an early 1st-round ousting. There was a Michigan draft event too. How did that work? Andrew

In article <fraqps8lphpdhohvv...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 08:21:21 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@home.com> > wrote: [Re: Dropping out not negatively impacting LSJ/{any organizer}] > Actually, dropouts INVARIABLY make life more difficult for the > tournament organizer. The spreadsheets are there, true, but it still > requires a good chunk of work to redo things and ensure nobody is in > the same initial predator/prey relationship twice. Even one person > dropping out messes things up - fortunately LSJ has dealt with it > often enough that he knows what needs to be done. This is silly. It is part of the job to deal with people that drop out of an event. It doesn't make an organizers job "harder". Dropping out of an event is a right to any player of an event. As a long-time player, judge, and occasional organizer of events, I know from all sides why people drop out, and what impact it has. It can occasionally be frustrating, with potential issues like repairing rounds, or other things, but the only REAL frustration is when someone drops the round _late_. While a late drop might be discourteous, a drop in and of itself is simply par for the course in an organizer's day. > When was the last time any V:TES event actually sold out or was in the > situation of having "too many" players? That can be frankly explained > as quite a surprise to EVERYONE, especially for those with prior > experience in V:TES stuff. Well, sometimes cookies crumble and leave you without a piece. It sucks. But it doesn't make it an individual players responsibility not to drop. I remember travelling a long distance in a stuffy car with 5 Magic players to make it to my very first Regional tournament. I didn't get to play because the tournament was overbooked. It sucked, and yes, I resented the players that dropped after a few rounds. But my resentment didn't make their dropping a _wrong_ thing. If someone does drop for the cards, that's the way it is. If they drop because they are a minor, and their parents say they have to go, that's the way it is. In Magic tournaments, people rare-draft ALL the time and drop as soon as they can. That is just the way it works sometimes. VTES tournaments may be rarer, but that doesn't change that some people can choose to be in a draft for the cards, and not for the tourney. That the way it is. -- offNet: Adrian Sullivan @#$ Web Consultant - Game Theorist $#@ EFNet: Corrupter @#$ Writer - Eccentric - Hedonist $#@ USENET: The Corrupter @#$ Geek - Coffee Addict - HSTHSTS $#@ e-mail: thecor...@yahoo.com TaLeNa FOREVER! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8njong$hkj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Uh oh... the "J" word... You are 100% correct. It is judgmental. However we are all judgmental. We judge who to be friends with. We judge what game to play. We judge someone when we call them on cheating. Etc, etc, etc.. Should I not make a judgement when I see something I think is wrong simply because I may seem "judgmental"? I think being judgmental is part of life. It's necessary. Otherwise we better let everyone out of jail and dispose of all law. Go for anarchy... At any rate that is a topic for another time and place. I'm simply gripping because in my "judgmental" opinion I find it selfish and lame to drop out after the first round of a tournament. It makes life difficult for the judge, can mess with the VP situation, and as others have said can discourage other players or even make the game look bad. In my judgement it's rude to all involved. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >The "boxes and boxes" you've seen have all been handed out at Dragon*Con, > >Origins, and Gen*Con - Gen*Con represented the end of those "boxes and > >boxes". > > I see. It's academic now but you could have stretched the available > supplies by forgoing the 5th booster in the third round and using > these to fill up another table or two. I wouldn't have minded. Noble, but as the event was advertised as a 5-boosters per player, it wouldn't have been fair to reduce that number on-site. > The format might be improved if there was less up-front drafting and > additional drafting between each round. I've done something similar > with Shadowfist events - just giving each player a starter at the > outset and then table drafting a booster after each round, starting > with the winner. This provides a good incentive to win each game and > breaks up the drafting into less wearisome interludes. If we'd only > drafted 2 Sabbat boosters each at the outset, say, then the initial > drafting time would have been halved (~1 hour instead of 2) and the > first round might have been over more quickly as the starting decks > would be tend to be smaller. There would then have been time and Two packs would not yield a legal deck (12 vampires) for each player, but even if you could manage it, the games would not have been any quicker, and probably would've been longer. > incentive to stick around for a second round of drafting rather than > exiting after an early 1st-round ousting. > > There was a Michigan draft event too. How did that work? See the V:EKN rules for details on all draft formats. The Michigan Draft tournament at Dragon*Con was run by Bernie Bresnahan, and it was not a V:EKN event (since it didn't use the official rules and errata). [ quoted text not captured ]

It's obvious we don't agree on this issue. I have my opinion and you have yours. However I do hope you consider a couple things before dropping out of another tournament: 1) Consider the fact that dropping out of tournaments ticks off many people. They may be mildly irrated to down rite angry. This includes the judge. 2) Consider asking the judge what he thinks before you start. If the judge says something like, "no problem, it's no big deal", you have every rite to start and drop out as you please. However if the judge says something like, "I'd rather you not start if you may drop out", or "You should be ready to play the entire tournament", you should have the consideration to not play or stay for the entire tournament. This is probably such a big issue to many of the L.A. crowd is we have had some 8 and 12 person tournaments in the past. If someone decides they want to drop out it really screws the entire tournament up. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn James Hamblin wrote in message <399D8614...@math.wisc.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >>I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've >>accumulated over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone to >>whom these cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who couldn't >>afford them at market prices, I think you're being rather judgementmental. >>It's unfortunate you missed one tournament. But that's all it is. >> >>Fred > >Uh oh... the "J" word... You are 100% correct. It is judgmental. However we >are all judgmental. We judge who to be friends with. We judge what game to >play. We judge someone when we call them on cheating. Etc, etc, etc.. Should >I not make a judgement when I see something I think is wrong simply because >I may seem "judgmental"? I think being judgmental is part of life. It's >necessary. Otherwise we better let everyone out of jail and dispose of all >law. Go for anarchy... I think you have to take the obvious inference here if you want to avoid unnecessary sniping; in this case wasting an extra set of posts. Exercising *necessary* judgement is one thing. When someone accuses you of being "judgemental" (my speller seems to accept either version; I don't know which is correct), they are stating that you are making a judgement you have no right to make. Telling people who don't want to stay for a full three round tournament that it's wrong to sign up to get four packs of Sabbat boosters for $12 just so you can play in one tournament is IMHO excersizing a judgement you have no business making. Their interest in the event seems clear and reasonable to me, even if they don't stay for the whole thing. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote in message <8njong$hkj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... > >>I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've >>accumulated over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone to >>whom these cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who couldn't >>afford them at market prices, I think you're being rather judgementmental. >>It's unfortunate you missed one tournament. But that's all it is. > >Uh oh... the "J" word... You are 100% correct. It is judgmental. However we >are all judgmental. We judge who to be friends with. We judge what game to >play. We judge someone when we call them on cheating. Etc, etc, etc.. Should >I not make a judgement when I see something I think is wrong simply because >I may seem "judgmental"? I think being judgmental is part of life. It's >necessary. Otherwise we better let everyone out of jail and dispose of all >law. Go for anarchy... I think you need to take an obvious inference here if you want to avoid unnecessary sniping; in this case wasting an extra set of posts. Exercising *necessary* judgement is one thing. When someone accuses you of being "judgemental" (my speller seems to accept either version; I don't know which is correct), they are stating that you are making a judgement you have no right and/or no need to make. Telling people who don't want [ quoted text not captured ]

> >It's really lame and selfish to join a tournament to grab the cards and then > >drop out. At least have the courtesy to play the tournament. > > I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've accumulated > over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone to whom these > cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who couldn't afford them > at market prices, I think you're being rather judgementmental. It's > unfortunate you missed one tournament. But that's all it is. Are you actually advocating strip-mining a tournament? There is no reason to ever join a tournament only to quit half-way through, whether it is a Sabbat tournament or a golf tournament. If you are going to play then play, not play and then quit. It spoils the victory of winning a tournament if half the competion quit for whatever reason. I should hope that if your sense of fair play is a little bit more evident in person than this garbage you are spouting on the net. You are not only creating a problem by doing so, but you are setting a bad example by doing it then trying to justify it. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think if you simply explain the fact that they're getting rare boosters > extremely cheap that most reasonable people will understand. The analogy > in Magic would be a tournament which offered players the chance to draft > out of something like Unlimited or even Beta boosters. I have little doubt > you'd see the same behaviour. It still in no way justifies entering a tournament and quitting, and I think that your post only encourages such behavior and is reprehesible in the extreme. > In some ways, I think it would make the game look very good. How? Oh, it is so much fun I just entered to get the cards then dropped out to play something else. What a load of guano. I wonder > what kind of draw a Rage tournament you would have if you offered War of > the Amazon boosters. If everyone who entered the tournament stayed in the tournament then it would be great, but it would suck to have 30 people enter the tournament ,then in the second round have 15 empty seats because half the people "just showed up for the cards". > Frankly, I just don't see the problem. It's unfortunate that some people > will show up for the cards rather than both the cards and the competition > but it's human nature, I think. The greedy, selfish, self-centered side of human nature which shouldn't be encouraged to raise its ugly head in the middle of a tournament, where everyone is taking time off from the daily grind to relax and enjoy themselves only to have some bozo walk out on the tournament with a fist full of cards. And aside from spending time reseating > people in the last round (which actually wasn't too bad IIRC), I'm not sure > what's so bad about any of this. Let me explain it to you because what you are avocating is 1) Unethical- you pay the entry fee to participate in the tournament, not to get a bunch of rare cards and leave. 2) Unfair- you have cheated players who actually wanted to play out of a slot in the tournament. A someone who much like yourself enjoys VTES and has traveled many miles to enter in the tournament only to see a vacancy appear in the second round that he could be occupying. 3) Inefficient- Alot of time, money and resources are spent getting people to tournaments (i.e. gas, dollars and vacation time) and now that is wasted because someone has wasted a spot in the tournament that these resources were spent trying to aquire. 4) Slothful- rather than work hard to save up the extra money to buy the cards, you show up at the tournament and buy a spot. You then are so lazy that you can't even put in the effort to actually complete the tournament. 5) Impatient- rather than wait until October 31 when they are going to reprint these cards in volume. You grab the cards out of a tournament and leave after you have drafted for your collection, not for the tourney I think the answer to the lockout problems > is to do your best to offer enough that no one gets locked out (sounds like > they tried and just couldn't quite pull it off). I think the best answer is for people to put a refundable deposit down on the cards that they will receive at the end of the tournament when they complete three rounds. Something in the neighborhood of $20 to $50 dollars should do (the approximate market value of the cards). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > The reason Kevin and I stood on line to get into the draft the night > before was exactly because we thought the event would be sold out, due > to the rarity and popularity of Sabbat. I was still surprised that the > event was sold out, but that wasn't my fault. No one is accusing you of lessening the initial amount availible, instead they are accusing you of strip-mining the tournament (you show up, take all the resources and leave a big hole.) > It seems to me that you're implying that if I could have just grabbed > the discount packs and ran, that I would have. You're completely > wrong. How so? Did you finish the tournament? No Did you leave with the Sabbat cards? Yes Did you deprive players of victory points? Yes Did your very presence create a balance that was later upset by your absence? Yes I enjoyed playing the round I was in. Then I realized I was > very tired and wanted to go do other stuff. That is completely within > my rights. People drop out of events all the time. Does it screw > things up and piss people off? Apparently. But that's not the point. Actually it is the point. We are trying to dissuade people from acting in a poor manner which you exhibited. It is poor sportsmanship. Why is that a problem? Because it shows poor character. > And, once again: that is not what I did. I played in the tournament and > decided to drop after one round. I did not go into the tournament > intending to drop after the first round. But even if I had, there > shouldn't be a problem with that. Ah, but there is a problem with that. No one, who participates in a tournament to win, likes it. > You make it sound like I'm some sort of horrible person for managing to > get my event ticket before you, and then (in your opinion) misusing it. You are a horrible player and a poor sport for doing so. > I really resent this implication. You should. If you had any pride at all you wouldn't have done it. The actions you took impinge upon your character as a person. If it had been a Jyhad draft, I would > have dropped out at the same time for the same reason. And you would still be know to be a person of low character. > But AGAIN: even if I hadn't, I would still have felt completely > justified. Self-denial is only one of your problems. > One word: "Meow." Pussy. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> >It's really lame and selfish to join a tournament to grab the cards >> and then drop out. At least have the courtesy to play the tournament. >> >> I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've >> accumulated over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone >> to whom these cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who >> couldn't afford them at market prices, I think you're being rather >> judgementmental. It's unfortunate you missed one tournament. But >> that's all it is. > >Are you actually advocating strip-mining a tournament? There is no >reason to ever join a tournament only to quit half-way through, whether >it is a Sabbat tournament or a golf tournament. If you are going to >play then play, not play and then quit. No. I don't know what you mean, "strip-mining a tournament". Normally, I would advocate playing entire tournaments for most people. But it's harmless if people want to play a couple games and then drop out. Or at least, it's harmless in a 36-person tournament. Granted, it may be a lot more irritating in a 12-person tournament, in which case I think think that would change my opinion on the matter. But besides that, a Sabbat draft tournament has an additional attraction besides just playing in a tournament. I don't see any point at all in refusing to accept that fact. >It spoils the victory of winning a tournament if half the competion quit >for whatever reason. I don't know how to respond to such a comment except to reply, "No, it doesn't." I don't understand why you would say that. Even if it did, so what? The tournament is what is. People don't have to sign up for it. If they do, they get the kind of victory they get. >I should hope that if your sense of fair play *WHAT* sense of fair play?!? I have no clue what you're talking about. What's "unfair" about any of this? Again, I can't respond to comments about "the garbage" I'm supposedly spouting because I have no idea what the logic behind is supposed to be. Sorry we disagree so strongly. Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> I think if you simply explain the fact that they're getting rare >> boosters extremely cheap that most reasonable people will understand. >> The analogy in Magic would be a tournament which offered players the >> chance to draft out of something like Unlimited or even Beta boosters. >> I have little doubt you'd see the same behaviour. > >It still in no way justifies entering a tournament and quitting, and I >think that your post only encourages such behavior and is reprehesible >in the extreme. Please explain what "entering a tournament and quitting" is a bad thing. >> In some ways, I think it would make the game look very good. I wonder >> what kind of draw a Rage tournament you would have if you offered War >> of the Amazon boosters. > >If everyone who entered the tournament stayed in the tournament then it >would be great, but it would suck to have 30 people enter the tournament >,then in the second round have 15 empty seats because half the people >"just showed up for the cards". I suppose it would look kind of strange for half the people to be gone after the first round but it would still be a perfectly viable tournament. It would not "suck". It would be fine. In any event, this did not happen. We're not talking about quitting en masse. Just a few people who didn't hang for whatever reason. Once again, I'm completely confused at your strong reaction to the notion. >Let me explain it to you because what you are avocating is >1) Unethical- you pay the entry fee to participate in the tournament, >not to get a bunch of rare cards and leave. This is just incredibly arbitary. People pay the fee for their own reasons which they're completely free to decide for themselves. I would draw the line at something which prevents others from having a good time (for instance, entering a tournament and colluding to allow someone else to win) but as long as they do nothing like that (play in any games they do play in to win to the best of their ability) I can't see how you can possibly call this "unethical". >2) Unfair- you have cheated players who actually wanted to play out of >a slot in the tournament. The rules for getting a ticket to the tournament are the same for everyone. Someone wanting to play a draft tournament who was planning to throw the cards in the wastebasket on the way out the door "cheats" someone else out of the chance to get cheap Sabbat cards just the same. The definition of "fairness" has nothing to do with the complaint above. >3) Inefficient- Alot of time, money and resources are spent getting >people to tournaments (i.e. gas, dollars and vacation time) and now that >is wasted because someone has wasted a spot in the tournament that these >resources were spent trying to aquire. There's other things to be doing at Gencon. If you want to be assured a spot, preregister. If you do not, you are guranteed nothing. Oh, cripes, I'm not going to spend time harping about trivial complaints like this. People will enter tournmanets offering rare cards cheap just to get the cards. Expect it. Deal with it. >I think the best answer is for people to put a refundable deposit down >on the cards that they will receive at the end of the tournament when >they complete three rounds. Something in the neighborhood of $20 to $50 >dollars should do (the approximate market value of the cards). This is about the only reasonable thing you said in your entire post. I don't have a problem with trying to encourage the behavior you want, I suppose. And this would be a fair thing towards that end. I just don't see the reason to get so adamant about it. It really isn't a problem for anyone but the people who got locked out. And I don't agree that they're any more deserving than the ones who quit after playing a game. Fred

Norman S. Brown wrote: >>You are a horrible player and a poor sport for doing so.>> Whoa. This has gone *way* out of control. Right. What James did was show up for a tournament, draft cards, play a round, and then he decided for whatever reason to leave. This happens all the time. People leave. Sometimes they have to go home. Sometimes they are not feeling well. Sometimes another event is going to start that they want to get in on. Sometimes it turns out that they are not having a good time, so they leave. I fail to see the problem. Yes--it is somewhat inconvinitent for the tournament director and the other players, but hardly the end of the world, and *certainly* not worth the ire you are attributing to it. I assure you that James did not show up to the tournament for the sole purpose of drafting cards and dropping out (and even if he had, so what? The end result is the same.)--he showed up to play, and for whatever reason decided to leave. Not a big deal. You would condemn every player whoever showed up to a tournament and then had to leave half way through? That is insane. I am not advocating "strip mining" tournaments here, but *why* a person drops out of a tournament is unimportant--it happens. Sometimes is is for "legitimate" reasons, and I'm sure some times it is a premeditated action (i.e. "Rare Drafting"), either way, it simply is not that big of a deal, and is something that Tournament directors both expect and understand. Is it sometimes a pain in the ass because your viable 12 person tournament is now a much less viable 11 person tournament? Of course, but playing in a tournament is not like joining the Free Masons--people leave, and it simply isn't that big of a deal. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "I wanted out of the huge Jackson Pollock canvas that is the U.S.A., vast, murky, splotched, and slapped together by a drunk." -Sarah Vowell

Alright, I apologize for the emotional intesity and blatant flaming in my former posts, but I still believe that it is wrong to drop out of a tourney for no other reason than to go play a game of Shadowfist. I was at work on a Saturday when I wrote the former posts and was nessasarily agitated just by being there. Decaf, Decaf, Decaf [ quoted text not captured ]

> > No. I don't know what you mean, "strip-mining a tournament". Strip-mining a tournament-(slang) to enter into the tournament with the express intent of not completing it, merely to grab the "stuff" that the tournament organizers are using to promote the tournament; therefore leaving a hole in the roster. Normally, > I would advocate playing entire tournaments for most people. But it's > harmless if people want to play a couple games and then drop out. Or > at least, it's harmless in a 36-person tournament. Granted, it may be > a lot more irritating in a 12-person tournament, in which case I think > think that would change my opinion on the matter. > But besides that, a Sabbat draft tournament has an additional attraction > besides just playing in a tournament. I don't see any point at all in > refusing to accept that fact. Accepting that such behavior goes on and encouraging it are two different things. > >It spoils the victory of winning a tournament if half the competion quit > >for whatever reason. > > I don't know how to respond to such a comment except to reply, "No, it > doesn't." I don't understand why you would say that. You enter a tournament to compete against everyone in the tourney. The best man (or woman) wins. I have seen a tournament where the two of the people who made it to the finals were not interested in playing, so they quit. The tournament organiser had to run around and find the next people down the list. So it wasn't really a finals of the best in the tournament, but rather a finals of those who wished to play in the finals. It kind of spoiled the whole enthusiasm of making it to the finals. > Sorry we disagree so strongly. As am I. Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

Norman wrote: >>Alright, I apologize for the emotional intesity and blatant flaming in my former posts, but I still believe that it is wrong to drop out of a tourney for no other reason than to go play a game of Shadowfist. I was at work on a Saturday when I wrote the former posts and was nessasarily agitated just by being there.>> (From here on in, I'm talking completely hypothetically about the subject at hand, and not really talking issue with what Norman wrote in any way). I fully understand how someone would be bothered by someone else dropping out of a tournament--I have been in tournaments where people dropped out half way through, and it was a pain (heck, we waited around for an hour once 'cause our 10th guy said "I'm going to get lunch, I'll be right back..." and then decided to go home after he ate lunch, telling no one), but it happens, and there really isn't anything to do about it. I certainly agree that "strip mining" (is that an actual term, or did someone just make it up here? Either way, it cracks me up :-), entering a sealed/draft tournament just to get the cards with no intention of actually playing, is an etically questionable action. If I had my dithers, this would be simply verboten, but how do you really enforce such an idea? Clearly there are situations where dropping out of a tournament is justified--you fall ill; your mom comes to pick you up; you have to get up early for work and the tournament is taking forever; you gotta go pick up your wife. Clearly "strip mining" is something that pretty much everyone would like to do away with. What about the grey areas? What if someone shows up to a tournament after not having played for a long time, has a very questionable deck, and gets horribly killed in the first round, and they don't think that is worth their effort continuing? What if someone goes to a 4 round tournament with an "experimental" deck, and after getting totally trashed in the first 2 rounds, they have the choice of either getting certainly trashed in the 3rd round *or* dropping out to go play a different game that, if they stick around to get trashed, they will not get to play? At what point does it become acceptable to drop out and at what point is it just irresponsible to drop out? The answer is that there is no answer--this is simply something that can't really be controlled, as one person's completely legitimate reason to leave ("I feel like crap and I need some sleep, other wise I'll be *really* cranky for the rest of the tournament and I'll just piss everyone off.") is another person's lame excuse to screw up the tournament. As long as adaquate notice is given, I can't see any situation where I would feel justified getting upset at someone for dropping out. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:55:03 GMT, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: >In article <fraqps8lphpdhohvv...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> When was the last time any V:TES event actually sold out or was in the >> situation of having "too many" players? That can be frankly explained >> as quite a surprise to EVERYONE, especially for those with prior >> experience in V:TES stuff. > >Well, sometimes cookies crumble and leave you without a piece. It >sucks. Just to get this clear first: I did not, in fact, attend this particular convention. So my arguments are NOT being made from the point of view of "I got screwed and i'm mad," so anyone wishing to discount things I say as just 'sour grapes' can damned well start rereading again and thinking a little harder about things. >But it doesn't make it an individual players responsibility not to drop. Individual players entering a tournament should at least intend to play the tournament. How difficult is this to grasp for some of you? If it were the intent of the organizers to sell Sabbat boosters at 4 for $10, they would just have bloody well set it up to be a booster sale, first come first served. We are currently dealing with a similar situation in a pool league which plays weekly one-on-one. An individual player has been in the habit of showing up and just quitting his match and leaving if he's losing - sometimes very early on into the match. This screws one other person's night up since he has paid his green fees to play that night and then doesn't get to play very much. Before the start of the next league, we are going to inform him that either he shows up and stays for the game, or he shouldn't join. If he does it even once, he will be kicked out of the league. It's TERRIBLY poor sportsmanship. Everyone playing in the league agrees heartily with the decision, too. Now, I understand that sometimes things happen which are unavoidable and require withdrawal, and it's the tournament organizer's job to deal with this. But just leaving because you're losing, or because you wanted to strip-mine the tourney, rises to one of the few, proud pinnacles of lameness. >I remember travelling a long distance in a stuffy car with 5 Magic >players to make it to my very first Regional tournament. I didn't get >to play because the tournament was overbooked. It sucked, and yes, I >resented the players that dropped after a few rounds. But my resentment >didn't make their dropping a _wrong_ thing. No, the fact that they dropped is a wrong thing in itself, no matter if anyone was pissed or not. >If someone does drop for the cards, that's the way it is. And it's still lame as hell, unethical, and childish. >If they drop because they are a minor, and their parents say they have >to go, that's the way it is. THIS is an unavoidable situation for the PLAYER, and shouldn't be held against him. Unless, of course, he knew he'd have to leave and wouldn't be able to finish and signed up anyway. >In Magic tournaments, people rare-draft ALL the time and drop as soon as >they can. That is just the way it works sometimes. VTES tournaments That's because a lot of Magic players are some of the biggest and most fucking pathetic losers I've ever seen in my life. Pardon my language, but I do NOT think that we want V:TES to become at ALL like Magic, ESPECIALLY as regards to the type of people we have playing! There are always going to be losers in the world. Let's encourage them to stop being losers and act like real people, instead of continuing to be losers. Some of them will actually change if they find that being lame is not tolerated. Some of them will not; shit happens. But just turning a blind eye to things is not going to improve the CCG community, nor is it going to improve the public view of the CCG community, which is currently VERY skewed. In case you think it doesn't matter what the public thinks, you're wrong - the public is where our new players will come from. We had damned well better look good, or if we can't do that, we had better not look BAD. >may be rarer, but that doesn't change that some people can choose to be >in a draft for the cards, and not for the tourney. That the way it is. This is why I advocate not holding draft tournaments for rare cards. Since there is no effective way to keep people from strip-mining a tourney (chaining them to the tables is impolite), why encourage lameness? It's simply a bad idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:43:48 +0000, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> The repeat dropout performances have personally convinced me that we >> shouldn't do draft tournaments with any cards that are actually in >> demand. > >Having draft tournaments with cards that are in demand is what gets >people to play in those tournaments. Obviously not, since a number of people didn't bother to play, and strip-mining tourneys is apparently very common in Magic. It gets people to sign up for the tourneys, sure, but it doesn't necessarily get 'em to play. Also, if a constructed-deck event had been held in the same time slot, there still would have been a lot of players. Nope, doesn't wash. (Oh, I consider 25 players in a Jyhad draft tournament pretty damn good, too. The vast majority of Jyhad cards are DEFINITELY not in demand. Funny, that.) >example; there are draft tournaments with hard-to-get card sets which >attract a lot of people for that reason. Some people go into those >tournaments to grab some cards and run. Why is that a problem? Because it's unethical, lame, and really trashes the image of the game in people's eyes. "Geez, they don't even play the game... they just want to get the cards." Another step towards the viewpoint of all CCGs being a crack habit. I do not usually volunteer the information that I play/collect a CCG to non-gamers, because CCGs still have a very bad reputation in the non-gaming world (and even parts of the gaming world). We need to be fixing the reputation, not making it worse by encouraging strip-mining. >And, once again: that is not what I did. I played in the tournament and >decided to drop after one round. I did not go into the tournament >intending to drop after the first round. But even if I had, there >shouldn't be a problem with that. You will, of course, notice that I carefully accused nobody by name, and specifically stated that I was NOT accusing anyone of actually doing that. There shouldn't be a problem with that? Have you no sense of sportsmanship at all? This strikes me as a very selfish statement - assuming that your time is significantly more valuable than anyone else's. You made a commitment by entering the tournament, to play in 3 rounds and potentially a final. There are no direct penalties for breaking that commitment, but you STILL made one and should have the class to honor it. >You make it sound like I'm some sort of horrible person for managing to >get my event ticket before you, and then (in your opinion) misusing it. And in the opinion of a damned lot of other people, too. However, again keep in mind that I did not attend at all, and so I am not one of the "screwed" people. These are not merely "sour grapes" arguments. >I really resent this implication. If it had been a Jyhad draft, I would >have dropped out at the same time for the same reason. > >But AGAIN: even if I hadn't, I would still have felt completely >justified. This also strikes me as an extremely selfish statement. I have other comments, but they can be found in my post to the Corrupter, and I see no need to repeat them unnecessarily - but the one about the pool league we're running is the most relevant. [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, I had a well-crafted, thoughtful response ready to go, and then my computer crashed. Oh, well. Derek Ray wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:55:03 GMT, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >But it doesn't make it an individual players responsibility not to drop. > > Individual players entering a tournament should at least intend to > play the tournament. How difficult is this to grasp for some of you? It's impossible for me to grasp because it's completely unreasonable. You can't force people to attend the entirety of a 7-10 hour event. You have to understand that people are going to want to leave, and you can't stop them. > If it were the intent of the organizers to sell Sabbat boosters at 4 > for $10, they would just have bloody well set it up to be a booster > sale, first come first served. As is the case with most draft tournaments in my experience, you had to play in the first round of the tournament in order to keep the cards. So in that sense, participation was mandatory. It wasn't a cheap-o booster sale. > We are currently dealing with a similar situation in a pool league > which plays weekly one-on-one. An individual player has been in the > habit of showing up and just quitting his match and leaving if he's > losing - sometimes very early on into the match. This screws one > other person's night up since he has paid his green fees to play that > night and then doesn't get to play very much. Before the start of the > next league, we are going to inform him that either he shows up and > stays for the game, or he shouldn't join. If he does it even once, he > will be kicked out of the league. It's TERRIBLY poor sportsmanship. > Everyone playing in the league agrees heartily with the decision, too. Clearly, he shouldn't leave in the middle of the game. That's just rude. But why can't he leave between games? He says "thanks, nice game, gotta go" and leaves. Why is that so reprehensible? Why force him to stay and do something he doesn't want to do? I looked up "sportsmanship" in the dictionary, since to me, it's quite a vague term. I got "fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing." How is entering a tournament and quitting between rounds unsportsmanlike? It's not unfair to the TO; they know how to deal with it. It's not unfair to the other players; you finished the games you were in. Maybe in your opinion it's ingracious; but what if I'm not quitting because I'm losing? This sort of reminds me of the card limit debate. A card limit player might say "We don't like when people play stealth and bleed. Those people are bad people." You're saying "I don't like it when people enter a tournament and then drop. Those people (i.e., people like me) are bad people." > >I remember travelling a long distance in a stuffy car with 5 Magic > >players to make it to my very first Regional tournament. I didn't get > >to play because the tournament was overbooked. It sucked, and yes, I > >resented the players that dropped after a few rounds. But my resentment > >didn't make their dropping a _wrong_ thing. > > No, the fact that they dropped is a wrong thing in itself, no matter > if anyone was pissed or not. It's WRONG? Huh? I really don't understand... > >If someone does drop for the cards, that's the way it is. > > And it's still lame as hell, unethical, and childish. I'd rather have people getting the cards any way they can. To White Wolf, the success or failure of V:TES will be based on sales. It will not be based on whether the people making those purchases are considered lame by one Derek Ray. And: UNETHICAL? Huh? [Snip: Magic players are generally losers, and society thinks CCGers are weirdos] OK, just because you think you play a superior game doesn't mean you have some sort of superior morality. Some of most cultured and intelligent people I know (including one Adrian Sullivan) play Magic. Your generalization is as false and unfair as the one a random person would make about card games as a whole. You may think your silly vampire card game is better than the other silly card games, but to the general public, they're all silly card games. > >may be rarer, but that doesn't change that some people can choose to be > >in a draft for the cards, and not for the tourney. That the way it is. > > This is why I advocate not holding draft tournaments for rare cards. > Since there is no effective way to keep people from strip-mining a > tourney (chaining them to the tables is impolite), why encourage > lameness? It's simply a bad idea. "This is why I advocate not letting people play stealth and bleed decks. Since there's no effective way to keep people from playing those kinds of decks (ripping up their Malkavians is impolite), why encourage lameness?" You may not like that people choose to exercise their free will and do things that you don't agree with. But get off your high horse and accept that people are going to do whatever the hell they want to. It is reasonable to expect someone to finish a game. It is reasonable to expect someone to play _some_ part of a tournament that they enter. But just because you think people should stay for the whole thing doesn't mean you can make them do it, and it doesn't mean they should do it, either. [If I get personally attacked again, this will be the last I say on the subject. Note: "Your argument is unreasonable" is not a personal attack. "You are a terrible person of low character" _is_ a personal attack.] James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:39:43 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >Are you actually advocating strip-mining a tournament? There is no >reason to ever join a tournament only to quit half-way through, whether >it is a Sabbat tournament or a golf tournament. If you are going to >play then play, not play and then quit. It spoils the victory of >winning a tournament if half the competion quit for whatever reason. Quitting can be perfectly sportsmanlike, e.g. resigning a chess game or declaring in cricket. The trouble with the Vampite events is that the 3 round format takes lots of time, especially if there's a 2 hour drafting session up front. At a big convention, it's unreasonable to expect players to press on regardless if they see that their cause is hopeless and there are other events opening up. It's probably better for all concerned if no-hope players drop out. Force them to stay in when they don't want to and you risk creating a loose cannon - they'll start doing things for the hell of it, just to have some fun. Andrew

In article <1E4456A7ADA4503F.A3E7914D...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Certainly it is alright to resign in a game of Jyhad once it has become hopeless, but you do not quit out of a double elimination chess or cricket tournament (may I remind you that VTES tourneys are considered to be triple elimination). The reason for this is because how you play influences who gets to the finals. It is extremely unfair to play the first round (especially if you are playing a intercept deck or a anarch revolt deck) and deprive someone of victory points, then drop out and not deny victory points to the opponents that should be playing you later in the tournament. I would agree with you if VTES tourneys were single elimination, but as they are not, I do not. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes (about why resigning in a V:tES tournament is unethical): >Certainly it is alright to resign in a game of Jyhad once it has become >hopeless, but you do not quit out of a double elimination chess or >cricket tournament (may I remind you that VTES tourneys are >considered to be triple elimination). The reason for this is because >how you play influences who gets to the finals. It is extremely unfair >to play the first round (especially if you are playing a intercept deck >or a anarch revolt deck) and deprive someone of victory points, then >drop out and not deny victory points to the opponents that should be >playing you later in the tournament. I would agree with you if VTES >tourneys were single elimination, but as they are not, I do not. I'm not sure you have this analyzed very well. You do not "not deny victory points" to your later opponents. The tables just get reshuffled and they get a different game than they would have gotten otherwise. It's not like each round is fixed and if a person drops out of the tournament, those who would play against his position get an empty seat and a free victory point. As an aside, that would be weird - show up at a 5-person table, find two people have dropped so you're playing a three-person game. I'd be mad about having to play the three-person game, never mind the potential for two free victory points. And I suppose the predators of the "empty chairs" would also get 6 free pool as well as their free VP as they started off? (What about the third guy? Or both the other guys if one player got both empty seats as prey. Yuck!) But this isn't what happens, of course. So ethics based on such assumptions are not valid in real V:tES tournaments. In reality, the quitters leave and take their table positions and victory points and six pool reward for ousting with them. If they don't tell the judge before they go, he has the headache of trying to move things around just before the next round starts (so leaving without warning is a distinct trangression), but the remaining players should be as challenged by the competition as those who played against the quitter in earlier rounds. In fact, if you assume the quitters had reason to leave and that reason was they their deck sucked (or their play or both) then future opponents actually get screwed by losing the opportunity to play them after the quitters' first round opponents got such a chance. That kind of speculation gets pretty conjectural though, so is not worth engaging in. Fred

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:04:26 -0500, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >Well, I had a well-crafted, thoughtful response ready to go, and then my >computer crashed. Oh, well. I damned near deleted an entire page of my own by accidentally dropping my mouse on the corner of the keyboard- which included the "page up" and "delete" keys. >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:55:03 GMT, thecor...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >But it doesn't make it an individual players responsibility not to drop. >> >> Individual players entering a tournament should at least intend to >> play the tournament. How difficult is this to grasp for some of you? > >It's impossible for me to grasp because it's completely unreasonable. >You can't force people to attend the entirety of a 7-10 hour event. You >have to understand that people are going to want to leave, and you can't >stop them. I totally, completely, and utterly fail to see how this is unreasonable. You warn players ahead of time "This tournament will require a 7-10 hour commitment." They then can make a nice, reasoned decision with some forethought as to whether they wish to burn 7-10 hours of their time. If they do not wish to, THEY SHOULD NOT ENTER. Why is asking people to have a clue so terribly unreasonable? And you are correct, we cannot stop them. We can attempt to discourage them from doing so, and the only way is to explain to them why it is rude to just bail in the middle because they're losing, or to just bail in the middle to grab the cards and run. >> If it were the intent of the organizers to sell Sabbat boosters at 4 >> for $10, they would just have bloody well set it up to be a booster >> sale, first come first served. > >As is the case with most draft tournaments in my experience, you had to >play in the first round of the tournament in order to keep the cards. >So in that sense, participation was mandatory. It wasn't a cheap-o >booster sale. How will you stop someone from standing up from the initial table, or FINDING a way to stand up, and just vanishing? The rule about "you must play in the first round" is just as un-enforceable as a rule about "you must play in all the third round". Currently several people have noted a problem with the Rochester draft: that playing on the same table that you drafted on tends to make people excessively counterdraft as opposed to drafting for their own improvement. If you sit everyone down and then re-seat the tables after the draft, you provide a sufficient moment of run-in-circles confusion that players who don't wish to play in the first round can leave, and nobody will notice 'til too late. And really, what will you do if you DO notice - run after them shouting "hey! where are you going with those cards you paid for?" >Clearly, he shouldn't leave in the middle of the game. That's just >rude. But why can't he leave between games? He says "thanks, nice >game, gotta go" and leaves. Why is that so reprehensible? Why force >him to stay and do something he doesn't want to do? Your next paragraph defines it quite well in the second sentence, but I can state it clearly this way as well. Assume the league match is a race to 11, which means "the first person to win 11 games wins." I am playing Fats. I get up 4-0 on Fats early on with some wild, wack-ass lucky shotmaking. Fats, inbetween games, says 'Gotta go' and leaves. Fats has got pissed and quit when he had a PERFECTLY reasonable chance of winning. From your definition: it wasn't fair to me, since I got screwed out of playing time I'd have enjoyed. It wasn't respectful to me, since I really have done nothing at 4-0 to deserve respect. It is DEFINITELY not graciousness in losing, since graciousness in losing would involve sticking around and making an effort to win. I don't enter tournaments to see people roll over when they find my name matched up against theirs in the brackets - I enter to see if I can still win, knowing that people are gunning for me. Avoiding the "respect" one, which might be vague, I get 2 out of 3 definite qualifications for 'unsportsmanlike' from that, and a third out of 3 that would be quite debatable on both sides. >I looked up "sportsmanship" in the dictionary, since to me, it's quite a >vague term. I got "fairness, respect for one's opponent, and >graciousness in winning or losing." How is entering a tournament and >quitting between rounds unsportsmanlike? It's not unfair to the TO; >they know how to deal with it. It's not unfair to the other players; >you finished the games you were in. Maybe in your opinion it's >ingracious; but what if I'm not quitting because I'm losing? It's unfair to the other players because it affects the future rounds. If you have a deck that is completely pants, it has gained no VPs itself, but it probably has rolled over very nicely for its initial predator, unbalancing the table -against- 3 other players. Luck of the draw, but all V:TES players understand that sort of thing. However, if you remove a weak deck from play, it makes it that much harder for ANYONE else to gain VPs, no matter who gets lucky and draws it as initial-prey. That first predator gains an unfair advantage through your withdrawal, whereas three predators should have. If you have a deck that isn't pants but just isn't any fun (an Anarch Revolt/Smiling Jack deck that really hosed up your first table and scattered VPs everywhere), it's still unfair, since you should sit down at two other tables and screw THOSE up as well. Now you've made VPs easier to get for everyone EXCEPT your initial 4 opponents. If you have a deck that is GOOD but isn't any fun, (weenie dominate bleed), that's most unfair of all since you, perhaps, gain 4 VPs from your first table, get bored with weenie dominate, and leave. You have made VPs MUCH easier to get for everyone except your first 4 opponents. It's not respectful, because you assume that your time is more important than everyone else's time, and so it's OK for you to screw up the mechanics and complicate things. This really is quite disrespectful of all the other players who were willing to commit the full 8 hours. If you bail because your deck sucks, it isn't graciousness in losing at all, obviously. If you bail because your deck is winning and is boring, it's absolutely not graciousness in winning - it's like dumping out in the final brackets of a pool tourney and saying "Naw, you guys are too easy. 4th is fine for me, i'll let someone else win this one." It's not too difficult to go through and discover why bailing out is unsportsmanlike. If you didn't realize the tournament would last that long when you signed up, that's one thing (although you should learn to read, since the time-block is set out that way), but if you knowingly sign up for a 7-10 hour commitment, you really ought to remain. >This sort of reminds me of the card limit debate. A card limit player >might say "We don't like when people play stealth and bleed. Those >people are bad people." You're saying "I don't like it when people >enter a tournament and then drop. Those people (i.e., people like me) >are bad people." False analogy. Stealth and bleed is disliked because it is an effective way to accomplish the purpose of the game: to gain the most VPs and thereby win. Dropping from a tournament does NOT accomplish the stated purpose of entering the tournament: to gain VPs, get to the finals, and win. >> No, the fact that they dropped is a wrong thing in itself, no matter >> if anyone was pissed or not. > >It's WRONG? Huh? I really don't understand... Respect for one's fellow opponents. Enough respect to remain and finish. To actually play the game instead of grab the cards and run. To give it your best shot in a poor situation (you could get lucky and sit in front of ANOTHER crap deck, or sit as the predator of the one deck who couldn't deal with you). I've swept tables with my Tremere weenie Rush-n-burn deck. I've garnered 0 VPs with it far more often than I've swept, but occasionally you get a prey who just can't handle THA combat, and you get off to a flashing start. >I'd rather have people getting the cards any way they can. To White >Wolf, the success or failure of V:TES will be based on sales. It will >not be based on whether the people making those purchases are considered >lame by one Derek Ray. The success or failure of V:TES will be based on sales in the retail outlets, NOT by booster draft tournaments for out-of-print sets. White Wolf would be MAD to use the number of entries into a booster draft as anything other than the most fringe indicator of how popular the game is. If the sales in the retail outlets are sufficient, the game will be considered to be doing well, because the retail outlets will order more boxes in large quantities. Much larger than for a solitary booster tourney. >OK, just because you think you play a superior game doesn't mean you >have some sort of superior morality. Some of most cultured and >intelligent people I know (including one Adrian Sullivan) play Magic. Congratulations. I went out of my way to use words that permitted individual exceptions for certain Magic players, and sure enough, someone jumped in and said "but _____ is a nice guy, you rotter!" That's great. I knew there would be plenty of actual decent human beings that play Magic as well. In fact, some of our group used to play. But you know what? There really are a whole boatload of fucking losers playing Magic, as WELL as the decent, cultured, intelligent people. Why? I don't know. Just because you dislike the fact, and dislike that it gets brought up a lot, doesn't make it any less true, OR any less relevant. Right now V:TES doesn't have anywhere near the loser-to-human ratio that some other games do. I haven't met very many people from V:TES that I just cringe at the thought of encountering again, and I can't even think of one off the top of my head. I want to see V:TES become hugely popular. With that popularity will come losers to play the game, possibly LOTS, and I accept that as just life. But that doesn't mean we need to encourage them to continue being losers while playing with us, and we have a great opportunity while the community is still fairly small. I don't really know any other way to state it, and if you still don't understand what I'm saying, I can't help you. My purpose was not to say "V:TES is better than Magic, nyah nyah" - it was to show where we could end up if we're not careful. Showing tolerance of "strip-mining" tournaments for rare cards horrifies me. While it may not be possible to prevent, it can definitely be actively discouraged, which will help lots. >Your generalization is as false and unfair as the one a random person >would make about card games as a whole. You may think your silly >vampire card game is better than the other silly card games, but to the >general public, they're all silly card games. And as such, the general public will form its opinions of the card game based on the most well-known one: Magic. And that's not serving as an especially good front-man right now, other than to show how CCGs can make shedloads of money off of gamers. [snip repeat of false analogy about strip mining = stealth bleed] >You may not like that people choose to exercise their free will and do >things that you don't agree with. But get off your high horse and >accept that people are going to do whatever the hell they want to. It OK. I accept that some people are going to be selfish buggers and break commitments at their whim. This doesn't mean that I have to tolerate it, and it doesn't mean that I won't speak out against it whenever I see fit, and it doesn't mean that I won't attempt to come up with ideas that prevent people from being selfish buggers at the expense of others. >is reasonable to expect someone to finish a game. It is reasonable to >expect someone to play _some_ part of a tournament that they enter. But >just because you think people should stay for the whole thing doesn't >mean you can make them do it, and it doesn't mean they should do it, >either. It doesn't mean that I can make them do it. But i'm afraid that committing to play in a 7-10 hour tournament -does- mean that one SHOULD stay for the full thing. >[If I get personally attacked again, this will be the last I say on the >subject. Note: "Your argument is unreasonable" is not a personal >attack. "You are a terrible person of low character" _is_ a personal >attack.] Fine. Please identify where I said you were a terrible person of low character? [my own aside] This whole set of posts may sound a bit forward from me, especially when I wasn't involved originally. But I dealt with running double-elimination pool tournaments on a regular basis for several years, with significant money involved for winning, and significant money on the side in a player auction/Calcutta. It required absolutely no effort on my part to deal with a drop, since double-elimination brackets are very easy - I just scratch that person's name out and write in "BYE", and anyone who has to play that person automatically wins and advances. However, it generally drew some pretty snarly disfavor and commentary from everyone else involved in the tourney. Partly because someone was usually getting a bit of a free ride by the dropout, instead of having to play a match they might well not have won. Partly because the person who bought them in the player auction just got COMPLETELY screwed. But it was more interesting to hear the complaints be echoed by the person who benefitted from the drop! They'd say "Well, hey, i'll take it, but he could've at least PLAYED and lost." In my experience over 3 years, I never once encountered the attitude that it was "ok" for someone to just dump out in the middle on a whim, nor did I ever treat it as 'ok' when they came to me and said "I'm pissed, i'm leaving." Sometimes nobody was especially pissed about it, but the collective attitude did come down to "it's just unsportsmanlike. If you want to get out that badly, just lose on purpose." Which is also unsportsmanlike, but much less so than "BYE" in big letters in the fourth round winners' side. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:04:26 -0500, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > >Well, I had a well-crafted, thoughtful response ready to go, and then my > >computer crashed. Oh, well. > > I damned near deleted an entire page of my own by accidentally > dropping my mouse on the corner of the keyboard- which included the > "page up" and "delete" keys. Ah, the dangers of newsgroup posting... :) > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> Individual players entering a tournament should at least intend to > >> play the tournament. How difficult is this to grasp for some of you? > > > >It's impossible for me to grasp because it's completely unreasonable. > >You can't force people to attend the entirety of a 7-10 hour event. You > >have to understand that people are going to want to leave, and you can't > >stop them. > > I totally, completely, and utterly fail to see how this is > unreasonable. You warn players ahead of time "This tournament will > require a 7-10 hour commitment." They then can make a nice, reasoned > decision with some forethought as to whether they wish to burn 7-10 > hours of their time. If they do not wish to, THEY SHOULD NOT ENTER. > Why is asking people to have a clue so terribly unreasonable? _If_ the event said "you will have to stay for the whole event" (which IIRC some listings did say at GenCon), then your point would be valid. So one solution to the problem you perceive would be to insert this clause in the description of each V:TES event ever. But I think attendence would drop. I for one would be less likely to enter such an event if I had the slightest suspicion that I might want to bail part-way through. I get the impression that you would be glad not to have me. :P But is it really desirable to do this? Talking about the impression this would give to the general community: "Oh, that looks like a fun game, but I don't know if I'd want to play it for 10 hours." The length of the game is already a deterrent for new players. If you're going to say "well, then those people shouldn't play in a tournament" I would respond with: what about players (like, until recently, me) who don't have a group to play with, and whose _only_ opportunity to play this game is at conventions? This proposal might shut some of them out. > And you are correct, we cannot stop them. We can attempt to > discourage them from doing so, and the only way is to explain to them > why it is rude to just bail in the middle because they're losing, or > to just bail in the middle to grab the cards and run. Or to bail in the middle because they're tired and want to do something else? You seem to forget that that's the reason I left. It had nothing to do with losing (I had just won). The fact that I took some cards with me when I left wasn't the _reason_ I left, it was a side-effect of the fact that it was a limited-format event. But, enough about me. What about those people that show up and drop out because they're losing? I still don't see why it's so terrible for them to drop out between rounds. I think you overestimate the effect it has on the rest of the tournament at large. If it were a small event, I can understand pressuring someone to stay to maintain the "integrity" of the event. Note: I've been playing card games in tournaments for years, and this is the very first time I've been given a hard time for dropping before the end of the tournament. > >As is the case with most draft tournaments in my experience, you had to > >play in the first round of the tournament in order to keep the cards. > >So in that sense, participation was mandatory. It wasn't a cheap-o > >booster sale. > > How will you stop someone from standing up from the initial table, or > FINDING a way to stand up, and just vanishing? That's a completely different issue. In a more organized game, like Magic, there are ways to discipline players for doing such things. > Your next paragraph defines it quite well in the second sentence, but > I can state it clearly this way as well. Assume the league match is a > race to 11, which means "the first person to win 11 games wins." I am > playing Fats. I get up 4-0 on Fats early on with some wild, wack-ass > lucky shotmaking. Fats, inbetween games, says 'Gotta go' and leaves. OK, I think I understand this better now. I agree: your friend should be aware that a match is 11 games, and should stay for the whole thing. Let's say (for some reason) the matches were best of 5. Would you accept someone completing their match, then leaving? [snip] I clipped this argument, but let me try to summarize: whatever kind of deck you have, it has a specific kind of effect on the table you play at. By dropping out, you are removing that effect from future tables. But I argue that the table will get filled up by someone else (after the seating gets arranged without the drop-out) and their deck will have some (possibly different) effect on the table. But this is completely unpredictable. And, again, I think you overestimate the effect this has on the tournament. > It's not respectful, because you assume that your time is more > important than everyone else's time, and so it's OK for you to screw > up the mechanics and complicate things. This really is quite > disrespectful of all the other players who were willing to commit the > full 8 hours. Nothing becomes complicated: the TO just seats the round without me. The only way it would be complicated is if the drop wasn't notified until after the round was seated, and then it would have to be re-seated. I have never gone into a tournament saying to myself: no matter what, I am going to stay the whole time. If I have something better to do, and I'm not leaving in the middle of the game, I'm going to leave. I will notify the proper authority and, if appropriate, apologize for any inconvenience, but I will leave if I want to. > If you bail because your deck sucks, it isn't graciousness in losing > at all, obviously. I still don't see how this is ingracious. I lose, I shake my opponent's hand, say "nice game", and leave. > It's not too difficult to go through and discover why bailing out is > unsportsmanlike. If you didn't realize the tournament would last that > long when you signed up, that's one thing (although you should learn > to read, since the time-block is set out that way), but if you > knowingly sign up for a 7-10 hour commitment, you really ought to > remain. Why? I didn't sign up for a 7-10 hour commitment. I signed up for an event that I knew would last 7-10 hours _if_ I stayed to the end. I decided not to stay until the end. _Especially_ at a convention, where 7-10 hours is a significant percentage of the entire weekend (about 15-20% of the time I spent there the whole weekend), why should I waste my time? > False analogy. Stealth and bleed is disliked because it is an > effective way to accomplish the purpose of the game: to gain the most > VPs and thereby win. Dropping from a tournament does NOT accomplish > the stated purpose of entering the tournament: to gain VPs, get to the > finals, and win. My purpose in playing in the tournament was to have a good time. I accomplished that purpose both days I played V:TES, even though I gained minimal VP's and never made it to the finals. And what if you are at the point where it is impossible for you to accomplish the goals you state? Why not drop out then? > >> No, the fact that they dropped is a wrong thing in itself, no matter > >> if anyone was pissed or not. > > > >It's WRONG? Huh? I really don't understand... > > Respect for one's fellow opponents. Your opponents don't care if there's one less person hanging around or not. > Enough respect to remain and > finish. Respect for who? If I'm playing my VIC/PRO all aggravated damage all the time deck and discover in the first round that it sucks ass, who am I hurting by saving myself further embarassment? > To give it your best shot in a poor situation (you could get lucky and > sit in front of ANOTHER crap deck, or sit as the predator of the one > deck who couldn't deal with you). What if I don't care? I don't want to try anymore; I want to go get something to eat, or go play some different game. > The success or failure of V:TES will be based on sales in the retail > outlets, NOT by booster draft tournaments for out-of-print sets. If the White Wolf people see 10 people play in a V:TES tournament, that sends a message different than 36 people play in a V:TES tournament, and a bunch of people wanted to play and couldn't get in. Another example: Shadowfist had an extremely good showing at GenCon. That sends a message to the Shadowfist people that there is a large interest in their game. Now they'll print more cards and spend more on promotion, because they have a good indicator that it will pay off. > But you know what? There really are a whole boatload of > fucking losers playing Magic, as WELL as the decent, cultured, > intelligent people. Why? I don't know. Just because you dislike the > fact, and dislike that it gets brought up a lot, doesn't make it any > less true, OR any less relevant. Do you know what? There really are a whole boatload of fucking losers playing V:TES. I'm not here as some defender of Magic or Magic people; I do believe that, as card games go, it's not one of the best ones. But you can't make generalizations like "most people who play Magic are losers" and "most people who play V:TES aren't losers". I would go out on a limb and say that a lot of people who play any CCG at all are people who have a hard time socializing with people in any other way. (Perhaps this is what you mean by "losers.") > And as such, the general public will form its opinions of the card > game based on the most well-known one: Magic. And that's not serving > as an especially good front-man right now, other than to show how CCGs > can make shedloads of money off of gamers. I'd actually have to say that the most well-known CCG at this point is Pokemon. In which case the public's opinion of card game players is that we're all 12 year old boys. ;) > >is reasonable to expect someone to finish a game. It is reasonable to > >expect someone to play _some_ part of a tournament that they enter. But > >just because you think people should stay for the whole thing doesn't > >mean you can make them do it, and it doesn't mean they should do it, > >either. > > It doesn't mean that I can make them do it. But i'm afraid that > committing to play in a 7-10 hour tournament -does- mean that one > SHOULD stay for the full thing. If, as I said before, the event description said: you will have to stay for the entire event, then I would agree with you. But it didn't, and I don't think it should have. > >[If I get personally attacked again, this will be the last I say on the > >subject. Note: "Your argument is unreasonable" is not a personal > >attack. "You are a terrible person of low character" _is_ a personal > >attack.] > > Fine. Please identify where I said you were a terrible person of low > character? That was someone else, and the statement was not directed at you (sorry). [snip: pool, losing on purpose better than just dropping out] If I'm playing in a tournament, I'd rather play against someone who was trying to win than someone who would just rather not be there. I don't want to play against someone who is trying to lose; it's just no fun. Why force someone to stay in a tournament if they don't want to be there? [N.B.: I'm not usually one who puts "smileys" in their messages, but I wanted to emphasize that I'm not trying to sound angry or combative, but that's hard to convey over text without things like ":)".] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8nrbs0$2o1$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes (about why resigning in a V:tES tournament > is unethical): > > >Certainly it is alright to resign in a game of Jyhad once it has become > >hopeless, but you do not quit out of a double elimination chess or > >cricket tournament (may I remind you that VTES tourneys are > >considered to be triple elimination). The reason for this is because > >how you play influences who gets to the finals. It is extremely unfair > >to play the first round (especially if you are playing a intercept deck > >or a anarch revolt deck) and deprive someone of victory points, then > >drop out and not deny victory points to the opponents that should be > >playing you later in the tournament. I would agree with you if VTES > >tourneys were single elimination, but as they are not, I do not. > > I'm not sure you have this analyzed very well. You do not "not deny > victory points" to your later opponents. You do one of two things in a VTES game when it is all said and done. You either provide a victory point with your own ousting, or you deny your predator a victory point by surviving (Sometimes you can even do both). When you sweep a table and drop you are denying those victory points to someone else who is continuing in the tournament by removing those points from the overall pool of possible victory points that will get you to the finals. When you get ousted and provide a victory point to your predator and then drop, that is one more victory point that your predator has access to that noones else can get in later rounds. When you gain victory points and are then ousted, you do both you remove victory points from the table that the person who was your predator should have gotten in addition to the one he/she got from ousting you. The tables just get reshuffled > and they get a different game than they would have gotten otherwise. With one victory point less availible in the general pool of victory points. So now instead of playing on a 5 person table, someone has to play on a 4 person table. So even if they sweep the table they still are one point short of any other player who sweeps the table on a five person table. So in general, one person leaving a tournament substancially affects victory conditions for at least four other players per round. > It's not like each round is fixed and if a person drops out of the > tournament, those who would play against his position get an empty seat > and a free victory point. As I said above, it is exactly opposite of what your train of thought is. That victory point that you, the quitting player, represent is lost for the remainder of the tournament. This creates an uneven playing field. > As an aside, that would be weird - show up at a 5-person table, find > two people have dropped so you're playing a three-person game. I'd be > mad about having to play the three-person game, never mind the potential > for two free victory points. And I suppose the predators of the "empty > chairs" would also get 6 free pool as well as their free VP as they > started off? (What about the third guy? Or both the other guys if one > player got both empty seats as prey. Yuck!) I really don't know where you got the above idea from, or how you arrived there. Perhaps it was my mentioning of a 5 person finals where two players dropped. It was still a five person final, but instead of the five best, you had the three best and two substitutes for the people who dropped. > But this isn't what happens, of course. I'm glad your erronious assumptions haven't led you so far off-track. > So ethics based on such assumptions are not valid in real V:tES tournaments. In reality, the quitters leave > and take their table positions and victory points and six pool reward for > ousting with them. And when they leave they deny the victory points that they have won to other players who would have won them without the quitter being in the tournament, and also they deny others the victory point that they would gain by ousting the quitter all the next rounds of the tournament If they don't tell the judge before they go, he has > the headache of trying to move things around just before the next round > starts (so leaving without warning is a distinct trangression), but the > remaining players should be as challenged by the competition as those who > played against the quitter in earlier rounds. But the remaining players have less victory points that they could win because of the quitter withdrawing. > In fact, if you assume the quitters had reason to leave and that > reason was they their deck sucked (or their play or both) then future > opponents actually get screwed by losing the opportunity to play them > after the quitters' first round opponents got such a chance. That kind > of speculation gets pretty conjectural though, so is not worth engaging > in. That kind of speculation is reality whether you like it or not. Each player represents a victory point. If you bring a poor deck then you should be a victory point for a player each round of the tournament, not just the first. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >In article <8nrbs0$2o1$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes (about why resigning in a V:tES >> tournament is unethical): >> >> >Certainly it is alright to resign in a game of Jyhad once it has >> >become hopeless, but you do not quit out of a double elimination chess >> >or cricket tournament (may I remind you that VTES tourneys are >> >considered to be triple elimination). The reason for this is because >> >how you play influences who gets to the finals. It is extremely >> >unfair to play the first round (especially if you are playing a >> >intercept deck or a anarch revolt deck) and deprive someone of >> >victory points, then drop out and not deny victory points to the >> >opponents that should be laying you later in the tournament. I would >> >agree with you if VTES tourneys were single elimination, but as they >> >are not, I do not. >> >> I'm not sure you have this analyzed very well. You do not "not deny >> victory points" to your later opponents. > >You do one of two things in a VTES game when it is all said and done. >You either provide a victory point with your own ousting, or you deny >your predator a victory point by surviving (Sometimes you can even do >both). When you sweep a table and drop you are denying those victory >points to someone else who is continuing in the tournament by removing >those points from the overall pool of possible victory points that will >get you to the finals. When you get ousted and provide a victory point >to your predator and then drop, that is one more victory point that your >predator has access to that noones else can get in later rounds. When >you gain victory points and are then ousted, you do both you remove >victory points from the table that the person who was your predator >should have gotten in addition to the one he/she got from ousting you. Correct. And when you do not play, you don't do any of these things; hence you do not affect the tournament for better or worse. You do affect the rounds you play in; but since you might affect them in any of these ways and since adding all of the possible results yields (times chance of that result) a big null and since we can't make any predictions about what a given player will do, it's all the same. As both you and Dereki have pointed out, dropping out _will_ affect the tournament. But the expected result is exactly the same so I don't see the point in making a fuss over it. >> The tables just get reshuffled and they get a different game than they >> would have gotten otherwise. > >With one victory point less availible in the general pool of victory >points. So now instead of playing on a 5 person table, someone has to >play on a 4 person table. So even if they sweep the table they still >are one point short of any other player who sweeps the table on a five >person table. So in general, one person leaving a tournament >substancially affects victory conditions for at least four other players >per round. Yes, there's one point which is not available. But there's also one less person competing for it. So the expected result is the same. Granted, a person may not be able to gain a five victory, but the four point victory is correspondingly easier. And we also cannot even say that the effect of dropping out will change a five person table to a four person. If there were 21 players in the tournament, you would have one five-person and four four-person tables out of necessity. If one person dropped out, the affect _should_ be to reorganize the tables into four five-person tables and drop one table (unless the judge is being lazy). So I think the problem here is that you're analyzing all this stuff way too simplistically. And your perception of the effect is just plain wrong. >> As an aside, that would be weird - show up at a 5-person table, find >> two people have dropped so you're playing a three-person game. I'd be >> mad about having to play the three-person game, never mind the >> potential for two free victory points. And I suppose the predators of the >> "empty chairs" would also get 6 free pool as well as their free VP as they >> started off? (What about the third guy? Or both the other guys if one >> player got both empty seats as prey. Yuck!) > >I really don't know where you got the above idea from, or how you >arrived there. Because this is the only way a dropout would affect a tournament in the manner you were talking about. To alter it substantially, a player would have to leave his victory point _in_ the tournament but not compete for it. (As delinated above.) Or he would have to (somehow, I don't know how) compete for the victory point but not bring one to the table. But this isn't what happens. He goes, his victory point goes, the whole thing's a wash. I don't understand why this is intuitive to you. But at least it should be clear to you after a fairly minimal amount of analysis. This is not like (for instance) a round robin tournament of sports teams where late round forfeits are unfair to a team's early round competition that had to compete to get a win against the team dropping out. >> In fact, if you assume the quitters had reason to leave and that >> reason was they their deck sucked (or their play or both) then future >> opponents actually get screwed by losing the opportunity to play them >> after the quitters' first round opponents got such a chance. That >> kind of speculation gets pretty conjectural though, so is not worth >> engaging in. > >That kind of speculation is reality whether you like it or not. Each >player represents a victory point. If you bring a poor deck then you >should be a victory point for a player each round of the tournament, not >just the first. The trouble is, if you bring a good deck to the tournmanet, you will win victory points and take them away from your early round opponents. This potential result exactly cancels out the chance that you will lose early and provide a victory point to your early round opponents that they wouldn't have otherwise receive. Unless your argument is that quitters all tend to be bad players (or tend to be good players), the effect of quitting just washes out. And if you are arguing one trend or another, I don't care. Such chances seem too trivial to me to worry about. Let the people leave who want to leave. Fred

> Correct. And when you do not play, you don't do any of these things; > hence you do not affect the tournament for better or worse. You do > affect the rounds you play in; but since you might affect them in any > of these ways and since adding all of the possible results yields (times > chance of that result) a big null and since we can't make any predictions > about what a given player will do, it's all the same. As both you and > Dereki have pointed out, dropping out _will_ affect the tournament. But > the expected result is exactly the same so I don't see the point in making > a fuss over it. Hear is the bone of contention. Do you not realize that an absense in the tournament affects the tournament? The pressures, which the quitter brings to bear in the rounds he participates, are simply absent later on. This creates a vacuum. Any points you won are lost and any points anyone should have won by your presence are lost. These absent points should be won by a player that goes all three rounds and use those points to try to make it to the finals. > >> The tables just get reshuffled and they get a different game than they > >> would have gotten otherwise. > > > >With one victory point less availible in the general pool of victory > >points. So now instead of playing on a 5 person table, someone has to > >play on a 4 person table. So even if they sweep the table they still > >are one point short of any other player who sweeps the table on a five > >person table. So in general, one person leaving a tournament > >substancially affects victory conditions for at least four other players > >per round. > > Yes, there's one point which is not available. But there's also one less > person competing for it. So the expected result is the same. Incorrect, the net result is that the people who were playing against you in the first round are penalized by your presence, and the players who should have played against you are penalized by your absense Granted, > a person may not be able to gain a five victory, but the four point victory > is correspondingly easier. But, with a limited amount of rounds (in this case three) the victory points that you leave the game with and the victory points that someone could have gained from your ousting are absent. Therefore, unbalancing the play over several tables. And we also cannot even say that the effect of > dropping out will change a five person table to a four person. But we can say that it will deprive the players who should have played against you the opportunity to gain a victory point from your ousting. So I think the problem here > is that you're analyzing all this stuff way too simplistically. I think you are ignoring opportunity costs and it is you are analysising it far too simplistically. And your > perception of the effect is just plain wrong. That's kind of funny coming from someone who doesn't stick around to see the effect. This is not like (for instance) a round robin > tournament of sports teams where late round forfeits are unfair to a > team's early round competition that had to compete to get a win against > the team dropping out. Your analogy is wrong. If total points scored got you into the finals instead of number of games won, then the participants of a round robin would be as infuriated as those of us in a VTES tournament, who are cheated of being able to win a point in a round. One point in a tournament is often the difference between making it to the finals and not making it to the finals. > The trouble is, if you bring a good deck to the tournmanet, you will win > victory points and take them away from your early round opponents. This > potential result exactly cancels out the chance that you will lose early > and provide a victory point to your early round opponents that they wouldn't > have otherwise receive. Unless your argument is that quitters all tend > to be bad players (or tend to be good players), the effect of quitting just > washes out. On the contrary as I have stated earlier. Good players who quit deny the people they played against the victory points that the other players would have won by the Good Players absense, and a Bad players who quit deny the people that should have ousted them a victory point in the rounds that the quitter did not participate in. And if you are arguing one trend or another, I am arguing both trends because both have an effect. >I don't care. This much is obvious. Although you care to spend more time arguing about it on the net than you would actually playing in a tournament, which seems that your priorities aren't exactly in order. > Such chances seem too trivial to me to worry about. Hee, Hee. Trivial Chances? You mean like a 100% chance. You either score a victory point or you do not score a victory point. That is the game in its entirety. Let the people leave > who want to leave. I would rather them just not participate in the first place as it is unfair to everyone that plays against them or would have played against them. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:00:38 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >That kind of speculation is reality whether you like it or not. Each >player represents a victory point. If you bring a poor deck then you >should be a victory point for a player each round of the tournament, not >just the first. I am not a victory point; I am a free man! Andrew

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8nk8t2$3ij$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>... > > >> >>>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >>>I strongly disagree. For me, with the number of Sabbat cards I've >>>accumulated over time, that might be a reasonable comment. For someone to >>>whom these cards are more myth than reality (up 'til now) and who couldn't >>>afford them at market prices, I think you're being rather judgementmental. >>>It's unfortunate you missed one tournament. But that's all it is. >>> >>>Fred >> >>Uh oh... the "J" word... You are 100% correct. It is judgmental. However we >>are all judgmental. We judge who to be friends with. We judge what game to >>play. We judge someone when we call them on cheating. Etc, etc, etc.. Should >>I not make a judgement when I see something I think is wrong simply because >>I may seem "judgmental"? I think being judgmental is part of life. It's >>necessary. Otherwise we better let everyone out of jail and dispose of all >>law. Go for anarchy... > >I think you have to take the obvious inference here if you want to avoid >unnecessary sniping; in this case wasting an extra set of posts. >Exercising *necessary* judgement is one thing. When someone accuses you >of being "judgemental" (my speller seems to accept either version; I don't >know which is correct), they are stating that you are making a judgement >you have no right to make. Telling people who don't want to stay for a >full three round tournament that it's wrong to sign up to get four packs >of Sabbat boosters for $12 just so you can play in one tournament is >IMHO excersizing a judgement you have no business making. Their interest >in the event seems clear and reasonable to me, even if they don't stay for >the whole thing. > >Fred You are on a very slippery slope. Who are you to say that my judgement is not "necessary" and I have no right to make it. Assuming as I must to relate to your view, that there is no higher authority, there is still a measure to judge right and wrong when it comes to this issue. It's not the views of the player, but rather the view of the organizers and judge of the tournament. They are the "law" in this case. LSJ knew that there was the possibility of people grabbing the cards and dropping out. Did he care about this? Yes. There was discussion about this problem (it WAS viewed as a problem) before the tournament. LSJ admitted he could not prevent it. However he wanted to discourage this type of behavior. Thus he held a pack of Sabbat until the end of the tournament. This was to encourage the players to play out the tournament. Why take steps to discourage this type of behavior if it was considered to be perfectly fine? I believe you will always find that the judge and the organizers of the tournament will frown upon the selfish and inconsiderate attitude of people who drop out of tournaments for no good reason. Even more so if it is just to get some cool cards cheap. If you can find a judge who does not care then I guess you can go ahead and ditch if you like. Then I would have no argument. You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the attitude you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A common attitude today. However your decision here also effects other players and the judge. In this case dropping out was not viewed as a good thing, including by the judge. Thus it was not "fine". I'm not making a judgement I "have no business making". There is a basis for my judgement. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek's posts say it all, probably better then I could say it. I see no reason to continue adding my duplicate comments. I still really don't get how people can knowingly start a VTES tourny that will take 7 to 10 hours and decide to drop out after the first round and think that is fine. The organizers don't like it, the judge doesn't like it, and most of the players don't. There are reasons for that. Finally I will say I'm sorry to see how ugly this dicussion got. James is nice guy and good player I didn't start this to see him trashed. However this is touchy issue and I still feel the need to let the people who do this sort of thing know how others feel. In my judgement it should also be discouraged as much as possible. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Derek Ray wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote in message <8nk8t2$3ij$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>... >>>>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >>>Uh oh... the "J" word... You are 100% correct. It is judgmental. However >>>we are all judgmental. We judge who to be friends with. We judge what game >>>to play. We judge someone when we call them on cheating. Etc, etc, etc.. >>>Should I not make a judgement when I see something I think is wrong simply >>>because may seem "judgmental"? I think being judgmental is part of life. >>>It's necessary. Otherwise we better let everyone out of jail and dispose >>>of all law. Go for anarchy... >> >>I think you have to take the obvious inference here if you want to avoid >>unnecessary sniping; in this case wasting an extra set of posts. >>Exercising *necessary* judgement is one thing. When someone accuses you >>of being "judgemental" (my speller seems to accept either version; I don't >>know which is correct), they are stating that you are making a judgement >>you have no right to make. Telling people who don't want to stay for a >>full three round tournament that it's wrong to sign up to get four packs >>of Sabbat boosters for $12 just so you can play in one tournament is >>IMHO excersizing a judgement you have no business making. Their interest >>in the event seems clear and reasonable to me, even if they don't stay for >>the whole thing. > >You are on a very slippery slope. Who are you to say that my judgement is >not "necessary" and I have no right to make it. Assuming as I must to relate >to your view, that there is no higher authority, there is still a measure to >judge right and wrong when it comes to this issue. It's not the views of the >player, but rather the view of the organizers and judge of the tournament. >They are the "law" in this case. LSJ knew that there was the possibility of >people grabbing the cards and dropping out. Did he care about this? Yes. >There was discussion about this problem (it WAS viewed as a problem) before >the tournament. LSJ admitted he could not prevent it. However he wanted to >discourage this type of behavior. Thus he held a pack of Sabbat until the >end of the tournament. This was to encourage the players to play out the >tournament. Why take steps to discourage this type of behavior if it was >considered to be perfectly fine? None the less, you have no cause to condemn the behavior. It's not a question of "who I am" but what I'm saying. You condemn that which you have some reason to condemn - aside from someone incidentally causing you some sort of inconvenience. That is to say, everyone else _in_ the tournament helped lock you out; not just the people who happened to quit. You don't condemn people for causing you inconvience. You need to point out a reason why what they did was actually wrong. Aside from occupying a spot you wanted, entering a tournament for the cards or for a single round of play isn't actually wrong. I can see a bit of the "dog in the manger" argument in your position. That is, someone else isn't getting the full potential benefit out of the spot and you would be. Still, others have a legitimate interest in the tickets. Telling people they're immoral to want cheap cards is just plain wrong. There's nothing wrong with wanting discounted cards. People have to obtain cards to play the constructed game. This is one way to get them. If they don't want to play three full games to get them, they're not harming others (except in the same way anyone "harmed" you - by buying you wanted and couldn't get) so they're entitled as far as I can see. As far as Scott wanting people to hang around and finish the tournament, that's his right if he (and White Wolf) want the largest amount of participation at the end. I'm not actually sure why it should be very important to them, either (now that you mention it), but in the absense of such a debate I wouldn't bother to question it. I guess the reason they'd do it is to get people to play the game as much as possible. The more people play, the more likely they'll learn to love the game (if they're ever going) and the more likely they'll continue to play and buy cards. And a tournament that ends full (or as full as possible) does look better, I agree. But I still say the difference in having a few people quit is trivial. >You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the attitude >you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A common >attitude today. However your decision here also effects other players and >the judge. The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I vote for someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. The problem, briefly stated, is that we just disagree about whether what these people did was wrong. You got a tough break. I'm sorry but that doesn't mean you need to go around blaming people who did nothing wrong. Fred

In article <7BE2166332877362.F2AAFEBE...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:00:38 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > >That kind of speculation is reality whether you like it or not. Each > >player represents a victory point. If you bring a poor deck then you > >should be a victory point for a player each round of the tournament, not > >just the first. > > I am not a victory point; I am a free man! That's right my brother. Free the Victory Points! Power to the Points! (Excerpt from Public Enemy "Fear of a Pointy Planet") XZ [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> Correct. And when you do not play, you don't do any of these things; >> hence you do not affect the tournament for better or worse. You do >> affect the rounds you play in; but since you might affect them in any >> of these ways and since adding all of the possible results yields >> (times chance of that result) a big null and since we can't make any >> predictions about what a given player will do, it's all the same. As >> both you and Derek have pointed out, dropping out _will_ affect the >> tournament. But the expected result is exactly the same so I don't see >> the point in making a fuss over it. > >Hear is the bone of contention. Do you not realize that an absense in >the tournament affects the tournament? The pressures, which the quitter >brings to bear in the rounds he participates, are simply absent later >on. This creates a vacuum. Any points you won are lost and any points >anyone should have won by your presence are lost. These absent points >should be won by a player that goes all three rounds and use those >points to try to make it to the finals. Nope. Just the opposite. It creates no particular vacuumw. One game is pretty much as competive as another. The ability of the remaining players is for all practical purposes the same. I don't understand why this isn't clear to you. >> >> The tables just get reshuffled and they get a different game than >> >> they would have gotten otherwise. >> > >> >With one victory point less availible in the general pool of victory >> >points. So now instead of playing on a 5 person table, someone has to >> >play on a 4 person table. So even if they sweep the table they still >> >are one point short of any other player who sweeps the table on a >> >five person table. So in general, one person leaving a tournament >> >substancially affects victory conditions for at least four other >> >players per round. >> >> Yes, there's one point which is not available. But there's also one >> less person competing for it. So the expected result is the same. > >Incorrect, the net result is that the people who were playing against >you in the first round are penalized by your presence, and the players >who should have played against you are penalized by your absense No. It's correct. A four-player game has four players competing for four points. A five-player game has five players competing for five points. Divide the points you get out of it by the number of players and the expected result - which is what's important - is still one. That's why tournaments have no problems sending some players to four player tables and others to five player tables. They don't even do anything about trying to balance who got sent to four and five player tables over the course of the tournament. Why is that, do you suppose? Because it's not important. >>Granted, a person may not be able to gain a five victory, but the four >>point victory is correspondingly easier. > >But, with a limited amount of rounds (in this case three) the victory >points that you leave the game with and the victory points that someone >could have gained from your ousting are absent. Therefore, unbalancing >the play over several tables. I have no idea why these should be important or why you're obsessing over them. After you've quit, people can't gain YOUR victory point, sure. But they're given a correspondingly challenging victory point they could gain - someone else's at whatever table they're assigned to. I have no comprehension what you could be worried about or why the identity of the victory point matters. In the first round of a 36-person tournament, 36 people vie for 36 victory points. One quits after the first game, and the second round allows 35 people to vie for 35 victory points. It's no easier nor harder to gain a victory point, so _who's_ victory point people can gain is irrelevent. (Except for Derek's arguments about the type of deck you bring, which I consider to be trivial, BTW.) A victory point is a victory point is a victory point. >> This is not like (for instance) a round robin tournament of sports >> teams where late round forfeits are unfair to a team's early round >> competition that had to compete to get a win against the team dropping >> out. > >Your analogy is wrong. If total points scored got you into the finals >instead of number of games won, then the participants of a round robin >would be as infuriated as those of us in a VTES tournament, who are >cheated of being able to win a point in a round. I'm talking about about having to play a game to win it as opposed to receiving a forfeit, which is an easier way to win. Now if there were an even number of teams (say 10 teams) playing five games at random and total points were counted as you state, you would be correct that teams not playing a late round would have a right to be angry. If, however, two of the teams dropped out and their two schedule opposing teams were permitted to play one another instead, then they would have an equal chance to score points: five games, never mind who you have to play. This is essentially what's happening in Jyhad. Someone drops but it makes no difference because the remaining players still get the same chance to play for points. So I still don't understand your problem. >On the contrary as I have stated earlier. Good players who quit deny >the people they played against the victory points that the other players >would have won by the Good Players absense, and a Bad players who quit >deny the people that should have ousted them a victory point in the >rounds that the quitter did not participate in. > >> And if you are arguing one trend or another, ... >I am arguing both trends because both have an effect. Perhaps, but if this is all you care about, I say this is completely minor and absurd reason to worry about quitting. If one is a neutral/ middle-of-the-road player, then it wouldn't matter at all. Can you really be so obsessed about someone being a little better or worse than average and having a corresponding affect on the tournament? A good player can have a bad game. A bad player can have a good game. Either player can and often does run into a positive or negative metagame or table position which has more influence on their fate than how good a player they are. Sorry, while I agree this can affect a tournament, I just think it's completely misguided to be concluding that it's therefore evil to quit tournaments. Give a REAL practical reason, not just some conjecture about theoretical, philosophical implications. If this is the reason we disagree, I suppose we'll never resolve this. Sufficie it to be said, I am not impressed. >> Such chances seem too trivial to me to worry about. > >Hee, Hee. Trivial Chances? You mean like a 100% chance. You either >score a victory point or you do not score a victory point. That is the >game in its entirety. This a meaning of the phrase "100% chance" with which I am not familiar. The effects of staying or leaving a tournament are chance since the outcome of any particular game is chance for a multitude of reasons (player position, the metagame effects, how the deck is shuffled, etc.), how good a player is usually very much conjectural and hence might as well be viewed as chance, and since a point won or lost does not always actually affect the outcome, that's chance as well. I'm sorry, but forgive me if I can't make head or tail of your statement above. There's no "100% chance" of anything anywhere I look. Fred

If you cannot understand what an opportunity cost is then you cannot understand my arguement. That is okay. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 Aug 2000 00:34:35 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Nope. Just the opposite. It creates no particular vacuumw. One game is >pretty much as competive as another. The ability of the remaining players >is for all practical purposes the same. I don't understand why this isn't >clear to you. Because it's not true? There are ALWAYS tables which are "easier" to play on due to weaker decks, and it's pretty much a given that many decks at the tournament are going to have their antitheses present. Let's run it through for a second. Assume each player's overall skill and deck effectiveness can be quantified from 1 to 5 (a vast simplification, but effective for our purposes.) This would hold for most cases, except when the deck got into a predator/prey relationship with the One Deck that would completely hose them. We COULD suppose that every single deck there has one other deck there that it absolutely doesn't want to face at all, but for simplicity let's not because then this whole example gets completely out of hand and offtrack. So, let's say you have a table that looks like this: 5, 4, 2, 3, 4. And a table that looks like this: 5, 1, 3, 5, 4. Assume prey is to the right in the sequence. It's doesn't take a genius to tell that the first table is going to be much more evenly balanced than the second one. The best player there is flanked on both sides by strong players and will have slow, possibly rough going. The weakest player has the direct support of the best player. From there on down, everyone is trying to take out a stronger deck, so it's going to be very hard-fought all the way round. The second table, on the other hand, is probably a sweep for the first player. His predator is solid but will be held in check somewhat by his grandpredator, his prey is just a target, and his grandprey is going to be in bad shape as well. After two quick VPs and 12 pool gained, any '5' should mop up the rest of the table. Now suppose that player '1' gets depressed due to his rapid exit, and drops out of the tournament. No other table in later rounds is going to have the same sort of imbalance that one raw, unskilled newbie can make - and nobody else will have such an easy chance of gaining 5 VPs in a row. He also converted each round from a total of 10 VPs to a total of 9, causing great pain for anyone at a 4-player table. This VP removal, admittedly, is slightly magnified by our example using only 10 players, but the person who swept the table is in excellent shape with his 5 VPs and could probably slack off totally and still be in the final - especially since everyone else has a much harder chance of getting a 5 themselves after this. By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of getting. >No. It's correct. A four-player game has four players competing for >four points. A five-player game has five players competing for five >points. Divide the points you get out of it by the number of players >and the expected result - which is what's important - is still one. >That's why tournaments have no problems sending some players to four >player tables and others to five player tables. They don't even do >anything about trying to balance who got sent to four and five player >tables over the course of the tournament. Why is that, do you suppose? >Because it's not important. It is more important than you think. A person who is stuck at three four-player tables has a maximum available VP of 12. A person who plays at three five-player tables has a maximum available VP of 15. In general, 6 VPs will get you into the final - the first person must win half the VPs he sees. The second person must merely win two-fifths - another significant difference. There is a reason that the current tourney seating formula goes out of its way to produce 5-player tables whenever possible, and also goes out of its way to make sure people don't get repeatedly stuck on 4-player tables. That extra VP -will- begin to matter. >I have no idea why these should be important or why you're obsessing over >them. After you've quit, people can't gain YOUR victory point, sure. But >they're given a correspondingly challenging victory point they could gain - See above - if your deck blows a big hairy monkey, you have an enormous effect on every table you sit at. (your prey gets a free ride until your predator rolls over you.) If you bring weenie dominate bleed from hell, and you hammer a table in 30 minutes, then leave, you unfairly screw the other 4 players you played with. Decks are not as random as all that to produce "equal" chances. >(Except for Derek's arguments about the type of deck you bring, which I >consider to be trivial, BTW.) A victory point is a victory point is a >victory point. You can claim they're 'trivial' all you want, but don't think that if I happen to bring an incredibly weak deck that it won't sharply affect every table I'm at. If I then bail with that incredibly weak deck, I just boosted my original predator on a free ride to the finals. This is fair why? >Sorry, while I agree this can affect a tournament, I just think it's >completely misguided to be concluding that it's therefore evil to >quit tournaments. Give a REAL practical reason, not just some conjecture >about theoretical, philosophical implications. If this is the reason I did, quite a few of them. Go check the other thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <38u3qs0enlrt2aaau...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] > By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and > leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his > table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally > screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players > have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of getting. Why do they need to be equally screwed? Why do they need to have the same bad player at their tables? Isn't it entirely possible that this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws his next two rounds? Would you then argue that he should get to reshuffle his deck until he gets a good start, because otherwise the next two tables he sits at won't have gotten screwed like his first table did? There's too much randomness in Jyhad (even in tournaments) for the 'dropouts skew the remaining player distribution toward goodness/badness' argument to be plausible. IMO, anyway. > You can claim they're 'trivial' all you want, but don't think that if > I happen to bring an incredibly weak deck that it won't sharply affect > every table I'm at. If I then bail with that incredibly weak deck, I > just boosted my original predator on a free ride to the finals. This > is fair why? Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness you'd have to remove the randomness, and then it wouldn't be a card game anymore. There's no guarantee that that original predator, who your weak deck may have given 1 VP and 6 pool to, gets a free ride to the finals. Maybe he gets bad draws his next two rounds. Maybe he runs into an intercept- untap deck after ousting you and gets no more VPs in that first round. Maybe he just had the anti-your-deck-deck and got to oust you real quick but couldn't kill anyone else in the entire tournament. When people are allowed to be random factors in (a) deck choice, (b) play skill, and (c) in-game actions (how they vote or act or play master cards, all of which may aid the other players more in one game than another), why should the line be drawn at allowing them to be random factors in whether or not they play in any particular round? We may castigate people if we think they're throwing games, but do we castigate them for playing inconsistently? And if not, how can we castigate them for dropping out early? Josh up for the down stroke [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8nu56o$jbs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article <38u3qs0enlrt2aaau...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and > > leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his > > table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally > > screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players > > have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of getting. > > Why do they need to be equally screwed? Because the person who gains 5 VP's in the first round should exert the same amount of pressure in rounds two and three. Why > do they need to have the same bad player at > their tables? Because there should be an equal chance for a player to gain that victory point by ousting the bad player each round. Not just the guy who played him first round. That would be like giving him a free point that no one else has access to. Isn't it entirely possible that > this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws > his next two rounds? But he would still be a presence on the table which affects both gameplay and politics Would you then argue that > he should get to reshuffle his deck until he > gets a good start, because otherwise the next > two tables he sits at won't have gotten screwed > like his first table did? No There's too much > randomness in Jyhad (even in tournaments) for > the 'dropouts skew the remaining player distribution > toward goodness/badness' argument to be plausible. The dropout removes a factor of play from the games that he would have exerted hed he been present in the later games. > IMO, anyway. > > > You can claim they're 'trivial' all you want, but don't think that if > > I happen to bring an incredibly weak deck that it won't sharply affect > > every table I'm at. If I then bail with that incredibly weak deck, I > > just boosted my original predator on a free ride to the finals. This > > is fair why? > > Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness > isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness > you'd have to remove the randomness, and then > it wouldn't be a card game anymore. No to guarantee fairness you play by the rules, and the rules apply to everyone. If you quit the you are not playing by the rules, because you are not playing. Therfore, those you have played you who are advancing into later rounds have either benifitted or have been penalized by your presence, but those who would have played you in later rounds do not get the opportunity to do either. (snip speculation on separate outcomes of games) > When people are allowed to be random factors > in (a) deck choice, (b) play skill, and (c) > in-game actions (how they vote or act or play > master cards, all of which may aid the other > players more in one game than another), why > should the line be drawn at allowing them to > be random factors in whether or not they play > in any particular round? Because for the victory point totals going into the finals to be a true measure of skill, all players must participate in all rounds. We may castigate > people if we think they're throwing games, but > do we castigate them for playing inconsistently? This really isn't the issue. > And if not, how can we castigate them for > dropping out early? This is a good starting place. Don't drop out. It is not a good thing for the plethora of reasons already listed in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:11:38 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <38u3qs0enlrt2aaau...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >[snip] > >> By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and >> leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his >> table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally >> screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players >> have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of getting. > >Why do they need to be equally screwed? Why Read "chance of being screwed," not "must be equally screwed." >do they need to have the same bad player at >their tables? Isn't it entirely possible that >this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws >his next two rounds? Would you then argue that Surely it is. The chance of being screwed has gone the other way. However, it is reasonable to assume that a deck that sweeps is at least capable of doing so again OR gaining a bunch of VPs, unless it initially played at a table with FOUR suck-ass decks. >> You can claim they're 'trivial' all you want, but don't think that if >> I happen to bring an incredibly weak deck that it won't sharply affect >> every table I'm at. If I then bail with that incredibly weak deck, I >> just boosted my original predator on a free ride to the finals. This >> is fair why? > >Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness >isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness >you'd have to remove the randomness, and then >it wouldn't be a card game anymore. I'm not attempting to guarantee fairness, I'm attempting to remove some of the easily solvable causes of unfairness. Random draws and random deal from your deck are not easily solvable, nor would you want them to be. Someone feeling it's OK to pull the tabs on a tournament after the first round because (insert reason here) is MUCH more easily solvable. >And if not, how can we castigate them for >dropping out early? (shrug) I prefer to argue THAT point initially from a question of sportsmanship, myself. The rest of the points, including this one, are merely angles helping demonstrate exactly why it's unsportsmanlike to say "bah, i'm losing, i quit", OR "bah, i'm bored, i quit", or whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8nsfot$tdb$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] No cause to condemn the behaviour? Have you actually read my previous posts? I'm not condemning the behavior because it caused me inconvenience. I would have no problem and not have ever made the initial post if everyone stayed in the tournament. That causes me the same inconvenience but would not have bothered me in the slightest. Here again are the reasons I think dropping out is wrong: 1) Waste of the slot (or "dog in the manger" if you prefer). 2) Creates difficulty for the judge. 3) Effects other players. 4) Looks bad for the game. You have tried to explain away all these problems in response to other's posts. #2 I know from personal experience can be a huge pain in the ass. Especially when Mr. "I can do what I please" takes off without even telling the judge and you have to redo the entire seating when you find out. Have you ever judged a tournament? If not, you have no right to say this isn't a problem. You can also say #3 has a negligable effect but I have had experience to the contrary. I have actually had my chances of making the final killed because I got stuck at the 4 player after someone took off. You can theorize all day that dropping out has no effects but I have experience to the contrary. That is the primary reason I have a problem with people dropping out. >I can see a bit of the "dog in the manger" argument in your position. >That is, someone else isn't getting the full potential benefit out of >the spot and you would be. Still, others have a legitimate interest in >the tickets. Telling people they're immoral to want cheap cards is just >plain wrong. There's nothing wrong with wanting discounted cards. People >have to obtain cards to play the constructed game. This is one way to >get them. If they don't want to play three full games to get them, they're >not harming others (except in the same way anyone "harmed" you - by buying >you wanted and couldn't get) so they're entitled as far as I can see. I disagree you are not causing harm to take such actions. I have experienced the harm myself and seen the effect on others. I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting cheap cards. However when you decide to mess with the tournament to get them there is a problem. >As far as Scott wanting people to hang around and finish the tournament, >that's his right if he (and White Wolf) want the largest amount of >participation at the end. I'm not actually sure why it should be very >important to them, either (now that you mention it), but in the absense >of such a debate I wouldn't bother to question it. I guess the reason >they'd do it is to get people to play the game as much as possible. The >more people play, the more likely they'll learn to love the game (if >they're ever going) and the more likely they'll continue to play and >buy cards. And a tournament that ends full (or as full as possible) >does look better, I agree. But I still say the difference in having >a few people quit is trivial. The reasons they would want people to hang around is obvious. Does it really escape you? It's because it's a organized competetion, not a cheap card handout. The reason for the draft trounament was not just to hand out cheap cards. It was to have a tournament. The tournament suffers, or could even become impossible to run if everyone takes the cards and quits. Sure having a few people, 5 or 6, out of 36 doesn't kill the tournament and may be considered to have "trivial" effect. However what if 29 people had the attitude they can just leave and did so? What about 15? Is the effect then trivial? I also believe as you stated above they want people playing the game as much as possible. A full tournament looks much better. Finally I would add that LSJ certainly didn't want to deal with the hassle of people dropping out. >>You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the attitude >>you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A common >>attitude today. However your decision here also effects other players and >>the judge. > >The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes >what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a >right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I vote >for someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or >more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner >and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. >Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. This says it all clearly. You don't care. You have a the ability to do what you want and you do so despite the effect on others. Complete moral realativity in action. You are not concerned with the difficulty you may cause the judge or other players. You don't care how the tournament or game itself is viewed. As long as you get what you want and have a good time. I respect for at least being honest and consistant in your position. The vote analogy breaks down becuase it's totally different situation. A election is set up to have the effect of a winner or loser. A better analogy in relation to the tournament might be if you are a voter that goes to the poles, swipes a bunch of ballots to take home, asks the polster to move the voting both for you, sits in the both for an hour, and then leaves without even casting a vote. >The problem, briefly stated, is that we just disagree about whether what >these people did was wrong. You got a tough break. I'm sorry but that >doesn't mean you need to go around blaming people who did nothing wrong. The problem isn't that I got a tough break (not playing in the tournament). The problem is I have reasons for believing dropping out of a tournament is wrong. I will continue to have those beliefs. Finally just as you have every right to do what you want, despite the effect on others or what they think, I have every right to tell people who drop out of tournaments that what they are doing sucks if I like. Steve Bucy

In article <8nu88n$n5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: [snip] > = X_Zealot > > = me > Because the person who gains 5 VP's in the first round should exert the > same amount of pressure in rounds two and three. But he won't necessarily exert that same amount of pressure. > Why > > do they need to have the same bad player at > > their tables? > > Because there should be an equal chance for a player to gain that > victory point by ousting the bad player each round. Not just the guy who > played him first round. That would be like giving him a free point that > no one else has access to. That happens all the time! In a large tournament, only twelve other people get to play with the worst player there. If there are forty players in the tournament, that leaves twenty-seven who didn't even get a chance to be at the same table with this 'free point' player. And only three people actually get to oust him! How is that fair? Obviously it's not. Because life isn't fair, and tournaments aren't either. > Isn't it entirely possible that > > this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws > > his next two rounds? > > But he would still be a presence on the table which affects both > gameplay and politics Yes, but at a large tournament it's not necessary that this particular individual be there; any of the Jyhad players present will do. > There's too much > > randomness in Jyhad (even in tournaments) for > > the 'dropouts skew the remaining player distribution > > toward goodness/badness' argument to be plausible. > > The dropout removes a factor of play from the games that he would have > exerted hed he been present in the later games. Only from the games he would have been in. What about the tables he wouldn't have played at in the first place? Clearly he wasn't going to affect those. Now he's also not affecting the ones he would have played in. Why does this matter so much? In preliminary rounds, all Jyhad players are interchangeable (at least as far as seating is concerned). That's why I don't feel it's such a big deal if some players drop out early. > > Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness > > isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness > > you'd have to remove the randomness, and then > > it wouldn't be a card game anymore. > > No to guarantee fairness you play by the rules, and the rules apply to > everyone. If you quit the you are not playing by the rules, because you > are not playing. Therfore, those you have played you who are advancing > into later rounds have either benifitted or have been penalized by your > presence, but those who would have played you in later rounds do not get > the opportunity to do either. It's true that they don't get to play with the actual dropouts, but they may experience equal benefits or penalties from the people they actually *do* play against. This is exactly the same as the experience of everyone who wouldn't have been seated with the dropout in the first place. > (snip speculation on separate outcomes of games) > > > When people are allowed to be random factors > > in (a) deck choice, (b) play skill, and (c) > > in-game actions (how they vote or act or play > > master cards, all of which may aid the other > > players more in one game than another), why > > should the line be drawn at allowing them to > > be random factors in whether or not they play > > in any particular round? > > Because for the victory point totals going into the finals to be a true > measure of skill, all players must participate in all rounds. The VP totals going into the finals are never a 'true measure of skill', whatever that is, even if everyone *does* play in all rounds. First of all, in a Jyhad tournament you don't play against all the other players in the preliminary rounds, so it's possible that people could get into the finals just by sitting with all the worst players all three rounds. Second, random shuffles and seating mean that there is little game-to-game consistency in how well a particular deck/player does. Third, as I said above, players are not required to use all their 'skill', whatever that might be, in any game they play. > We may castigate > > people if we think they're throwing games, but > > do we castigate them for playing inconsistently? > > This really isn't the issue. But it's at least as much a source of 'unfairness' as dropouts are. > > And if not, how can we castigate them for > > dropping out early? > > This is a good starting place. > Don't drop out. It is not a good thing for the plethora of reasons > already listed in this thread. Maybe it's not a 'good thing', but it's hard for me to see a plausible argument that it really affects the outcome of a large tournament more than any other random factor. Josh son and heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <orf5qs4jib8rihrr6...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:11:38 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >In article <38u3qs0enlrt2aaau...@4ax.com>, > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and > >> leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his > >> table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally > >> screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players > >> have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of getting. > > > >Why do they need to be equally screwed? Why > Read "chance of being screwed," not "must be equally screwed." But only a few players (eight) would even get that chance of screwing. Why is it so important that this player be there to give those eight players a chance to be screwed, when all the rest of the players at the tournament already get to avoid potential screwage? > >do they need to have the same bad player at > >their tables? Isn't it entirely possible that > >this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws > >his next two rounds? Would you then argue that > > Surely it is. The chance of being screwed has gone the other way. > However, it is reasonable to assume that a deck that sweeps is at > least capable of doing so again OR gaining a bunch of VPs, unless it > initially played at a table with FOUR suck-ass decks. Sure, it's a reasonable assumption, but that doesn't mean it'll work out that way; given that any particular game has that much randomness, it doesn't seem to me that important that any particular player be available for any specific game. > >Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness > >isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness > >you'd have to remove the randomness, and then > >it wouldn't be a card game anymore. > > I'm not attempting to guarantee fairness, I'm attempting to remove > some of the easily solvable causes of unfairness. Random draws and > random deal from your deck are not easily solvable, nor would you want > them to be. Someone feeling it's OK to pull the tabs on a tournament > after the first round because (insert reason here) is MUCH more easily > solvable. I don't think it is more easily solvable, because people pretty much always have the freedom to leave in this country. You can't physically restrain them. Given that, why not graciously accept it when someone feels they need to drop out of a tournament? It really doesn't seem to me that it's at all likely to cause great turmoil in a large tournament. There were already plenty of people who would never have played them; the games can go on perfectly well without them. If they don't want to be there, we're probably all better off not forcing them to be. > >And if not, how can we castigate them for > >dropping out early? > > (shrug) I prefer to argue THAT point initially from a question of > sportsmanship, myself. The rest of the points, including this one, > are merely angles helping demonstrate exactly why it's unsportsmanlike > to say "bah, i'm losing, i quit", OR "bah, i'm bored, i quit", or > whatever. Maybe it's not sportsmanlike to quit because you've gotten bored, but is it worthwhile to have a bored player in the tournament? You could say that you'd rather not have players who are going to get bored show up at all, but what if they don't know beforehand that they're going to become bored? Josh no mercy for the weak? [ quoted text not captured ]

>On 22 Aug 2000 00:34:35 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Nope. Just the opposite. It creates no particular vacuumw. One game is >>pretty much as competive as another. The ability of the remaining players >>is for all practical purposes the same. I don't understand why this isn't >>clear to you. > >Because it's not true? There are ALWAYS tables which are "easier" to >play on due to weaker decks, and it's pretty much a given that many >decks at the tournament are going to have their antitheses present. >Let's run it through for a second. (Goes on to write a bunch of stuff about a conjectural example where dropouts affect the chances of various players to win the tournament.) Fine. I don't care. This stuff is trivial and minor and in no way should prevent people from worrying about leaving a tournament if they need to leave. You are overly obsessing about how a change in circumstances _may_ affect a tournament and ignoring the fact that since it's difficult to say how it will affect the tournament, it essentially doesn't mean anything. By the same token, I could shuffle my deck before the start of a game and pile my cards up in a way that will be cause me to totally lose when I start to play the game due to a horribly unforunate ordering of the cards. I don't know that, but it's true. Now I sit and look at the face down pile and contemplate shuffling the cards for a second time. If I do so, I'll likely affect the game and the tournament in any number of ways. Do I care? No - because I have no idea what the effect of a shuffle is going to be. This is the level of your objections about people leaving tournaments (except to the extent of someone who is aware that their deck is distinctly good or bad...see below). I don't care about them, either, and neither should you. >See above - if your deck blows a big hairy monkey, you have an >enormous effect on every table you sit at. (your prey gets a free >ride until your predator rolls over you.) If you bring weenie >dominate bleed from hell, and you hammer a table in 30 minutes, then >leave, you unfairly screw the other 4 players you played with. Decks >are not as random as all that to produce "equal" chances. It's true, if your deck sucks and you're a bad player, then you can make some predictions about your effect on the future of the tournament, though nothing is certain. By the same token, if you realize you're God's gift to the game of Jyhad and you can usually expect to trash the field, you can make some predictions about your effect as well. Though again, even a Jyhad stud has no protection against chance and the horrible shuffle. I concede this may be a basis for concern. Notice, however, that the middle-of-the-road player may feel totally free to leave, since he can make no predictions about his future performance. To me, this just demonstrates how silly this whole line of argument is. If you really felt this way, you should have asked Andrew and James what they thought about their chances because this would become a relevant question. I notice no one did. My conclusion is that none of you really believe in your hearts that a dropout actually harms anyone to any great extent. You're just obsessing over the fact that things are different now, which is just about as important as the question of whether one more shuffle of a totally randomized deck makes a difference. Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >In article <8nu56o$jbs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >> In article <38u3qs0enlrt2aaau...@4ax.com>, >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > By the same token, suppose that same 5-VP player gets bored and >> > leaves. His presence directly affected the other 4 players at his >> > table, and the other 5 players should have a chance to be equally >> > screwed. But they won't, because he's gone - those first 4 players >> > have got a zero that nobody else will have the same chance of >> > getting. >> >> Why do they need to be equally screwed? > >Because the person who gains 5 VP's in the first round should exert the >same amount of pressure in rounds two and three. Notice, however, that you can't actually say very much about how much "pressure" he exerted in the first round nor how much pressure he would exert in rounds 2 and 3. His prey and grandprey might have gotten horrible draws (expecially WRT to crypt draws that would force them to contest key vampires with someone across the table) and fallen with little effort. Most people can roll up a sweep given such a random advantage. We don't know how much pressure he would exert in rounds 2 and 3. We don't really know that much at all. The one game with 5 VPs is one sign that tells us a little but overall, it's still very hard to predict what would occur in the future. Which is precisely why you don't bother worrying about it or weighing it against real world considerations like an event starting in half an hour that the person would rather attend than continue with Jyhad. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote in message <8nsfot$tdb$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>... >> >>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >> >>None the less, you have no cause to condemn the behavior. It's not a >>question of "who I am" but what I'm saying. You condemn that which you >>have some reason to condemn - aside from someone incidentally causing >>you some sort of inconvenience. That is to say, everyone else _in_ >>the tournament helped lock you out; not just the people who happened >>to quit. You don't condemn people for causing you inconvience. You >>need to point out a reason why what they did was actually wrong. Aside >>from occupying a spot you wanted, entering a tournament for the cards or >>for a single round of play isn't actually wrong. > >No cause to condemn the behaviour? Have you actually read my previous posts? >I'm not condemning the behavior because it caused me inconvenience. I would >have no problem and not have ever made the initial post if everyone stayed >in the tournament. That causes me the same inconvenience but would not have >bothered me in the slightest. Here again are the reasons I think dropping >out is wrong: > >1) Waste of the slot (or "dog in the manger" if you prefer). >2) Creates difficulty for the judge. >3) Effects other players. >4) Looks bad for the game. And have you read mine? The waste of the slot objection hinges on agreement that someone has no legimate interest in entering a tournament they're not going to finish, which you know by now I do not agree with - particularly not given the point that cheap Sabbat cards were available to the entrants. It creates no difficulty for a judge if they make him aware they're leaving when they do and some minor difficulty if they don't. The effect-on-other- players argument is just downright silly when analysed, on the level of affecting other players by shuffling your deck one more time when it's already completely randomized as far as you know. And I disagree that it looks bad for the game. That's a subjective judgement but it's grasphing at straws. >You have tried to explain away all these problems in response to other's >posts. If you're aware of this, then you need to take issue with those points by responding to those posts. It's a huge waste of time to charge that someone's ignoring your arguments when you're ignoring their position on them. The ultimate affect is that we're just rehashing our overall positions because we disagree with the subpoints. >>>You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the >>>attitude you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A >>>common attitude today. However your decision here also effects other >>>players and the judge. >> >>The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >>others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >>don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes >>what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a >>right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I vote >>for someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or >>more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner >>and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. >>Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. > >This says it all clearly. You don't care. You have a the ability to do what >you want and you do so despite the effect on others. Complete moral >realativity in action. Where on earth did you come up with *that* conclusion? Read the example again, please! It's not that I don't care about the implications of my actions. It's that my actions are NOT morally wrong in the above case. In fact, this may "say it all clearly" in a different sense. You seem to think that because someone's action had an ill effect on you that they are, ergo, morally wrong. And you seek to demonstrate why that is but you've failed to do so. I believe that the problem is that you're looking to blame someone for something that happened to you which was simply unfortunate. >The vote analogy breaks down becuase it's totally different situation. A >election is set up to have the effect of a winner or loser. A better analogy >in relation to the tournament might be if you are a voter that goes to the >poles, swipes a bunch of ballots to take home, asks the polster to move the >voting both for you, sits in the both for an hour, and then leaves without >even casting a vote. I'm not going to snipe about the anology. The point is obvious. Since you haven't shown that what James or Andrew did was wrong, it's perfectly sound. And it demonstrates the crux of our disagreement, which has nothing to do with moral relativism. Fred

On 23 Aug 2000 17:56:54 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >question. I notice no one did. My conclusion is that none of you really >believe in your hearts that a dropout actually harms anyone to any great >extent. You're just obsessing over the fact that things are different >now, which is just about as important as the question of whether one more >shuffle of a totally randomized deck makes a difference. Bunch of malarkey. Read my OTHER thread to see what my primary objections were to people dropping out, and welcome to reality, where almost everything you do affects others to some degree. Sitting on your bum and saying otherwise, or claiming that you're just going to do what you want and to hell with everyone else, is a pretty piss-poor approach to life. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o0puo$luq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article <8nu88n$n5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > [snip] > > > = X_Zealot > > > = me > > > Because the person who gains 5 VP's in the first round should exert > the > > same amount of pressure in rounds two and three. > > But he won't necessarily exert that same > amount of pressure. But he will exert some rather than none. The people he/she has already played have already felt that presence either for good or for ill. > > Why > > > do they need to have the same bad player at > > > their tables? > > > > Because there should be an equal chance for a player to gain that > > victory point by ousting the bad player each round. Not just the guy > who > > played him first round. That would be like giving him a free point > that > > no one else has access to. > > That happens all the time! In a large tournament, > only twelve other people get to play with the > worst player there. If there are forty players > in the tournament, that leaves twenty-seven who > didn't even get a chance to be at the same table > with this 'free point' player. And only three > people actually get to oust him! How is that > fair? How many forty player tournaments have you seen? I have seen one and that was at Dragon Con. But to address your point that only 12 people should have gotten the chance for the free victory point and that there should be three points availible for ousting this player for the total of the 3 rounds. That is my arguement. It affects 12 people playing. 12 people is a substancial amount of players who get the shaft by this player dropping out. That is 30% of the players in the tournament. 3 players should have gotten a victory point from him is 7.5% of the players. both of these are substancial statistics. > Obviously it's not. Because life isn't fair, > and tournaments aren't either. > > > Isn't it entirely possible that > > > this 5-VP player could get two suck-ass draws > > > his next two rounds? > > > > But he would still be a presence on the table which affects both > > gameplay and politics > > Yes, but at a large tournament it's not necessary > that this particular individual be there; any of > the Jyhad players present will do. Actually it screws everything up as I have been trying to explain. It is only okay if once a player drops, then another player replaces him and plays with the same deck with the same amount of skill and knowledge. > > There's too much > > > randomness in Jyhad (even in tournaments) for > > > the 'dropouts skew the remaining player distribution > > > toward goodness/badness' argument to be plausible. > > > > The dropout removes a factor of play from the games that he would have > > exerted hed he been present in the later games. > > Only from the games he would have been in. What > about the tables he wouldn't have played at in > the first place? Clearly he wasn't going to affect > those. Now he's also not affecting the ones he > would have played in. Why does this matter so > much? I never argued that it affected people that the quitter was never going to play, but using the above example of 40 players that means that 30% of the players get "screwed" plus the judge who has to deal with it. > In preliminary rounds, all Jyhad players are > interchangeable (at least as far as seating is > concerned). That's why I don't feel it's > such a big deal if some players drop out early. > > > > Nothing's fair in card tournaments. Fairness > > > isn't even possible. To guarantee fairness > > > you'd have to remove the randomness, and then > > > it wouldn't be a card game anymore. > > > > No to guarantee fairness you play by the rules, and the rules apply to > > everyone. If you quit the you are not playing by the rules, because > you > > are not playing. Therfore, those you have played you who are > advancing > > into later rounds have either benifitted or have been penalized by > your > > presence, but those who would have played you in later rounds do not > get > > the opportunity to do either. > > It's true that they don't get to play with the > actual dropouts, but they may experience equal > benefits or penalties from the people they > actually *do* play against. With one less availible victory point each round after the player quit plus the loss of all the victory points the quitting player takes with him. This is exactly the > same as the experience of everyone who wouldn't > have been seated with the dropout in the first > place. No, it is not. There is a loss of gross victory points from the tournament total. [ quoted text not captured ] I have always thought it took skill to build a good deck and then it also took skill to play it properly to make it to the finals. I have never seen a finals where I thought to myself, "Hey, John Doe made it to the finals. What a fluke!" > > We may castigate > > > people if we think they're throwing games, but > > > do we castigate them for playing inconsistently? > > > > This really isn't the issue. > > But it's at least as much a source of 'unfairness' > as dropouts are. > I have never seen anyone throw a game. If I do see that I will notify the judge and appropriate penalties will be taken. > > > And if not, how can we castigate them for > > > dropping out early? > > > > This is a good starting place. > > Don't drop out. It is not a good thing for the plethora of reasons > > already listed in this thread. > > Maybe it's not a 'good thing', but it's hard for > me to see a plausible argument that it really > affects the outcome of a large tournament more than > any other random factor. It doesn't affect you unless you fall within the "30%" of the above example that are affected by a players dropping out. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> Notice, however, that you can't actually say very much about how much > "pressure" he exerted in the first round nor how much pressure he would > exert in rounds 2 and 3. His prey and grandprey might have gotten horrible > draws (expecially WRT to crypt draws that would force them to contest > key vampires with someone across the table) and fallen with little effort. > Most people can roll up a sweep given such a random advantage. We don't > know how much pressure he would exert in rounds 2 and 3. We don't really > know that much at all. The one game with 5 VPs is one sign that tells > us a little but overall, it's still very hard to predict what would occur > in the future. Which is precisely why you don't bother worrying about > it or weighing it against real world considerations like an event starting > in half an hour that the person would rather attend than continue with > Jyhad. What we do know is that leaving removes from the tournament all the victory points which the quitter had won, and the potential for anyone to gain a victory point from the quitter for each round which the quitter does not participate in. This can be as few as one or as many as 11 victory points (using 5 person tables). Those victory points would be better off being won by a player who is actually trying to make it to the finals and win. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o15as$nko$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't really see much point in trying to continue to this. I have experience running trounaments, playing in tournaments, and seeing other tournaments here in L.A. where #2 and #3 have been proven to be a problem. You didn't answer my question about if you have ever run a tournament. I must assume you have not, and therefore don't know about #2, especially since you explain it away as so "minor". I also must assume you have never been affected by #3 since continue to only consider your theories and deny that has ever created a problem. #4 may be "subjective" as no proof can be made, however I think it would be very interesting to ask CCG players what they think of a game that many people simply ditch the tournament to go play something else. >>You have tried to explain away all these problems in response to other's >>posts. > >If you're aware of this, then you need to take issue with those points >by responding to those posts. It's a huge waste of time to charge that >someone's ignoring your arguments when you're ignoring their position on >them. The ultimate affect is that we're just rehashing our overall >positions because we disagree with the subpoints. I have not ignored you arguments. I simply don't buy them. I still have not heard a valid explanation of why these issues are not a problem. I have heard lots of theories and subjective opinions from you that don't match with the reality I have experienced. >>>>You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the >>>>attitude you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A >>>>common attitude today. However your decision here also effects other >>>>players and the judge. >>> >>>The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >>>others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >>>don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes >>>what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a >>>right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I vote >>>for someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or >>>more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner >>>and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. >>>Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. >> >>This says it all clearly. You don't care. You have a the ability to do what >>you want and you do so despite the effect on others. Complete moral >>realativity in action. > >Where on earth did you come up with *that* conclusion? Read the example >again, please! It's not that I don't care about the implications of my >actions. It's that my actions are NOT morally wrong in the above case. Please reread your own typing again: "The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a right and legitimate interest in doing them." How could it be any more clear? >In fact, this may "say it all clearly" in a different sense. You seem to >think that because someone's action had an ill effect on you that they >are, ergo, morally wrong. And you seek to demonstrate why that is but >you've failed to do so. I believe that the problem is that you're looking >to blame someone for something that happened to you which was simply >unfortunate. Survey says! ERRRRRRR. Not the case at all. I _do not_ believe what they did is wrong because it had an ill effect on me. It's because it has the possibility of having a ill effect on _anyone_ and I have seen it do so. For the last time my position on this has _nothing_ to do with what happened at Gencon. I would be making the same argument regardless of that because of what I have seen happen in tournaments here in L.A.. Some of the worst situations that developed my opinion on this issue happened years ago and didn't even effect me. Many of the L.A. judges actually discussed "black balling" people who dropped out in the middle of tournaments years ago. Finally I find it very interesting you sniped the part, without a response, where I asked you if dropping out would still be "trival" and have little effect if 29 players decided drop out. Why did you not answer that? If dropping out really is perfectly fine, and "trival" to a tournament, what happens if 29 of the 36 decide to take the cards and run? Everyone should have the same option if it really is fine. Is 29 drop outs totally fine in your opinion? [ quoted text not captured ]

>On 23 Aug 2000 17:56:54 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>question. I notice no one did. My conclusion is that none of you really >>believe in your hearts that a dropout actually harms anyone to any great >>extent. You're just obsessing over the fact that things are different >>now, which is just about as important as the question of whether one more >>shuffle of a totally randomized deck makes a difference. > >Bunch of malarkey. Read my OTHER thread to see what my primary >objections were to people dropping out, and welcome to reality, where >almost everything you do affects others to some degree. Sitting on >your bum and saying otherwise, or claiming that you're just going to >do what you want and to hell with everyone else, is a pretty piss-poor >approach to life. Gee, you could read MY other thread which addresses this same issue raise by Steve Bucy. But since I think it's bad form to dismiss an honest argument with a command to go read everything you've ever written on the subject, I'll actually repeat what I told him: no one's claiming that they're "just going to do what they want". The issue is that someone playing in then quitting that tournament under those circumstances was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in purusit of one's own legitimate interests. It wasn't just the people who quit but the people like me who played the whole tournament who *also* prevented Steve from entering that tournament. What about the rest of us? Weren't we "doing what we wanted and the hell with everyone else"? The issue is whether it's OK to play in a tournament and quit, not whether anyone has a poor attitude. And your convolulted reasoning which leads to concern about minor, trivial, and unknowable effects of a few players dropping out of a large tournament don't do much to prove your point. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 23 Aug 2000 17:56:54 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>question. I notice no one did. My conclusion is that none of you really >>believe in your hearts that a dropout actually harms anyone to any great >>extent. You're just obsessing over the fact that things are different >>now, which is just about as important as the question of whether one more >>shuffle of a totally randomized deck makes a difference. > >Bunch of malarkey. Read my OTHER thread to see what my primary >objections were to people dropping out, and welcome to reality, where >almost everything you do affects others to some degree. Sitting on >your bum and saying otherwise, or claiming that you're just going to >do what you want and to hell with everyone else, is a pretty piss-poor >approach to life. Gee, you could read MY other thread which addresses this same issue raise by Steve Bucy. But since I think it's bad form to dismiss an honest argument with a command to go read everything you've ever written on the subject, I'll actually repeat what I told him: no one's claiming that they're "just going to do what they want". The issue is that someone playing in then quitting that tournament under those circumstances was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in purusit of one's own legitimate interests. It wasn't just the people who quit but the people like me who played the whole tournament who *also* prevented Steve from entering that tournament. What about the rest of us? Weren't we "doing what we wanted and the hell with everyone else"? The issue is whether it's OK to play in a tournament and quit, not whether anyone has a poor attitude. And your convoluted reasoning which leads to concern about minor, trivial, and unknowable effects of a few players dropping out of a large tournament - however real such effects may be - [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o15as$nko$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... >>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: ... >>>Here again are the reasons I think dropping out is wrong: >>> >>>1) Waste of the slot (or "dog in the manger" if you prefer). >>>2) Creates difficulty for the judge. >>>3) Effects other players. >>>4) Looks bad for the game. >> >>And have you read mine? The waste of the slot objection hinges on agreement >>that someone has no legimate interest in entering a tournament they're not >>going to finish, which you know by now I do not agree with - particularly >>not given the point that cheap Sabbat cards were available to the entrants. >>It creates no difficulty for a judge if they make him aware they're leaving >>when they do and some minor difficulty if they don't. The effect-on-other- >>players argument is just downright silly when analysed, on the level of >>affecting other players by shuffling your deck one more time when it's >>already completely randomized as far as you know. And I disagree that it >>looks bad for the game. That's a subjective judgement but it's grasphing >>at straws. > >I don't really see much point in trying to continue to this. I have >experience running trounaments, playing in tournaments, and seeing other >tournaments here in L.A. where #2 and #3 have been proven to be a problem. >You didn't answer my question about if you have ever run a tournament. I >must assume you have not, and therefore don't know about #2, especially >since you explain it away as so "minor". Well, put it this way. I'm not going to take your word for it because I don't consider you an objective poster at this point. That may be unfair and wrong but for purposes of the dispute, I think you can appreciate my position. Dropouts did not seem to cause LSJ any great problem in that particular tournament. I did notice he was having quite a problem in the last round of the US Open, but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players not warning him they were going to drop. I agree that it likely causes problems for small tournaments due to numbers of players per table (the example given was a 12-player tournament). I think if this is the case, you warn players to please not drop as they start or to please not start. Then I have a lot more sympathy for your complaints. But then, I'm not sure how it helps a 12-player tourament to reduce itself down to an awkard number of players before as opposed to during the tournament. >I also must assume you have never been affected by #3 since continue to >only consider your theories and deny that has ever created a problem. Of COURSE I've been affected by #3. I was at EVERY tournament at GenCon except the duels. There were drops at every one of them (except maybe the NJL "team" tournament run by Bernie Thursday night). I'm sure I was "affected" by them in the sense you're talking about. Never noticed it, never cared. Why do you think I'm arguing with you? I'm arguing because I think it's ridiculous and upsurd to sit around worrying and obsessing about who could have been my opponent for a late round but isn't because they're gone now. I've got plenty of other silly little trifles to obsess over when I'm feeling sorry for myself. I don't need yours. >#4 may be "subjective" as no proof can be made, however I think it would >be very interesting to ask CCG players what they think of a game that >many people simply ditch the tournament to go play something else. Fine. Obviously, you have my oinion. >>>You have tried to explain away all these problems in response to other's >>>posts. >> >>If you're aware of this, then you need to take issue with those points >>by responding to those posts. It's a huge waste of time to charge that >>someone's ignoring your arguments when you're ignoring their position on >>them. The ultimate affect is that we're just rehashing our overall >>positions because we disagree with the subpoints. > >I have not ignored you arguments. I simply don't buy them. Fine. We can go on harping about them or not. But don't start lecturing people about moral relativity when the real problem is an honest difference of opinion about something else. >>>>>You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the >>>>>attitude you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A >>>>>common attitude today. However your decision here also effects other >>>>>players and the judge. >>>> >>>>The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >>>>others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >>>>don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that >>>>sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others but I still >>>>have a right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I >>>>vote or someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or >>>>more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner >>>>and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. >>>>Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. >>> >>>This says it all clearly. You don't care. You have a the ability to do >>>what ou want and you do so despite the effect on others. Complete moral >>>realativity in action. >> >>Where on earth did you come up with *that* conclusion? Read the example >>again, please! It's not that I don't care about the implications of my >>actions. It's that my actions are NOT morally wrong in the above case. > >Please reread your own typing again: > >"The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes >what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a >right and legitimate interest in doing them." > >How could it be any more clear? I don't know. The point is that everyone does things that affect others in a negative sense all the time - including you. Just affecting another person in a negative sense is not PER SE a bad/immoral thing to do - and I gave an example of when it would not be. So what do you want? What point are you trying to make? I'm totally confused at what you're getting at. ... >Finally I find it very interesting you sniped the part, without a response, >where I asked you if dropping out would still be "trival" and have little >effect if 29 players decided drop out. Why did you not answer that? Because it isn't an issue. If mass dropouts start affecting tournaments then it behooves the organizers to address the problem. But the first question would be _why_ 29 people decided to drop out of a tournament. If, for instance, they'd have offered free Sabbat cards (carrot to get entrants) and put on an 8-round tournament with no bathroom breaks, they'd probably have a gotten a near-total resignation rate. But I'd say there'd be some changes they could make to fix the problem. This was a three round tournament with a large enough entry free to screen people out who would enter on a complete lark, three rounds with breaks, and an astoundingly understanding judge. And there was no problem with drop outs as far as I could see. Scott just reshuffled the tables and off we went. So if _I_ didn't have a problem with it, you - as a person who was never in the tournament - are not going to convince me that I did using reasoning like this. Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> Notice, however, that you can't actually say very much about how much >> "pressure" he exerted in the first round nor how much pressure he >> would exert in rounds 2 and 3. His prey and grandprey might have gotten >> horrible draws (expecially WRT to crypt draws that would force them to >> contest key vampires with someone across the table) and fallen with little >> effort. Most people can roll up a sweep given such a random advantage. >> We don't know how much pressure he would exert in rounds 2 and 3. We don't >> really know that much at all. The one game with 5 VPs is one sign that >> tells us a little but overall, it's still very hard to predict what would >> occur in the future. Which is precisely why you don't bother worrying >> about it or weighing it against real world considerations like an event >> starting in half an hour that the person would rather attend than continue >> with Jyhad. > >What we do know is that leaving removes from the tournament all the >victory points which the quitter had won, and the potential for anyone >to gain a victory point from the quitter for each round which the >quitter does not participate in. This can be as few as one or as many >as 11 victory points (using 5 person tables). We do indeed know that. What is confusing to me is why you think they're significant and cause problems for the tournament. >Those victory points would be better off being won by a player who is >actually trying to make it to the finals and win. I'm not sure what you mean by points that would be "better off". I'm sure the guy who left will still take care of them and feed them like they were his children. He just won't win with them. Just as well - the stress of being winning points and having to live in the limelight like that might have affected their future self-growth and development... Really, I'm confused why this is of concern to you. Fred

> Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I > have to break out charts and graphs? Yes, I expect a presentation on Saturday. Sorrow

In article <8o1o3o$ifk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] The reason those points would be better off is that they are points that would have been availible to other players. So now the final point score is skewed because you left with points that should have gone to other players who intended to finish the tournament. The points you won on the table should have been won by someone else in your absence, and the point that your potential ousting represents in the rounds you did not participate is also denied to other players. So now by leaving you have "screwed" the other players out of those points. I am sorry that you can not conceptualize the impact of empty points on the tournament, but that is what the above mentioned points are, empty. By quitting you negate the value of those points. To use an analogy, It is like taking burning U.S. Currency. The currency has a value, which is only good for exchange, but you are destroying it, therefore taking it out of circulation. The U.S. government expects a fixed supply of money to be availible, and bases all of its calculations on that fixed supply (calculations like taxes). Only now you have reduced that fixed amount, therefore rendering their calculations erroneoous. There is a reason that destroying currency is against the law. It is a bad thing because it messes up the money supply. For example if the overall money supply is $1,000,000.00 and you burn $100,000.00, then you now only have $900,000.00. The government expects there to be $1,000,000.00 in circulation. So, the government taxes its citizens for $300,000.00, but now there is only $900,000.00. So instead of paying a tax rate of 30% you are now paying a tax rate of 33%. This is a real world example of why removing currency from circulation is la crime. Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you remove points from the point supply. These points would have been there if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and therefore wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how removing them from circulation affected the overall point distribution. In saying that, you are saying that if you started burning cash (thereby removing money from the money supply) then your taxes wouldn't increase. The money would become more valuable and therefore your lump sum of taxes to the government would be worth more. Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less to be had. So if you won alot of points in the first round your points are more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to the quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the quitter has quitted. Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I have to break out charts and graphs? Comments Welcome, Norman $. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the $wamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:37:06 GMT, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I >have to break out charts and graphs? It cannot be any clearer now why quitting a tournament screws the remaining players. Thanks for this example Norm, you got it all right ! Remy Remy Auclair, VEKN prince of Quebec city ra...@videotron.ca www.mediom.qc.ca/~rafid/

On 23 Aug 2000 23:03:06 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>Bunch of malarkey. Read my OTHER thread to see what my primary >>objections were to people dropping out, and welcome to reality, where >>almost everything you do affects others to some degree. Sitting on >>your bum and saying otherwise, or claiming that you're just going to >>do what you want and to hell with everyone else, is a pretty piss-poor >>approach to life. > >Gee, you could read MY other thread which addresses this same issue raise >by Steve Bucy. But since I think it's bad form to dismiss an honest I did. In fact, this is in response to a subthread off of that original thread. Any more freaking questions? >argument with a command to go read everything you've ever written on >the subject, I'll actually repeat what I told him: no one's claiming >that they're "just going to do what they want". The issue is that someone Really? I see a lot of that in stating that people should be allowed to quit when they want. James Hamblin said it. Josh said it. Some other people probably said it. That means that I can enter and quit if I'm doing poorly, despite what effect it may have! Jolly! How can this not be perceived as encouraging people to "do what they want"? In fact, someone else blathered about "abridgement of freedom", as if committing to play 3 rounds, not playing them, and being called on it was somehow a violation of your constitutional rights or whatever. Bah. >playing in then quitting that tournament under those circumstances was a >perfectly reasonable thing to do in purusit of one's own legitimate >interests. It wasn't just the people who quit but the people like me who Selfish fucking BASTARDS, is what I say. "pursuit of one's own legitimate interests" indeed. WHAT a laugher. Anyone else need a bloody translation of that, or are the first three words Oxford enough? >played the whole tournament who *also* prevented Steve from entering that >tournament. What about the rest of us? Weren't we "doing what we wanted >and the hell with everyone else"? Bugger that, I'm not involved with who stole whose spot - I didn't play at all and wasn't there, so you didn't steal my spot, cause I didn't even HAVE one. Identities of spots stolen and spot-stealers are irrelevant to me. Issue at hand: people who signed up, thereby committing to play, and fucked off after one round, thereby screwing up the whole damned thing and making it confusing. >The issue is whether it's OK to play in a tournament and quit, not whether >anyone has a poor attitude. And your convoluted reasoning which leads >to concern about minor, trivial, and unknowable effects of a few players >dropping out of a large tournament - however real such effects may be - >don't do much to prove your point. Don't read much do you? That's precisely been my issue all the way down - that it's NOT ok to play and quit unless there's a damned good reason, such as your leg falling off midround. There's additional convoluted reasoning that follows, but only because some of y'all choose to debate the sub-issues, as opposed to the basic one, which is: "It's lame to be a quitter." How's that one grab you? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >Why do they need to be equally screwed? Why It is not that they need to me, but rather that they are. To understand how this works please refer to my above thread that diagrams the analogy of money to victory points. > I don't think it is more easily solvable, because > people pretty much always have the freedom to > leave in this country. It still does not make it a good thing to do. You can't physically restrain > them. No but you can morally restrain them by making them understand that what they are doing is bad and affects other people negatively. Given that, why not graciously accept it when > someone feels they need to drop out of a tournament? because it messes up the point distribution. > It really doesn't seem to me that it's at all likely > to cause great turmoil in a large tournament. In actuallity it causes ripples in the playing field by skewing the point spread. There > were already plenty of people who would never have > played them; the games can go on perfectly well without > them. If they don't want to be there, we're probably > all better off not forcing them to be. It is better that they either do not start or go all way to the end; rather than quitting half-way through. . > > Maybe it's not sportsmanlike to quit because you've > gotten bored, but is it worthwhile to have a bored > player in the tournament? You could say that you'd > rather not have players who are going to get bored > show up at all, but what if they don't know beforehand > that they're going to become bored? I think that all players are important, not just the excited ones. With a bored player there is still the possibility that a turn of events could change them into an excited player. but with a quitter there is nothing you can do. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

(I need to apologize for my poor threading here--I am having some troubles between the reading of posts and then replying to them, namely, losing the ones I am replying too, but at the very least, Iam replying to the right folks :-) Derek wrote: >>Really? I see a lot of that in stating that people should be allowed to quit when they want. James Hamblin said it. Josh said it. Some other people probably said it. That means that I can enter and quit if I'm doing poorly, despite what effect it may have! Jolly!>> Yes. People should be allowed to quit if they really want. This is a Jyhad tournament, not The Mob. If people are not allowed to quit when they feel it is necessary to do so, who is going to play? Listen, I fully understand the desire to have a tournament where people don't drop out--that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. Ever. Things come up. People discover they aren't having a good time. If someone isn't having a good time, I'd *much* rather they drop out of the tournament when the alternative is to stick around, be grumpy, and play spoiler/king maker/loose cannon. If somone drops out because they are doing poorly and not having a good time, G'Quan bless 'em. If someone drops out because when they are winning, they suddenly discover they aren't having a good time, that's great too. >>How can this not be perceived as encouraging people to "do what they want"?>> Umm...it is. It is not a call for mass anarchy, however--it is a reasonable belief that sometimes people have to or want to drop out of a tournament, and that it is not a offense punishable by death. Yeah, I'd like it if no one ever dropped out of tournaments too, but as long as they leave with enough warning to avoid causing too much damage to the seating, who the hell cares? >>In fact, someone else blathered about "abridgement of freedom", as if committing to play 3 rounds, not playing them, and being called on it was somehow a violation of your constitutional rights or whatever. Bah.>> Sounds pretty abridging to me: "If you volunteer to undertake this 9 hour goofy card game about playing vampire, you MAY NOT LEAVE for any reason!" That isn't promoting "good sportsmanship" That is just madness. >>Selfish fucking BASTARDS, is what I say. "pursuit of one's own legitimate interests" indeed. WHAT a laugher. Anyone else need a bloody translation of that, or are the first three words Oxford enough?>> Derek, much like Norman over in the other thread, it looks like you are losing it. Take a deep breath. Step back. Remember--you are on this newsgroup to have a good time. It doesn't benefit anyone if you keep participating after you stop having a good time. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

OK, let me attempt to summarize: * You (and at least one other person) think I'm a "fucking bastard", "lame", "terrible person", etc. * You think that signing up for a tournament commits to a person to play in all of the preliminary rounds. (Even though, as I have said before, in my many years of card game experience, this is the first time I've ever heard of anything like that.) * You have listed many reasons why people dropping out affects the tournament. (Of course the tournament is affected: I'm not in it anymore.) You think that this affects the tournament _adversely_. I that's pretty much it. Everything else from "your side" in the debate has been rehashing these points. Well, I disagree with what you think, and probably always will. OK, can we stop now, before someone starts talkin' about my mom? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

In article <8o1u80$2cf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Oh no. No no no. This is not an accurate economic picture. If, instead of burning $100,000 of the $1,000,000 money supply, you stuck it all in your mattress, and never spent it in your life, would that be a crime? No, it wouldn't. Why not? Because when you have money, you can do whatever you want with it. The law against destroying currency is mostly just because the government likes to tell you what to do. If you *did* take your $100,000 out of circulation, by burning it, stuffing all your pillows with it, or whatever, that would *not* make the effective tax rate higher. The remaining $900,000 would now be 'worth' what the previous $1,000,000 was 'worth'. Taking money out of circulation is deflationary: it causes nominal prices to fall. Things that used to cost $1.00 will now cost $0.90. If the government *did* decide to tax people for $300,000 of their wealth (what it thought was a 30% wealth tax), that would indeed become a 33% wealth tax after the $100,000 was taken out of circulation. But governments don't usually tax wealth, for this among other reasons. Instead they usually tax income, and they tax it at some fixed percentage rate. If the government had an income tax beforehand of 30% of everyone's annual income, and it was expecting people to have $1,000,000 in income, it would have expected to get $300,000. After the $100,000 left circulation, people's income would be $900,000 for the year, and the government's 30% tax would take $270,000 of that, which brings us right back to the government getting 30% of the total income in the economy. As you can see, taking money out of circulation *does not* change anything about the 'real' size of the economy (that is, the amount of goods and services produced). It changes only the numbers attached to those goods and services, which is to say, the 'nominal' size of the economy. Make sense? > Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points > are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you > remove points from the point supply. These points would have been there > if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and therefore > wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. Just like in an actual economy, it doesn't matter if you take your first-two-rounds ten victory points and go home with them. Instead of you being top seed in the finals, the person with the next-highest VP total will be top seed. As long as there are at least five people remaining in the tournament, there will be people to take all the seats in the finals. By ousting people instead of being ousted by them, you have made it harder for certain individuals to get to the finals. However, that's exactly what would have happened to them if you *had* stayed in the tournament and played in the finals - they would be no less screwed if you did *not* drop than if you do. > So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by > removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how > removing them from circulation affected the overall point distribution. > In saying that, you are saying that if you started burning cash (thereby > removing money from the money supply) then your taxes wouldn't increase. > The money would become more valuable and therefore your lump sum of > taxes to the government would be worth more. But the money you have left would *also* be worth more! Plus, the government *doesn't tax people* in lump-sum terms. It's all in percentages, partially because the government *doesn't know* what the money supply is. > Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining > points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less to > be had. So if you won alot of points in the first round your points are > more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no > points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points > become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to the > quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the > quitter has quitted. This isn't right either. If a no-points player leaves the tournament after the first round, there will be two fewer VPs total to be distributed among all the players. However, there are also two fewer player-spots trying to win VPs. Every player's "expected VPs each round" (that is, the statistical average number of VPs each player would win over an infinite number of rounds) remains the same: 1. There are fewer VPs to be won, yes, but it will now require fewer VPs to make the finals! The only thing that keeps Jyhad tournaments from adhering perfectly to these principles is that the scoring system is relatively granular: there are not that many discrete levels of VPs for different players to have. This is because the expected score each round is only 1, rather than, say, 10 or 100, and there are no fractional VPs (except for time-outs). In bowling, for example, your score could range from 0 to 300 for a single game. In Jyhad, it can only range from 0 to 5. Since there are fewer possible levels, you may end up with more ties if people with lots of VPs do drop out before the finals. In practice, though, I think people with many VPs are much less likely to drop out than people with few or no VPs. > Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I > have to break out charts and graphs? I apologize for being blunt, but I'm not sure that *you* understand how quitting does (or doesn't) screw up the point spread. Josh "Economist" Duffin [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <aqn9qs0ii966v7mko...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Really? I see a lot of that in stating that people should be allowed > to quit when they want. James Hamblin said it. Josh said it. Some > other people probably said it. That means that I can enter and quit > if I'm doing poorly, despite what effect it may have! Jolly! Dude! You... must... chill! (I suppose if you chilled you wouldn't be the jack-booted thug, though, would you? ;-) It doesn't *have* any serious effect on the other players. At least in terms of their ability to get to the finals. It may piss them off to see people quitting. That's not exactly an in-tournament issue. > Don't read much do you? That's precisely been my issue all the way > down - that it's NOT ok to play and quit unless there's a damned good > reason, such as your leg falling off midround. There's additional > convoluted reasoning that follows, but only because some of y'all > choose to debate the sub-issues, as opposed to the basic one, which > is: "It's lame to be a quitter." How's that one grab you? Okay, sure, it's kinda lame to quit. But so what? You can think quitters are lame all you want, but they're not really affecting *you* that much. Why not just let them be lame if they want to? Or, if you want to discourage lameness in your presence, tell them "go away, kid, you bother me." But I don't see any need for a vast crusade against lameness. A lot of people think it's kinda lame to take these silly games this seriously, you know... Josh can't look away from car crashes, either [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >In article <8o1o3o$ifk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> >> >What we do know is that leaving removes from the tournament all the >> >victory points which the quitter had won, and the potential for >> >anyone to gain a victory point from the quitter for each round which >> >the quitter does not participate in. This can be as few as one or as >> >many as 11 victory points (using 5 person tables). >> >> We do indeed know that. What is confusing to me is why you think >> they're significant and cause problems for the tournament. >> >> >Those victory points would be better off being won by a player who is >> >actually trying to make it to the finals and win. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by points that would be "better off". ... >> Really, I'm confused why this is of concern to you. > >The reason those points would be better off is that they are points that >would have been availible to other players. So now the final point score >is skewed because you left with points that should have gone to other >players who intended to finish the tournament. The points you won on >the table should have been won by someone else in your absence, and the >point that your potential ousting represents in the rounds you >did not participate is also denied to other players. So now by leaving >you have "screwed" the other players out of those points. > >I am sorry that you can not conceptualize the impact of empty points on >the tournament, but that is what the above mentioned points are, empty. >By quitting you negate the value of those points. ... > Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points >are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you >remove points from the point supply. These points would have been there >if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and therefore >wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. > >So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by >removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how >removing them from circulation affected the overall point distribution. ... >Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining >points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less to >be had. I understand the concept of relative value of one commodity vis a vis another in a free market ecomomic system. If you were going to _spend_ your points on some other commodity which was no more or less plentiful then the value of the points would "inflate" and you would tend to receive more of the other commodity. But you don't "spend" victory points, you just accumlulate them and the person with the highest total is declared victor (or the highest 4 or 5 may move on to the finals). If it were any harder to accumulate points because people dropped out, then I'd be concerned. Since it's no easier or harder to accumulate them before or after a player leaves, I still don't understand your problem. >So if you won alot of points in the first round your points are >more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no >points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points >become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to the >quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the >quitter has quitted. No, they are not. It's just as easy to get them in the third round as it was in the first. Some points leave the tournament and become irrelevent. But for that matter, the points won by every player who does not make the finals become irrelevent after the third round. The points won by players who get too far behind after two rounds to possibly win a spot in the finals become irrelevent in the third round whether they quit or not. I guess the problem here is that you're using a model for thinking about this which has nothing to do with reality. If we were spending our points on fabulous prizes at the end of the tournament, then there'd be some kind of effect, I suppose. But that doesn't happen. >Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I >have to break out charts and graphs? I don't know what "charts and graphs" you could offer. You are simply wrong. "Point inflation" is not an issue in this system. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: (Elliding the who-said-what stuff. I'm not going to argue about how the argument's going up 'til now.) >Selfish fucking BASTARDS, is what I say. "pursuit of one's own >legitimate interests" indeed. WHAT a laugher. Anyone else need a >bloody translation of that, or are the first three words Oxford >enough? Don't mince words, Derek, tell us how you really feel. Yes, I saw your comment about people entering a tournament for the cards being "selfish" and "greedy" and I don't care about it. I don't know how to reason with someone who won't see that people need to acquire cards in order to play a CCG. Or expects people to pass on an efficient means for doing so. If they truly were screwing up the tournament, then I'd be concerned about it, but that's the whole point. They're not. >Issue at hand: people who signed up, thereby committing to play, and >fucked off after one round, thereby screwing up the whole damned thing >and making it confusing. Agreed, that's the issue. So show us something *REAL* that's bad about a mid-tournament drop-out. I don't want to see anything about "point inflation" or some theorectical anal-retentive idea about relatively poor players offering their points in early rounds but not late rounds or deck types there in one round and gone later. This is absolute crap. It's all random draw anyway and you get who you get. What's important is that every round you get a table with three or four other players on it and victory points are basically just as easy to get in one round as another. Anything outside of those issues ain't worth worrying about. >There's additional convoluted reasoning that follows, but only because >some of y'all choose to debate the sub-issues, as opposed to the basic >one, which is: "It's lame to be a quitter." How's that one grab you? Maybe. But if it's no skin off anyone's nose, then let people do what they want. I think it's also pretty lame to be a hardass about something that means nothing. Fred

On 24 Aug 2000 14:41:44 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Listen, I fully understand the desire to have a tournament where people don't >drop out--that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. Ever. Things come >up. People discover they aren't having a good time. If someone isn't having a >good time, I'd *much* rather they drop out of the tournament when the >alternative is to stick around, be grumpy, and play spoiler/king maker/loose >cannon. If somone drops out because they are doing poorly and not having a good >time, G'Quan bless 'em. If someone drops out because when they are winning, >they suddenly discover they aren't having a good time, that's great too. (spreads hands) I'd much prefer that they make that decision beforehand and use a little forethought. Things do come up, and again, i'm not advocating chaining anyone to a chair and gluing cards to their hands. If the only thing we had to worry about was people discovering they weren't having fun and leaving, it might even be bearable since V:TES tournaments tend to be fun and so very few people would leave. But there's also the issue of strip-mining for cards, which some people would have me believe is just fine. Apparently out of 36 players in the Sabbat draft, 30 were left to play the 2nd round. This is a pretty good chunk that's been peeled out, and LSJ was already making an attempt to encourage people to stay for the whole thing by passing out a 5th booster at the start of the 3rd round, I believe. I think we need to discourage THAT sort of thing definitely, and so we just need to find ways to discourage people from dumping out of tournaments at all. I'm well aware (and have said in several different locations) that you can't FORCE people to do anything. But you can appeal to their better natures some, and try to give them an idea of why it's just plain wrong to do these things, and provide some minor temporal penalties after-the-fact if necessary. (The strip-miners will need to simply be recorded and barred after sufficient repeat strip-mining runs, as they possess no 'better nature' to appeal to. If someone enters 3 tournaments in a row and drops out of all of them early, perhaps that person should consider that tournament play appears to not be for him, as the time expense is too much or the atmosphere not to his liking.) >>>In fact, someone else blathered about "abridgement of >freedom", as if committing to play 3 rounds, not playing them, and >being called on it was somehow a violation of your constitutional >rights or whatever. Bah.>> > >Sounds pretty abridging to me: "If you volunteer to undertake this 9 hour goofy >card game about playing vampire, you MAY NOT LEAVE for any reason!" That isn't >promoting "good sportsmanship" That is just madness. (shrug) in reality, what happens is someone probably says to you: "Um, you realize there's two rounds left?" "Yes." "Why are you stopping now then?" "Oh, well, it takes too long and I have other places I want to be." "Well, you knew when you signed up it'd be 6 hours..." "Yeah, but it's no fun anymore." "So you're basically quitting 'cause you're bored?" "Yes." "OK, just wanted to get that straight." Usually this sort of conversation is plenty embarrassing. I mean, obviously you can't leap on the guy and chain him to his chair, but I don't think it's too much to ask a little forethought of people. And that combined with a penalty for multiple dropouts should really solve the problem of people quitting on a whim, which is something ALSO to be actively discouraged. Sure, if someone really just plain isn't having any fun anymore, they should probably get gone. But some people are acting as though their whims are quite important, and even ASKING that they not sign up for a tournament and leave on whimsy in the middle is yet another abridgement of their freedom. These are the people that hack me off, because they seem to have no perception of the fact that there are OTHERS in the world too - and also no perception of how that attitude looks to those others. again, we have a golden opportunity for V:TES here. we can't be having with its image taking hits before it's even begun to resurrect itself, and the mass-dropout thing is one such. If the six dropouts at GenCon had gone unremarked upon, how many more dropouts would there have been for the NEXT rare-booster-draft tourney? As it stands, I can at least feel fairly certain that anyone who's had to tolerate this thread will ponder the situation carefully before dropping - or before entering. Small steps. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:51 -0500, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >OK, let me attempt to summarize: > >* You think that signing up for a tournament commits to a person to play >in all of the preliminary rounds. (Even though, as I have said before, >in my many years of card game experience, this is the first time I've >ever heard of anything like that.) Have you ever competed in anything besides a CCG? In all my many years of competition, CCGs are the first tournaments I've ever seen where it is considered "OK" to pull the tabs on a whim, or because you're losing, or to enter the tournament merely to get the freebies and then bail... (rest of summary snipped) >Well, I disagree with what you think, and probably always will. -shrug- you can lead a horse to water... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:13:02 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <aqn9qs0ii966v7mko...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >(I suppose if you chilled you wouldn't be the >jack-booted thug, though, would you? ;-) Well, something like that. =) but swinging a virtual clue-by-four around in circles gets a little tiring, i'll admit. >It doesn't *have* any serious effect on the other >players. At least in terms of their ability to >get to the finals. It may piss them off to see >people quitting. That's not exactly an in-tournament >issue. We've gone back and forth on that one forever. Due to the non-quantifiable nature of any given V:TES deck, it's entirely possible that we may never know which way that truly resolves - i've seen tourneys where one screwy 0-VP deck sat down right in front of me in the 3rd round and totally wanged up my chances of the finals, even though I could have ousted the rest of the table had i been sitting anywhere but behind him. Bad luck? Yep. But it does tell me that one deck can have a much larger effect on a tournament than just in its mathematical aspect. >Okay, sure, it's kinda lame to quit. But so what? >You can think quitters are lame all you want, but >they're not really affecting *you* that much. Why >not just let them be lame if they want to? Or, if Well, I originally hopped in to attempt to discourage the strip-mining, and then was faced with several posts that said "why shouldn't they be allowed to take their cards and go, people can do what they want!" And things sort of degenerated from there, because that attitude is rather abhorrent to me. >you want to discourage lameness in your presence, >tell them "go away, kid, you bother me." But I don't >see any need for a vast crusade against lameness. >A lot of people think it's kinda lame to take these >silly games this seriously, you know... Yes, I know. That's why I'd prefer to have them see it as something fun instead of as a crack habit ... "MUST GET CARDS". =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 24 Aug 2000 14:41:44 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) >wrote: > >But there's also the issue of strip-mining for cards, which some people >would have me believe is just fine. ... >I think we need to discourage THAT sort of thing definitely, and so we >just need to find ways to discourage people from dumping out of >tournaments at all. I'm well aware (and have said in several >different locations) that you can't FORCE people to do anything. But >you can appeal to their better natures some, and try to give them an >idea of why it's just plain wrong to do these things, and provide some >minor temporal penalties after-the-fact if necessary. (The >strip-miners will need to simply be recorded and barred after >sufficient repeat strip-mining runs, as they possess no 'better >nature' to appeal to. If someone enters 3 tournaments in a row and >drops out of all of them early, perhaps that person should consider >that tournament play appears to not be for him, as the time expense is >too much or the atmosphere not to his liking.) Why? What is it that offends you so much about this? I'm hearing a lot of reasoning about player behavior that starts out with, "BECAUSE such-and- such is immoral, we must therefore...". But I don't get the sense that you've thought much about what's "immoral" and why. I can see there's a certain incentive to want to avoid "stripmining", which I assume means drafting a card to own it as opposed to playing with it. I agree, draft tournaments would be a little better if the desire to own precious cards didn't corrupt player's motivivations because they're kind of hard to predict and sometimes unfair. (If some players on a table are passing up good effect cards for playing the tournament in order to grab precious rares then their opponents have an easier time creating a good draft deck than the guys on the next table who may all be competing for the effective cards and largely passing up the precious ones.) But I've seldom seen it have a major effect on a tournament because the rare cards are just that: rare. They only affect things once in a while. If it's really that important, I guess you could do something like redraft cards at the end of the tournament (good incentive to keep players in the tournament, too) and give the best performing players the first pick - or even more picks. There's some distinct inconveniences in something like that, however. My suspicion is that most players would just prefer the imperfection of allowing the stripmining. Given that point, let the stripminers stripmine and don't moralize about it. There's no point that I can see. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:51 -0500, James Hamblin ><ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >>OK, let me attempt to summarize: >> >>* You think that signing up for a tournament commits to a person to play >>in all of the preliminary rounds. (Even though, as I have said before, >>in my many years of card game experience, this is the first time I've >>ever heard of anything like that.) > >Have you ever competed in anything besides a CCG? In all my many >years of competition, CCGs are the first tournaments I've ever seen >where it is considered "OK" to pull the tabs on a whim, or because >you're losing, or to enter the tournament merely to get the freebies >and then bail... Really? How many cons do you go to? I go play Rail Baron and it turns out to be part of a tournament (yes, I could know this by just reading the program carefully). I came in second. Guy in first says, I'm not going to be there tomorrow. I say, "Sorry, I'm playing Jyhad - this was just a fun break for me." Neither third place nor fourth could make it. We all felt kind of bad that the finals table would be missing one position (except the judge might well pull someone who finished second from another preliminary round to fill it out). We felt that way for about five seconds and then went on. It happens all the time. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >We've gone back and forth on that one forever. Due to the >non-quantifiable nature of any given V:TES deck, it's entirely >possible that we may never know which way that truly resolves - i've >seen tourneys where one screwy 0-VP deck sat down right in front of me >in the 3rd round and totally wanged up my chances of the finals, even >though I could have ousted the rest of the table had i been sitting >anywhere but behind him. Bad luck? Yep. But it does tell me that >one deck can have a much larger effect on a tournament than just in >its mathematical aspect. Sure. But so does an extra shuffle. If you show up at a tournament, everything you do, every card you play, every deck you cut, every vote you affect, and so forth, changes the tournament. We expect players to play to win the games they start to the best of their non-cheating ability. But when confronted with decisions which you have no awareness how they'll affect anything (e.g. one more shuffle), there's no point in worrying about them. So it is with the player who owns 0-VP deck deciding whether to quit or not. Fred

On 24 Aug 2000 18:38:39 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Yes, I saw your comment about people entering a tournament for the cards >being "selfish" and "greedy" and I don't care about it. I don't know >how to reason with someone who won't see that people need to acquire cards >in order to play a CCG. Or expects people to pass on an efficient means for >doing so. If they truly were screwing up the tournament, then I'd be >concerned about it, but that's the whole point. They're not. I don't comprehend how you can NOT see that turning one's back on stripminers is a great way to leave the public image of CCGs as exactly what it is - a money-burning crack habit. And i can assure you that if you are at a table with one person who isn't drafting for a good deck, but merely pulling for their collection, then you are going to get a nasty unbalanced table. You get the same thing if someone spends the rest of the time counter-drafting everyone else's deck instead of trying to build their own, except that way you get five weak decks, one of which will bail after the 1st round and doesn't care. The other four? Hosed, esp. in comparison to tables which drafted differently. This is actually one of my gripes about the Rochester draft, is that one person at your table who is drafting wacky for some reason can bung things up pretty badly - and the other is that you have no real idea what's coming and can hose yourself up unintentionally. But it's a minor gripe and irrelevant to the current issue. >Anything outside of those issues ain't worth worrying about. In your opinion. Of course, there's experience, which tells me that every time someone has quit in a V:TES tournament, it's caused headaches for the organizer who had to restructure, and delays for the tournament. I know that in the past two years of playing tourneys I haven't seen a single drop that was able to be handled tidily. I believe it's foolish to expect everyone who's going to drop to come to the TD and say "I'm dropping now! Bye!", much less do it in such a way as to give him plenty of warning. Which means that every time someone drops there's going to be hassle and confusion. >Maybe. But if it's no skin off anyone's nose, then let people do what >they want. I think it's also pretty lame to be a hardass about something >that means nothing. Your "nothing" is more substantial than you think, Fred. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 Aug 2000 19:30:20 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>Have you ever competed in anything besides a CCG? In all my many >>years of competition, CCGs are the first tournaments I've ever seen >>where it is considered "OK" to pull the tabs on a whim, or because >>you're losing, or to enter the tournament merely to get the freebies >>and then bail... > >Really? How many cons do you go to? I go play Rail Baron and it turns Uh, LOTS, since about 1989, although fewer in the past few years. However, it's worth noting that I wasn't referring to convention gaming - I've competed (since roughly 1984) in billiard, golf, chess, volleyball, and softball tournaments, most of which have had some healthy prize funds. Sum total of dropouts: zero. Well, no, one, but the guy had about cut his finger half off on some broken glass. We figured that was a good excuse. In the 2000 BCA Nationals which I played in, there were roughly 1700 entrants in the Men's Open Singles division. I think about 15 dropped out or forfeited, and I know some of those were from being too drunk the night before and oversleeping their match. And this is in Vegas, where there's LOTS to do besides play pool. 15 out of 1700 is less than 1% and is easily lost in the crowd - 6 out of 36 is right around 18%. Nasty difference, there. >out to be part of a tournament (yes, I could know this by just reading >the program carefully). I came in second. Guy in first says, I'm not >going to be there tomorrow. I say, "Sorry, I'm playing Jyhad - this >was just a fun break for me." Neither third place nor fourth could make >it. We all felt kind of bad that the finals table would be missing one >position (except the judge might well pull someone who finished second >from another preliminary round to fill it out). We felt that way for >about five seconds and then went on. It happens all the time. This just totally boggles my mind. Would you have entered if you'd known it to be part of a tournament? That's somewhat beside the point, though, because it really just floors me that dropouts are considered so common among the "gaming" world. It's MUCH less pain to deal with a dropout in all forms of the competitions I described above, and yet it's considered extremely poor sportsmanship to do so. We're obviously coming at this from totally different worlds. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 24 Aug 2000 18:38:39 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Yes, I saw your comment about people entering a tournament for the cards >>being "selfish" and "greedy" and I don't care about it. I don't know >>how to reason with someone who won't see that people need to acquire cards >>in order to play a CCG. Or expects people to pass on an efficient means for >>doing so. If they truly were screwing up the tournament, then I'd be >>concerned about it, but that's the whole point. They're not. > >I don't comprehend how you can NOT see that turning one's back on >stripminers is a great way to leave the public image of CCGs as >exactly what it is - a money-burning crack habit. Well, I guess that's all pretty much subjective perception. I guess my answers are that the public will have that perception anyway, that strip- mining draft tournaments isn't central to causing that perception (I think it has a hell of a lot more to do with the amount of money people spend on boxes and singles and things like reports of card theft, etc.), and that to the extent it is caused by this practice - which isn't much - I couldn't care less. >And i can assure you that if you are at a table with one person who isn't >drafting for a good deck, but merely pulling for their collection, then you >are going to get a nasty unbalanced table. You get the same thing if >someone spends the rest of the time counter-drafting everyone else's >deck instead of trying to build their own, except that way you get >five weak decks, one of which will bail after the 1st round and >doesn't care. The other four? Hosed, esp. in comparison to tables >which drafted differently. I stated what I think about the real effects of stripmining to tournaments in a reply to another of your posts. But to that I will add that the answer to such unbalancing effects are much better handled by changing the rules rather than going around telling people to ignore their real motivations to acquire cards - if it were really a problem. Do you go around telling people it's immoral to counter-draft excessively? This stuff is part of the draft game. It's annoying to get your position in the tournament hosed by such stuff but if it's not worth changing the rules to fix, then it's certainly not worth trying to convince people they're evil for engaging in it. >>Anything outside of those issues ain't worth worrying about. > >In your opinion. Of course, there's experience, which tells me that >every time someone has quit in a V:TES tournament, it's caused >headaches for the organizer who had to restructure, and delays for the >tournament. One more time: the _drop_...or the failure to give sufficient notice of the drop to the judge? I think it's the latter. >I believe it's foolish to expect everyone who's going to drop to come to >the TD and say "I'm dropping now! Bye!", much less do it in such a >way as to give him plenty of warning. Which means that every time >someone drops there's going to be hassle and confusion. Wait a minute! You pontificate endlessly about how bad it is to drop, and then when someone points out that merely dropping does not by itself cause a problem if they do it right, you excuse the quitters' behavior vis-a-vis giving notice so that you can condemn them for quitting at all. Isn't that a little like condemning people for owing dogs at all because of the dog shit in park while stating that, "It's too much to expect dog owners to clean up after their dogs."? This seem like a completely incongruous position to me. Comdemn what's actually causing the problem. If someone can quit without causing anyone else a problem, then let them. Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 24 Aug 2000 19:30:20 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>>Have you ever competed in anything besides a CCG? In all my many >>>years of competition, CCGs are the first tournaments I've ever seen >>>where it is considered "OK" to pull the tabs on a whim, or because >>>you're losing, or to enter the tournament merely to get the freebies >>>and then bail... >> >>I go play Rail Baron and it turns >>out to be part of a tournament (yes, I could know this by just reading >>the program carefully). I came in second. Guy in first says, I'm not >>going to be there tomorrow. I say, "Sorry, I'm playing Jyhad - this >>was just a fun break for me." Neither third place nor fourth could make >>it. We all felt kind of bad that the finals table would be missing one >>position (except the judge might well pull someone who finished second >>from another preliminary round to fill it out). We felt that way for >>about five seconds and then went on. It happens all the time. > >This just totally boggles my mind. Would you have entered if you'd >known it to be part of a tournament? Yes. Nobody cares. Rail Baron tournaments are *FUN* tournaments where people show to just for that reason. And if would be not be fun to be there for a player, the rest of the players would want him to stay away! It doesn't make a difference who shows up for the final, just so there's enough players to make a good game. Man, I've heard of a Puritan work ethic before but this is ridiculous! >That's somewhat beside the >point, though, because it really just floors me that dropouts are >considered so common among the "gaming" world. It's MUCH less pain to >deal with a dropout in all forms of the competitions I described >above, I don't know why you think that. You just play the game with whoever shows up to play. Simple. >We're obviously coming at this from totally different worlds. Obviously. I don't care about that. But I'm just curious as hell what problem you *think* is caused by having a finalist not show up and having someone else get substituted for him. Or not - only issue here is that Rail Baron, kind of like Jyhad, needs four players to be much fun. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o1nmi$20i$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... > > >"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: > >>Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o15as$nko$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... >>>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >... >>>>Here again are the reasons I think dropping out is wrong: >>>> >>>>1) Waste of the slot (or "dog in the manger" if you prefer). >>>>2) Creates difficulty for the judge. >>>>3) Effects other players. >>>>4) Looks bad for the game. >>> >>>And have you read mine? The waste of the slot objection hinges on agreement >>>that someone has no legimate interest in entering a tournament they're not >>>going to finish, which you know by now I do not agree with - particularly >>>not given the point that cheap Sabbat cards were available to the entrants. >>>It creates no difficulty for a judge if they make him aware they're leaving >>>when they do and some minor difficulty if they don't. The effect-on-other- >>>players argument is just downright silly when analysed, on the level of >>>affecting other players by shuffling your deck one more time when it's >>>already completely randomized as far as you know. And I disagree that it >>>looks bad for the game. That's a subjective judgement but it's grasphing >>>at straws. >> >>I don't really see much point in trying to continue to this. I have >>experience running trounaments, playing in tournaments, and seeing other >>tournaments here in L.A. where #2 and #3 have been proven to be a problem. >>You didn't answer my question about if you have ever run a tournament. I >>must assume you have not, and therefore don't know about #2, especially >>since you explain it away as so "minor". > >Well, put it this way. I'm not going to take your word for it because >I don't consider you an objective poster at this point. That may be >unfair and wrong but for purposes of the dispute, I think you can appreciate >my position. Whatever. That's fine. Maybe I can get Robert Goudie to post his L.A. judging experiences. At any rate this is the same conclusion I'm starting to come to about you. >Dropouts did not seem to cause LSJ any great problem in that particular >tournament. I did notice he was having quite a problem in the last round >of the US Open, but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players >not warning him they were going to drop. Listen to yourself here. "Dropouts did not _seem_ to cause LSJ any great problem". Do you know that for sure? Have you talked to LSJ? Besides LSJ is the best. He is very organized and probably has more experience judging VTES Tournaments then anyone else. What may be simple for LSJ to deal with may not be easy for someone else. But I find it humerous after your opening line you then go on to say LSJ _did_ have quite a problem in the last round of the US Open. You then try to explain that away by stating, "but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players not warning him they were going to drop." That doesn't really matter. It _was_ a problem. So I guess we should make rules about proper drop out edicate now. Rule 1) You can only drop out if you tell the judge first. LOL. That will surely work... Actually I did have a suggestion in my last post to James. I suggested that he ask the judge how he would feel about him possibly dropping out of the tournament before the last round. If it's fine with the judge and doesn't make the tournament unworkable (dropping the number of players to 7, 11 or another unworkable number) I agree it's probably not that big a deal. >I agree that it likely causes problems for small tournaments due to numbers >of players per table (the example given was a 12-player tournament). I >think if this is the case, you warn players to please not drop as they >start or to please not start. Then I have a lot more sympathy for your >complaints. But then, I'm not sure how it helps a 12-player tourament to >reduce itself down to an awkard number of players before as opposed to >during the tournament. It definately causes problems in smaller tournaments and that is the reason I have developed such a strong opinion about it. You don't start a tournament with a awkward number. For example If you get stuck with 11 you start 2 5 player and somebody is stuck. The tournament rules don't allow for 3 or 6 player games. >>I also must assume you have never been affected by #3 since continue to >>only consider your theories and deny that has ever created a problem. > >Of COURSE I've been affected by #3. I was at EVERY tournament at GenCon >except the duels. There were drops at every one of them (except maybe >the NJL "team" tournament run by Bernie Thursday night). I'm sure I was >"affected" by them in the sense you're talking about. Never noticed it, >never cared. Why do you think I'm arguing with you? I'm arguing because >I think it's ridiculous and upsurd to sit around worrying and obsessing >about who could have been my opponent for a late round but isn't because >they're gone now. I've got plenty of other silly little trifles to >obsess over when I'm feeling sorry for myself. I don't need yours. Let me reword that then. You have never been _seriously_ affected by it. Have you ever had your only possible chance to make the final nuked just because someone dropped? Have you ever sat for 1/2 hour or more waiting for someone and then had your seating switched? When I mean affected I'm not arguing about the minor VP effects, play balance effects, or the fact you will never see a certain other player. I'm talking major effects. (snip) >>>>>>You don't live in a vacuum my friend. It's nice for you to have the >>>>>>attitude you can do what you please whenever you want and it's fine. A >>>>>>common attitude today. However your decision here also effects other >>>>>>players and the judge. >>>>> >>>>>The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >>>>>others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >>>>>don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that >>>>>sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others but I still >>>>>have a right and legitimate interest in doing them. For instance, if I >>>>>vote or someone in an election, I may contribute to the defeat of one or >>>>>more of the losing candidates in an instance where I vote for the winner >>>>>and the election is close. Such a defeat is likely to losers' detriment. >>>>>Do I need to be concerned about my attitude in the matter? I think not. >>>> >>>>This says it all clearly. You don't care. You have a the ability to do >>>>what ou want and you do so despite the effect on others. Complete moral >>>>realativity in action. >>> >>>Where on earth did you come up with *that* conclusion? Read the example >>>again, please! It's not that I don't care about the implications of my >>>actions. It's that my actions are NOT morally wrong in the above case. >> >>Please reread your own typing again: >> >>"The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect >>others. (For instance - in fact recall I did not quit myself, I just >>don't agree with pillorying those who did). The problem is that sometimes >>what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a >>right and legitimate interest in doing them." >> >>How could it be any more clear? > >I don't know. The point is that everyone does things that affect others >in a negative sense all the time - including you. Just affecting another >person in a negative sense is not PER SE a bad/immoral thing to do - and >I gave an example of when it would not be. So what do you want? What >point are you trying to make? I'm totally confused at what you're getting >at. When people make decisions they usually do so without having a negative effect on others. When they find out that the decision may have a negative effect on others they usually choose not to make that decision unless they have to. All of this was to make one simple point. You say, "The problem here is not that I don't care how my actions affect others." but then go on to say, "The problem is that sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others but I still have a right and legitimate interest in doing them." The point is that you say the problem isn't that you don't care, but go on to say you will do things that may have a negative effect on others if you have the right and basically want to do so. That shows when it comes down to it your not really concerned. How can you care and still drop when it could screw others? I understand fully that it's not anyones purpose to mess up the tournament or screw somebody when they drop out. Most don't even consider the possibility. However that's the problem. When you play in tournament you are submitting to play by the tournament rules and become part of the tournament "community", for lack of a better word. From that point on everything you do will have an effect on the "community". If you drop out it will have an effect. Sometimes that effect with be trivial. However sometimes it can be very large, even to the point of making the tournament unworkable. Until everyone entering a tournament considers this fact there will continue to be drop outs that on occasion will really screw people. If anyone really has concern for other players, the judge, and the game itself they won't start a tournament and then drop out. >>Finally I find it very interesting you sniped the part, without a response, >>where I asked you if dropping out would still be "trival" and have little >>effect if 29 players decided drop out. Why did you not answer that? > >Because it isn't an issue. If mass dropouts start affecting tournaments >then it behooves the organizers to address the problem. But the first >question would be _why_ 29 people decided to drop out of a tournament. >If, for instance, they'd have offered free Sabbat cards (carrot to get >entrants) and put on an 8-round tournament with no bathroom breaks, they'd >probably have a gotten a near-total resignation rate. But I'd say there'd >be some changes they could make to fix the problem. This shows the problem with your position. You have to admit that if the majority of players acted in the way you state is perfectly fine we would have a problem. Either the action is ok or it's not. How can it be ok in certain tournaments but not others? Do we have some kind of floating drop out chart? In summary this is what I have seen you say: Drop outs are fine, normal, and to be expected. We should not berate people for dropping out. The effects are trivial. However I can see a problem if the trounament is small. Since drop outs could harm a small tournament it probably a good idea that players in small tournaments should be encouraged to play the entire event or not start. Also there would be a problem with mass drop outs. We would have to figure out what is causing the drop outs if that occurred. We would then need to make changes. That thinking doesn't make sense to me. Drop outs are either fine and nothing should be done about them, or dropping out can cause problems and have negative effects so we should try to discourage the practice. Because the possible effects of dropping out can be negative in certain situations it seems clear to me we should do everything possible to try and stop the practice. How are you going to tell the same guy that dropped in the 36 person tournament that he shouldn't play or drop in the 12 player one? I don't think we can develope some kind of crazy drop out chart for our floating drop out ethic like: It's fine for 1 player to drop in a 9 player tournament but no more. Up to 2 players may drop in a 10 player tournament. In a 12 player tournament 1 player cannot drop but 2, 3, or 4 players may. In a 13 player tournament 1, 3, 4, or 5 may drop but not 2... >This was a three round tournament with a large enough entry free to screen >people out who would enter on a complete lark, three rounds with breaks, >and an astoundingly understanding judge. And there was no problem with >drop outs as far as I could see. Scott just reshuffled the tables and off >we went. So if _I_ didn't have a problem with it, you - as a person >who was never in the tournament - are not going to convince me that I did >using reasoning like this. That's fine. As I have said you obviously haven't had any bad experiences, as a player or judge, with people dropping out. As long as your luck holds out you will continue to have the same views on the topic. I have already have different experience and views. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn >Fred

Hmmm... This is an interesting point. I have played many other types of games, sometimes in tournaments. It's always been a big no no to start if you can't finish. Maybe this is alien thinking when it comes to CCG's. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Derek Ray wrote in message ... >On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:08:51 -0500, James Hamblin ><ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >>OK, let me attempt to summarize: >> >>* You think that signing up for a tournament commits to a person to play >>in all of the preliminary rounds. (Even though, as I have said before, >>in my many years of card game experience, this is the first time I've >>ever heard of anything like that.) > >Have you ever competed in anything besides a CCG? In all my many >years of competition, CCGs are the first tournaments I've ever seen >where it is considered "OK" to pull the tabs on a whim, or because >you're losing, or to enter the tournament merely to get the freebies >and then bail... > >(rest of summary snipped) > >>Well, I disagree with what you think, and probably always will. > >-shrug- you can lead a horse to water... > [ quoted text not captured ]

LOL. Glad to see some of the people in this thread still have their sense of humor. It would be quite funny if he does break out the charts and graphs... Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Sorrow wrote in message ... >> Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I >> have to break out charts and graphs? > >Yes, I expect a presentation on Saturday. > >Sorrow > >

On 24 Aug 2000 20:13:36 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>I don't comprehend how you can NOT see that turning one's back on >>stripminers is a great way to leave the public image of CCGs as >>exactly what it is - a money-burning crack habit. > >Well, I guess that's all pretty much subjective perception. I guess my And the public's perception, the subject in question, is what matters... >answers are that the public will have that perception anyway, that strip- >mining draft tournaments isn't central to causing that perception (I >think it has a hell of a lot more to do with the amount of money people >spend on boxes and singles and things like reports of card theft, etc.), All of these things contribute as well. It makes me sick to see the prices for Sabbat boxes on eBay right now - one of the nice things about this game for me always was that you didn't NEED certain cards to be competetive. You still don't, really, and the price for singles/etc certainly hasn't got anywhere near the ridiculous Magic levels. (protected resources going for $20, and it's no good if you like bleed or combat decks). We may not be able to stop all of it, but why not stop what we can? It can't but help. >I stated what I think about the real effects of stripmining to tournaments >in a reply to another of your posts. But to that I will add that the >answer to such unbalancing effects are much better handled by changing the >rules rather than going around telling people to ignore their real >motivations to acquire cards - if it were really a problem. Do you If it weren't a problem I suspect LSJ would not have been bribing people to stay 'til the 3rd round with an extra booster pack. >go around telling people it's immoral to counter-draft excessively? >This stuff is part of the draft game. It's annoying to get your >position in the tournament hosed by such stuff but if it's not worth >changing the rules to fix, then it's certainly not worth trying to >convince people they're evil for engaging in it. Well, actually, I don't really care for Rochester draft as much as I do booster draft, BECAUSE of the tendency to excessively counterdraft against people. Also, the counterdrafting becomes very bad when suddenly none of the 10 cards face-up match your deck - you immediately pull the 2 best so that nobody else can have them. Booster draft is much better for this sort of thing - you almost always have some cards you can pull to benefit yourself instead. >>In your opinion. Of course, there's experience, which tells me that >>every time someone has quit in a V:TES tournament, it's caused >>headaches for the organizer who had to restructure, and delays for the >>tournament. > >One more time: the _drop_...or the failure to give sufficient notice >of the drop to the judge? I think it's the latter. The drop itself. See below ... >>I believe it's foolish to expect everyone who's going to drop to come to >>the TD and say "I'm dropping now! Bye!", much less do it in such a >>way as to give him plenty of warning. Which means that every time >>someone drops there's going to be hassle and confusion. > >Wait a minute! You pontificate endlessly about how bad it is to drop, >and then when someone points out that merely dropping does not by >itself cause a problem if they do it right, you excuse the quitters' >behavior vis-a-vis giving notice so that you can condemn them for >quitting at all. Isn't that a little like condemning people for owing >dogs at all because of the dog shit in park while stating that, "It's too >much to expect dog owners to clean up after their dogs."? This seem like >a completely incongruous position to me. Comdemn what's actually causing >the problem. If someone can quit without causing anyone else a problem, >then let them. I think you misread me. I believe it is foolish for US to expect everyone who's going to drop to come to the TD and warn him, because people will be just too damned lazy to do it. I do not excuse the droppers' behavior at all, I just am pointing out that your solution (asking people to please warn the judge) is already a failure on the face of it. Someone who wants to drop will just bail, or not come back from food, or whatever. You can tell them 'til you're blue in the face "WARN THE JUDGE IF YOU DROP", and they still won't do it. Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call attention to themselves. I still believe it's bad to drop anyway, for other reasons - but thinking you can just get the gamers to warn the judge when they decide to vanish is a laugher. James Hamblin made an effort to do so because he's been a V:TES player for awhile and knows LSJ. Others simply won't want to waste their time - i mean, if they're dropping anyway, they've already GOT a certain mindset of not caring. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o3oml$bim$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: > > >In article <8o1o3o$ifk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> > >> > >> X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: > >> > >> >What we do know is that leaving removes from the tournament all the > >> >victory points which the quitter had won, and the potential for > >> >anyone to gain a victory point from the quitter for each round which > >> >the quitter does not participate in. This can be as few as one or as > >> >many as 11 victory points (using 5 person tables). > >> > >> We do indeed know that. What is confusing to me is why you think > >> they're significant and cause problems for the tournament. > >> > >> >Those victory points would be better off being won by a player who is > >> >actually trying to make it to the finals and win. > >> > >> I'm not sure what you mean by points that would be "better off". > ... > >> Really, I'm confused why this is of concern to you. > > > >The reason those points would be better off is that they are points that > >would have been availible to other players. So now the final point score > >is skewed because you left with points that should have gone to other > >players who intended to finish the tournament. The points you won on > >the table should have been won by someone else in your absence, and the > >point that your potential ousting represents in the rounds you > >did not participate is also denied to other players. So now by leaving > >you have "screwed" the other players out of those points. > > > >I am sorry that you can not conceptualize the impact of empty points on > >the tournament, but that is what the above mentioned points are, empty. > >By quitting you negate the value of those points. > ... > > Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points > >are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you > >remove points from the point supply. These points would have been there > >if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and therefore > >wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. > > > >So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by > >removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how > >removing them from circulation affected the overall point distribution. > ... > >Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining > >points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less to > >be had. > > I understand the concept of relative value of one commodity vis a vis > another in a free market ecomomic system. If you were going to > _spend_ your points on some other commodity which was no more or less > plentiful then the value of the points would "inflate" and you would > tend to receive more of the other commodity. But you don't "spend" > victory points, you just accumlulate them and the person with the highest > total is declared victor (or the highest 4 or 5 may move on to the finals). > If it were any harder to accumulate points because people dropped out, > then I'd be concerned. Since it's no easier or harder to accumulate them > before or after a player leaves, It is harder to accumulate victory points because there are less to be had. > >So if you won alot of points in the first round your points are > >more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no > >points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points > >become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to the > >quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the > >quitter has quitted. > > No, they are not. It's just as easy to get them in the third round > as it was in the first. Here is where I would disagree with you. There are less points availible in the third round than in the first. Often this comes in the form of a 4 person table being created or a six-person table being eliminated. Now here is were the problems begin. If you get put on the 4 person table, you can sweep the table but you gain one less point than a person who sweeps a five player table. On the other hand if you get put on a six person table, rather than being able to sweep the whole table because of the two hour time limit, the table will normally time out or be split between two players. Now if the tournament started with an odd table, usually a person quitting will either eliminate the odd table (in the case of the odd table being a six player table) or create more odd tables (in the case of the odd table being a four person table). If you eliminate the odd table, then the people who had to play on the odd table have had to play in a more difficult circumstance than the players on the standard table. The other option is if multiple odd table are created, this is normally in the form of six player tables which are more difficult to play on. > I guess the problem here is that you're using a model for thinking about > this which has nothing to do with reality. The problem with my model is that is uses decimals and fractions, but what happens in a tournament is that all those decimals and fractions add up and "land" at a table. This "landing" at a table comes in the form of a odd table being created or disbanded. The appearance or disappearance of the odd table is what screws up the points spread. If we were spending our points > on fabulous prizes at the end of the tournament, then there'd be some > kind of effect, I suppose. But that doesn't happen. But we are spending our points, we are spending them to purchase a seat in the finals. The price of that seat fluctuates with the number of players. The more players that enter into a tournament the more points it requires to get into the finals. In a small tournament (12 to 15 players) normally 4 victory points will get you into the finals where as in a large tournament (30+ players) it requires 6 victory points to guarantee a spot in the finals. It is a simple supply and demand curve. Five seats are the fixed supply curve and the demand curve varies based on the number of players in the tournament. I hope this help. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:05:06 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >The law against destroying currency is mostly >just because the government likes to tell you what >to do. It may be to stop people melting coins down when the metal in them is worth more than their face value. Anyway, while at Gencon, I tossed all my coppers into the pool at the mall and added a silver coin for good luck. If the US economy goes into a tail-spin, you'll know who to blame ... Andrew > >If you *did* take your $100,000 out of circulation, >by burning it, stuffing all your pillows with it, >or whatever, that would *not* make the effective >tax rate higher. > >The remaining $900,000 would now be 'worth' what >the previous $1,000,000 was 'worth'. Taking money >out of circulation is deflationary: it causes nominal >prices to fall. Things that used to cost $1.00 will >now cost $0.90. > >If the government *did* decide to tax people for >$300,000 of their wealth (what it thought was a >30% wealth tax), that would indeed become a 33% >wealth tax after the $100,000 was taken out of >circulation. But governments don't usually tax >wealth, for this among other reasons. Instead >they usually tax income, and they tax it at some >fixed percentage rate. If the government had an >income tax beforehand of 30% of everyone's annual >income, and it was expecting people to have >$1,000,000 in income, it would have expected to get >$300,000. After the $100,000 left circulation, >people's income would be $900,000 for the year, and >the government's 30% tax would take $270,000 of >that, which brings us right back to the government >getting 30% of the total income in the economy. > >As you can see, taking money out of circulation >*does not* change anything about the 'real' size >of the economy (that is, the amount of goods and >services produced). It changes only the numbers >attached to those goods and services, which is to >say, the 'nominal' size of the economy. > >Make sense? > >> Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points >> are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you >> remove points from the point supply. These points would have been >there >> if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and >therefore >> wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. > >Just like in an actual economy, it doesn't matter >if you take your first-two-rounds ten victory points >and go home with them. Instead of you being top seed >in the finals, the person with the next-highest VP >total will be top seed. As long as there are at least >five people remaining in the tournament, there will >be people to take all the seats in the finals. > >By ousting people instead of being ousted by them, >you have made it harder for certain individuals to >get to the finals. However, that's exactly what >would have happened to them if you *had* stayed in >the tournament and played in the finals - they would >be no less screwed if you did *not* drop than if you >do. > >> So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by >> removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how >> removing them from circulation affected the overall point >distribution. >> In saying that, you are saying that if you started burning cash >(thereby >> removing money from the money supply) then your taxes wouldn't >increase. >> The money would become more valuable and therefore your lump sum of >> taxes to the government would be worth more. > >But the money you have left would *also* be worth >more! Plus, the government *doesn't tax people* in >lump-sum terms. It's all in percentages, partially >because the government *doesn't know* what the money >supply is. > >> Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining >> points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less >to >> be had. So if you won alot of points in the first round your points >are >> more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no >> points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points >> become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to >the >> quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the >> quitter has quitted. > >This isn't right either. > >If a no-points player leaves the tournament after >the first round, there will be two fewer VPs total >to be distributed among all the players. However, >there are also two fewer player-spots trying to win >VPs. Every player's "expected VPs each round" >(that is, the statistical average number of VPs each >player would win over an infinite number of rounds) >remains the same: 1. > >There are fewer VPs to be won, yes, but it will >now require fewer VPs to make the finals! > >The only thing that keeps Jyhad tournaments from >adhering perfectly to these principles is that >the scoring system is relatively granular: there >are not that many discrete levels of VPs for >different players to have. This is because the >expected score each round is only 1, rather than, >say, 10 or 100, and there are no fractional VPs >(except for time-outs). In bowling, for example, >your score could range from 0 to 300 for a single >game. In Jyhad, it can only range from 0 to 5. >Since there are fewer possible levels, you may >end up with more ties if people with lots of VPs >do drop out before the finals. In practice, though, >I think people with many VPs are much less likely >to drop out than people with few or no VPs. > >> Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I >> have to break out charts and graphs? > >I apologize for being blunt, but I'm not sure that >*you* understand how quitting does (or doesn't) >screw up the point spread. > > >Josh "Economist" Duffin [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <e8saqskj0m24rb75f...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:13:02 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >(I suppose if you chilled you wouldn't be the > >jack-booted thug, though, would you? ;-) > > Well, something like that. =) but swinging a virtual clue-by-four > around in circles gets a little tiring, i'll admit. whoosh! thud! whoosh! thud! > >It doesn't *have* any serious effect on the other > >players. At least in terms of their ability to > >get to the finals. It may piss them off to see > >people quitting. That's not exactly an in-tournament > >issue. > > We've gone back and forth on that one forever. Due to the > non-quantifiable nature of any given V:TES deck, it's entirely > possible that we may never know which way that truly resolves - i've > seen tourneys where one screwy 0-VP deck sat down right in front of me > in the 3rd round and totally wanged up my chances of the finals, even > though I could have ousted the rest of the table had i been sitting > anywhere but behind him. Bad luck? Yep. But it does tell me that > one deck can have a much larger effect on a tournament than just in > its mathematical aspect. Yes, which is what makes *me* think that it's not really important *whose* one deck sits there. You could be randomly screwed by someone who gets no other VPs in the tournament. Or, you could be randomly screwed by someone who is leading in VPs. If somebody drops out, instead of having the dropout sit next to you some other random person will sit next to you. Since it's random, the dropout doesn't really matter. In some cases, dropouts may increase the number of 4-player tables. (But in others, they may decrease it.) Even so, there can be 4-player tables without dropouts, and those randomly screw the players sitting at them (to the extent that you believe 4-player tables really screw anyone) just as much whether they are caused by dropouts or simply by having an inconvenient number of players in the tournament. > >Okay, sure, it's kinda lame to quit. But so what? > >You can think quitters are lame all you want, but > >they're not really affecting *you* that much. Why > >not just let them be lame if they want to? Or, if > > Well, I originally hopped in to attempt to discourage the > strip-mining, and then was faced with several posts that said "why > shouldn't they be allowed to take their cards and go, people can do > what they want!" And things sort of degenerated from there, because > that attitude is rather abhorrent to me. You keep bringing up pro sports and such. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the 'pro' in pro sports mean 'professional' and imply that people are making their living by playing these games? In that environment, isn't there generally prize money all the way down? I have to think that that's quite an incentive to not drop out partway through. Plus, in the world of 'physical' sports, I think there is a lot more of that high-school gym-teacher 'what are you, a quitter??!' attitude to be found. Maybe this is just me, but I suspect that most 'gamers' (players of CCGs, wargames, etc) really disliked high-school gym, and that this 'quitter' stigma is something they find distasteful. > >you want to discourage lameness in your presence, > >tell them "go away, kid, you bother me." But I don't > >see any need for a vast crusade against lameness. > >A lot of people think it's kinda lame to take these > >silly games this seriously, you know... > > Yes, I know. That's why I'd prefer to have them see it as something > fun instead of as a crack habit ... "MUST GET CARDS". =) Mmm, crack. I gotta call my dealer, I'm fiendin'... Josh eazy-e's f'd up and got the eight-ball rollin'... [ quoted text not captured ]

It is this type of ignorance to the players of this game that really really bothers me. Generalizations like "gamers don't like Phys. Ed." blow me away. It makes me wonder what kind of thought process went into the writing of their post. Although through scientific research Josh could be able to prove his theory true, it is not a statement that should be uttered lightly. It looks like Joshua is either a student or faculty at a respected university, but it is obvious that he has not taken any courses in public relations. Sorry Josh, but you put yourself out on a limb, and I guess I'm the first to start the buzzsaw. oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1. P.S. Is it just you? Maybe not, but perhaps a derogatory comment like that would be best left unsaid. Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:8o5ss9$hve$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Here is where I would disagree with you. There are less points > availible in the third round than in the first. Often this comes in the > form of a 4 person table being created or a six-person table being > eliminated. Now here is were the problems begin. If you get put on the > 4 person table, you can sweep the table but you gain one less point than > a person who sweeps a five player table. On the other hand if you get > put on a six person table, rather than being able to sweep the whole > table because of the two hour time limit, the table will normally time > out or be split between two players. Six-player tables are not supported at V:EKN tournaments: all tables are to be four- or five-player tables. [VEKN 3.1.2] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <6bvp5.2157$vd.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: > It is this type of ignorance to the players of this game that really really > bothers me. Generalizations like "gamers don't like Phys. Ed." blow me > away. It makes me wonder what kind of thought process went into the writing > of their post. Although through scientific research Josh could be able to > prove his theory true, it is not a statement that should be uttered lightly. I've met plenty of Jyhad players, and seen lots (and lots and lots) of other gamers, at extra-large conventions like GenCon and Origins among other occasions. The generalization that 'gamers are (largely) geeks' is one I'm comfortable making, albeit with the understanding that I don't mean 'geeks' as a purely negative term. Computery 'geeks' are responsible for vast sums of money in the "new (US) economy", and are at least respectable if not always respected. And geeks, at least in my experience, are not usually jocks. In US high-school clique world, these are generally two distinct sets of people. Traditionally, geeks don't like gym. To jocks, it's their favorite subject. > It looks like Joshua is either a student or faculty at a respected > university, but it is obvious that he has not taken any courses in public > relations. I used to be a student at Cornell, but I actually graduated in '98; I just use that email address on my DejaNews posts for the sake of tradition. My main email address nowadays is duff...@bls.gov (reflecting where I work now, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics). But no, I didn't take any courses in public relations while I was there. ;-) I'm not speaking as an official representative of, well, anything, you know... > Sorry Josh, but you put yourself out on a limb, and I guess I'm > the first to start the buzzsaw. That's your prerogative, of course. > oAFLORD > aka > Thomas Kuster > V:EKN Prince of Caledon > > "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit > Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste > Brought death into the world, and all our woe." > John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1. > > P.S. Is it just you? Maybe not, but perhaps a derogatory comment like that > would be best left unsaid. I didn't think it was derogatory. Plenty of people didn't like their HS gym classes. I was one of them. (I kinda like sports now, but I didn't then...) and what I meant to imply is that finding the 'quitter' stigma distasteful is perfectly reasonable. Josh tries to leave derogatory comments unsaid whenever possible [ quoted text not captured ]

> Six-player tables are not supported at V:EKN tournaments: all tables are to > be four- or five-player tables. [VEKN 3.1.2] Thanks. So a twenty-one person tournament is 4 tables of 4 and one table of 5 instead of 3 tables of 5 and one of six. So now if a person drops the seating goes to 4 tables of 5. Now the players on the single initial table of 5 have a potential advantage over the tables of 4 because they had the potential to win 5 victory points where everyone else only had the potential to win 4 victory points. So in effect, a player dropping out of the tournament has just penalized 16 players. Now, your counter to this may be that those sixteen players would be penalized the length of the entire tournament, but in reality what the judge would do is rotate 5 new players to the 5 player table each round. So if 5 players each round sit at the the five player table for three rounds that is fifteen players who have access to an addition victory point, leaving 6 players without access to the additional victory point, as opposed to having someone quit after the first round which denies 16 players access to an additional victory point. So by quitting you have denied and additional 10 players access to an additional victory point. Comments Welcome. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:38:21 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <e8saqskj0m24rb75f...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> We've gone back and forth on that one forever. Due to the >> non-quantifiable nature of any given V:TES deck, it's entirely >> possible that we may never know which way that truly resolves - i've >> seen tourneys where one screwy 0-VP deck sat down right in front of me >> in the 3rd round and totally wanged up my chances of the finals, even >> though I could have ousted the rest of the table had i been sitting >> anywhere but behind him. Bad luck? Yep. But it does tell me that >> one deck can have a much larger effect on a tournament than just in >> its mathematical aspect. > >Yes, which is what makes *me* think that it's not >really important *whose* one deck sits there. You Yeah, but there are so many different "which deck exactly is it?" variables involved, that removing any one deck from the initial equation HAS to have some effect, just because it throws off relationships accordingly in sequence. You've probably heard the "butterfly's wings causing a storm" bit from chaos theory. This is very similar - one way of looking at it is "it's all random, it won't matter anyway", and the other way is the patterns in the randomness. =) >If somebody drops out, instead of having the dropout >sit next to you some other random person will sit >next to you. Since it's random, the dropout doesn't >really matter. Specifically to you? Or taken as a whole across the tournament? I can come up with examples where the dropout matters specifically to one individual - the Rush deck leaving gives the S&B deck a much better chance, etc, etc. I'd prefer to take it as a whole across the tournament or we'll get bogged down in mindless counterexamples. >In some cases, dropouts may increase the number of >4-player tables. (But in others, they may decrease >it.) Even so, there can be 4-player tables without Norm pointed out how horrible it is to actually come up with a listing of "OK, at 12 people, two can drop out but one can't" and the like. =) >dropouts, and those randomly screw the players sitting >at them (to the extent that you believe 4-player tables >really screw anyone) just as much whether they are >caused by dropouts or simply by having an inconvenient >number of players in the tournament. Yech. Well, I DO believe that the preferred format would be 5 players. Gives better table balance, for one, and also increases the # of VPs available. The difference between 15 possible and 12 possible is pretty big, and I'm not sure the current formula tries to make any effort to stop someone from sitting at a 5-player 3 times in a row, or at a 4-player 3 times in a row. That said, being dropped on a 4-player by the luck of the draw, when you have a 5-5-4-4 situation, HAS to be a 'shit happens' thing. I don't see a way around it without redesigning the whole format from scratch (balls to THAT). >You keep bringing up pro sports and such. Maybe >I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the 'pro' in pro >sports mean 'professional' and imply that people are >making their living by playing these games? In that >environment, isn't there generally prize money all >the way down? I have to think that that's quite an >incentive to not drop out partway through. Oh, dear me, no. In golf, billiards, and tennis, if you aren't at a certain point in the rankings by the end of the tournament, you do NOT get money at all. Most players in all 3 of these sports make their money primarily from endorsements, and secondarily from tournament income. Tiger Woods, of course, could endorse things like K-Y and he'd still be hand over fist rich, but he's a big exception, not the rule. We'll not reach the day anytime soon when someone can make a living playing V:TES. But we can at least get it out in some higher visibility and get some good size prize funds/etc. started. >Plus, in the world of 'physical' sports, I think >there is a lot more of that high-school gym-teacher >'what are you, a quitter??!' attitude to be found. There is, unquestionably. I've been wanting to point out the "different worlds" thing for some time now, but haven't really wanted to step into that particular morass (as Oaflord's response to you demonstrates eloquently, people get all frothy). And it's certainly why I used that evil example in a previous message - it's a memory everyone has. =) >Maybe this is just me, but I suspect that most >'gamers' (players of CCGs, wargames, etc) really >disliked high-school gym, and that this 'quitter' >stigma is something they find distasteful. It's fairly obvious from having a good look at any gaming area that the average gamer is not a model for physical health and fitness. =) I wouldn't want to speculate too extensively on that one though, because I do get annoyed myself if people assume that because i play a CCG, i wouldn't be athletic, OR because I'm athletic, that I wouldn't like a CCG. And I'll let anyone ELSE speak as to whether or not it individually carries those echoes for them. Dangerous ground, that. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o62d2$p8i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] This example doesn't make sense to me. Your calculations appear to be backwards. If you had a 21-player tournament, with four tables of four and one of five, and one player drops out after the first round, you now have four tables of five. That means that the dropping player has *helped* the sixteen players who would otherwise have played on tables of four, but are now playing on tables of five. (That is, assuming that it's really an advantage to play on a table of five.) Josh one, one beautiful dropout! ah ah ah! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:12:41 -0400, "Oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote: >It is this type of ignorance to the players of this game that really really >bothers me. Generalizations like "gamers don't like Phys. Ed." blow me >away. It makes me wonder what kind of thought process went into the writing >of their post. Although through scientific research Josh could be able to >prove his theory true, it is not a statement that should be uttered lightly. I doubt he uttered it lightly. As I said in my own post, taking a good eyeful of "The Pit" at DragonCon would let you guess for yourself whether the average gamer is much into athletic sports. I don't need complicated scientific research to be able to tell, and I'm one of the EXCEPTIONS to it. People hate generalizations, mostly because they're generally accurate and they hate to be painted with the same brush as someone else. There are always a lot of exceptions. James took issue with my commentary about Magic players earlier, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell THAT one either. Generalizations serve a purpose, though. >It looks like Joshua is either a student or faculty at a respected >university, but it is obvious that he has not taken any courses in public >relations. Sorry Josh, but you put yourself out on a limb, and I guess I'm >the first to start the buzzsaw. Watch your own toes, there. =) Public relations skillz aren't that necessary speaking to a limited audience who are all familiar with the subject matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Well, I DO believe that the preferred format would be 5 players. > Gives better table balance, for one, and also increases the # of VPs > available. The difference between 15 possible and 12 possible is > pretty big, and I'm not sure the current formula tries to make any > effort to stop someone from sitting at a 5-player 3 times in a row, or > at a 4-player 3 times in a row. It does. The seating charts I use ensure that no one sits at a 5 player table more than anyone else, except maybe once more when circumstances require. If one person sits at a 5-player table 3 times, then everyone sits at a five player table at least twice. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o63rg$qtu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I was going to put a big chart in here that would have shown the distribution of victory point across the tables, and how changing the number of players aversely affects the the sixteen players in one round versus six over the course of the tournament, but instead I think I can explain it with out the chart. In the first round you have 4 tables of players with access to 4 victory points for each table and one table with access to 5 victory points. If no one drops out of the tournament players are rotated on and off the table with 5 victory point. Being seated at the table with 5 victory points is an advantage because you have the potential to sweep and gain one more victory point than if you swept on a 4 person table. So you have three rounds with 5 people each round get the opportunity to gain a extra victory point for a total of 15 people getting the opportunity, and the six players who did not get the opportunity to gain an extra victory point. Now if a person drops after the first round and the tables are reset to 3 tables of 5 players each, now all the players for the remainder of the tournament (barring another person quitting) have access to 5 points each round for the remainder of the tournament. Unfortunantly since everyone now is on a level playing field, the 5 players at the 5 person in the first round table enjoyed an advantage that was not availible to other 16 players during that round of a tournament. That advantage was the opportunity to score one more victory point for a sweep. From past experience, I have seen that it is often one victory point that separates the 5th seat (i.e. the player making it with the lowest point score) in the finals from the next runner up. So this puts 16 players at a potential disadvantage to the 5 players who had the opportunity to score 5 points. How the advantage works is shown in both the sweep scenario and the split scenario. These scenarios are based on identical performance on a four person table and a five person table. The sweep scenario is that you sweep the entire table and score all the victory points. Obviously, it is to your advantage to be sitting on a table with more potential victory points (i.e the 5 person table rather than the 4 person table) in this scenario. In the split scenario, on a four person table there are two ways the points can be split. Those two ways are 1-3, 1-1-2 or 2-2. This is versus a five person table where the split is 1-4, 2-3, 1-1-1-2, 2-2-1, 1-1-3. So you will see that on a four person there are only 3 possible ways to split victory point versus a five player table where there is five possible ways to split victory points. Given identical performances a player has a better chance of walking away from a five person table with a victory point as there are more ways to gain one (i.e. the potential to gain an additional victory point). Hope this helps. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o6bfo$4lj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I think I can see where you were coming from now. But I still don't think your analysis is accurate. Counting up ways to split VPs is not a useful way to analyze 'chances of getting a VP'. If you want to assume that every outcome is equally likely and then calculate the likelihood of each different outcome, like when you're figuring probabilities of different numbers when rolling dice, you can do that. But you need a (much) longer list: for example, there are five ways just to get the 5-0-0-0-0 split, and twenty ways to get the 4-1-0-0-0 split. There are so many ways to get the 2-2-1-0-0 split that I don't even want to count them. (I know there's a formula to figure out how many there are without counting, but I don't remember it.) Anyway. If you're trying to figure out the average number of victory points each person will get, assuming that who gets how many each game is random, it's easy: each person will average one (1) VP. This is because there always exists (except for timeouts) one VP per player. This is why the four-table disadvantage is not a *huge* disadvantage: yes, the most VPs you can get on a four-player table is 4, whereas you could get 5 on a five-player table. But *on average* you would get only 1 on either. Would you argue that 20-player tables would give you a better chance to walk away from the table with a victory point than 5-player tables? The same argument as the one you presented for 4 vs 5 holds. But in fact, you get a VP by ousting the person to your left before the person to your right ousts you. It doesn't matter how many people are on the table: your average VPs from a game is always one. It's true that the maximum possible VPs from a game goes up with more players. But the larger numbers are less and less likely as the table gets bigger. (Not to mention that larger tables are more likely to time out, in which case VPs are lost and no one gets to sweep.) Also: in your scenario above, if the player drops, fifteen players have 'access' to 14 total VPs and five have 'access' to 15. If he does not drop, six players have 'access' to 12 VPs and fifteen have 'access' to 13. Is it really clear that this is more equitable? As for one VP being the difference between making the finals and not - perhaps you have been playing in larger tournaments than me, but I have seen many more cases where the fourth, fifth, and sixth-ranked players are separated by no more than half a VP if that, and who goes to the finals is determined by the tournament-points tiebreaker. And in tournaments like that, one sweep is generally enough to get you to the finals, whether it's on a four-player or five-player table. Josh 'don't give up' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b1dqs03tlkaulqjs...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:38:21 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >Yes, which is what makes *me* think that it's not > >really important *whose* one deck sits there. You > > Yeah, but there are so many different "which deck exactly is it?" > variables involved, that removing any one deck from the initial > equation HAS to have some effect, just because it throws off > relationships accordingly in sequence. You've probably heard the > "butterfly's wings causing a storm" bit from chaos theory. This is > very similar - one way of looking at it is "it's all random, it won't > matter anyway", and the other way is the patterns in the randomness. > =) Well, yes. But since we still can't *predict* the storm that the butterfly's flapping wings cause, I figure it's best to take the randomness as it comes (since it will come whether or not you try to do anything about it) and not get too caught up in trying to figure out what its effects are. > >If somebody drops out, instead of having the dropout > >sit next to you some other random person will sit > >next to you. Since it's random, the dropout doesn't > >really matter. > > Specifically to you? Or taken as a whole across the tournament? I > can come up with examples where the dropout matters specifically to > one individual - the Rush deck leaving gives the S&B deck a much > better chance, etc, etc. I'd prefer to take it as a whole across the > tournament or we'll get bogged down in mindless counterexamples. As a whole. When people drop out, those people will not be sitting next to the other people who would have had them as predators or prey if they had not dropped out. But there will be people sitting in those spots, also randomly chosen, so for the tournament, the effect is exactly the same as it would be if, for example, all the dropouts had been randomly seated together for the rest of the tournament, and none of them had gotten enough VPs to make the finals. (which would not be allowed to happen in a Jyhad tourney, I know, but for the sake of illustration...) > Norm pointed out how horrible it is to actually come up with a listing > of "OK, at 12 people, two can drop out but one can't" and the like. > =) I wouldn't dispute that at a 12-person tournament, dropouts can be problematic. But do people really drop out that often from such small tourneys? I would think that for local events like that, you aren't that likely to get people who will find themselves needing or wanting to leave partway through. I'd expect to see more drops in big events at big conventions, where (a) there is lots of other stuff you're missing out on by sitting around in this tourney and (b) there are a lot of players in the tourney, such that drops do not reduce you to the awkward number of players (11). I don't see any problem with thinking that dropping is okay in some cases but not others, by the way. Is it acceptable to walk around naked in your apartment? Probably. But is it okay to walk around naked at a party? Maybe not. > Yech. Well, I DO believe that the preferred format would be 5 players. > Gives better table balance, for one, and also increases the # of VPs > available. The difference between 15 possible and 12 possible is > pretty big, and I'm not sure the current formula tries to make any > effort to stop someone from sitting at a 5-player 3 times in a row, or > at a 4-player 3 times in a row. To me it seems like the difference between 15 possible and 12 possible is noticeable, but at the same time, you hardly ever see anyone actually get even 12 VPs, let alone 15. (at least, I don't.) So in my experience, the maximum achievable VPs is less important than just getting a few, often at more than one table. > That said, being dropped on a 4-player by the luck of the draw, when > you have a 5-5-4-4 situation, HAS to be a 'shit happens' thing. I > don't see a way around it without redesigning the whole format from > scratch (balls to THAT). Well, yeah. > >You keep bringing up pro sports and such. Maybe > >I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the 'pro' in pro > >sports mean 'professional' and imply that people are > >making their living by playing these games? In that > >environment, isn't there generally prize money all > >the way down? I have to think that that's quite an > >incentive to not drop out partway through. > > Oh, dear me, no. In golf, billiards, and tennis, if you aren't at a > certain point in the rankings by the end of the tournament, you do NOT > get money at all. Most players in all 3 of these sports make their > money primarily from endorsements, and secondarily from tournament > income. Tiger Woods, of course, could endorse things like K-Y and > he'd still be hand over fist rich, but he's a big exception, not the > rule. Hmm. And yet they still keep playing 'loser brackets' after there's no possibility of winning money? I mean, not that I can't see wanting to play for fun and edification. > We'll not reach the day anytime soon when someone can make a living > playing V:TES. But we can at least get it out in some higher > visibility and get some good size prize funds/etc. started. Not impossible, sure. Don't know what we could endorse, though. Brands of sleeves? I don't know if there are enough different ones that they'd feel the need... ;-) > And I'll let anyone ELSE speak as to whether or not it individually > carries those echoes for them. Dangerous ground, that. =) Apparently so! And here I am rushing in where angels fear to tread. heh heh. Josh 'I'm on the centerline right between two states of mind' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b1dqs03tlkaulqjs...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Tiger Woods, of course, could endorse things like K-Y and >he'd still be hand over fist rich, but he's a big exception, not the >rule. What an, erm, interesting image. And a fairly leud thought. ;) -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

> Well, I think I can see where you were coming > from now. But I still don't think your analysis > is accurate. I guess we can agree to disagree. > Anyway. If you're trying to figure out the > average number of victory points each person > will get, assuming that who gets how many each > game is random, it's easy: each person will > average one (1) VP. This is because there always > exists (except for timeouts) one VP per player. > This is why the four-table disadvantage is not > a *huge* disadvantage: yes, the most VPs you can > get on a four-player table is 4, whereas you > could get 5 on a five-player table. But *on > average* you would get only 1 on either. I am not arguing for average victory points but potential victory points which are two completely different animals. > Would you argue that 20-player tables would > give you a better chance to walk away from > the table with a victory point than 5-player > tables? <snip intervening material> (Not to mention that > larger tables are more likely to time out, > in which case VPs are lost and no one gets to > sweep.) Exactly, within two hours five is the maximum number of vp's that you can consistantly win. > Also: in your scenario above, if the player > drops, fifteen players have 'access' to 14 > total VPs and five have 'access' to 15. Only if that player was sitting on a four person table. If he was sitting on the five person table thse the number changes to 4 and 16 If > he does not drop, six players have 'access' > to 12 VPs and fifteen have 'access' to 13. > Is it really clear that this is more equitable? It is more equitable because it is the way the tournament starts. Everyone understands that some players are going to not be able to sit at the five player table. Now if you change how the seating is done, you not only alter the players distribution of points but also the potential to gain victory points for each player. Also it is a matter of perception. Players tend to grumble about being shorted the opportunity to get a point or how so and so got the opportunity to get an extra point. > As for one VP being the difference between > making the finals and not - perhaps you have > been playing in larger tournaments than me, > but I have seen many more cases where the > fourth, fifth, and sixth-ranked players are > separated by no more than half a VP if that, > and who goes to the finals is determined by > the tournament-points tiebreaker. And in > tournaments like that, one sweep is generally > enough to get you to the finals, whether it's > on a four-player or five-player table. See here is where we differ . I have seen players sweep a 4 person table and not make it to the finals. It is really unfair that the 4 person table is where they swept. In addition, since they swept a table, other players tend to gang up on them as they are perceived as a threat. The politicing usually goes like: "Uh, oh there's Josh. He just swept the last table. He is the biggest threat. He brought his Chinese Tin Soldier deck (or what ever the name of your deck is). It is a killer deck. Oh, you didn't bring a killer deck. Well I'll help you out against him if you help me out." But back to your point, if a half a point is the difference when trying to get into the finals, then isn't the opportunity to gain another whole point worth so much more? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:54:11 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >(shrug) in reality, what happens is someone probably says to you: > >"Um, you realize there's two rounds left?" >"Yes." >"Why are you stopping now then?" >... >Usually this sort of conversation is plenty embarrassing. >I still believe it's bad to drop anyway, for other reasons - but >thinking you can just get the gamers to warn the judge when they >decide to vanish is a laugher. LSJ was fairly frosty when I told him that I was dropping out of the Sabbat event. I explained why and repeated my comments here. Anyway, I advise against giving someone a hard time if they say that they are leaving. For one thing, this would just encourage them to go away without telling anyone. I often run Shadowfist draft/sealed deck events at game conventions. These are a bargain in monetary terms but I still encourage fringe players to join in on a casual basis. It's better to get them to sample the game and let it sell itself than to fret over the extent to which they will take part. If they have other interests or commitments, I can readily appreciate that and will still welcome them back later. The thing that people seem to be obsessing about here are the demands of the three-round + final format. Looking at the VEKN rules, I see that they require a minimum of 2 preliminary rounds of 2 hours each. This means that a single elimination format is not possible - that's a shame as that seems a good format for players with limited time to spare. One thing I don't understand is what's supposed to happen in the third qualifying round if a player has scored no VP at this point and can be certain that they will not make the final. It seems very wrong that such players should play alongside players who are still in contention - they can only act as king-makers. The VEKN rules don't seem to address this but I would expect it to become a big deal if you ever did get large numbers of players for an event. Andrew

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:09:23 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >Anyway, I advise against giving someone a hard time if they say that >they are leaving. For one thing, this would just encourage them to go >away without telling anyone. The alternative is to teach them that going away is a good thing, which I think most of us do not actually believe. >The thing that people seem to be obsessing about here are the demands >of the three-round + final format. Looking at the VEKN rules, I see >that they require a minimum of 2 preliminary rounds of 2 hours each. >This means that a single elimination format is not possible - that's a >shame as that seems a good format for players with limited time to >spare. A V:TES duel format is not something currently to be encouraged, without a LOT of massaging to the rules. As it stands, there are several abusive decks possible under the duel format, largely because the game wasn't designed for 2 players only. Modifying the rules shouldn't be a PROBLEM, but it is time-consuming and isn't something anyone has done yet. If you can't use a duel format, I'm not in favor of any sort of single-elimination setup. Sometimes seating position at a 4/5 player table just screws you, as with my experience in another thread - 3 out of 4 decks at my table I could've ousted. The 4th sat right in front of me; net result 0 VP to me because you must get your FIRST prey before any others. All that said, a set of V:TES dueling rules wouldn't hurt anyone, although it really would be a very watered-down version of the full game and should probably be advertised as such, so people don't get the wrong idea and never TRY the full game. >One thing I don't understand is what's supposed to happen in the third >qualifying round if a player has scored no VP at this point and can be >certain that they will not make the final. It seems very wrong that It's almost impossible to be certain of that. 6 VPs is usually a guaranteed place in the final. 5 VPs is often a good chance to squeak in at 4th or 5th, and it's possible to sweep and get 5 VPs your final round. You might think your deck sucks, but if the two decks in front of yours just happen to be completely hosed by yours and only yours, you'll get a quick 2 VP and be on your way to machining through the other 2 players. Considering some of the decks I've swept with, this can be painfully true. And there's the story about some nameless rulemonger or other taking an unopened starter box, looking at it, removing enough vampires to leave a 12-vampire crypt, and sweeping with THAT. Very few players in a V:TES event can ever be certain they won't make the final until they are ousted in their last round. >such players should play alongside players who are still in contention >- they can only act as king-makers. The VEKN rules don't seem to >address this but I would expect it to become a big deal if you ever >did get large numbers of players for an event. Nah. We had 40+ at Dragon*Con and there were TONS of players still in contention going into the 3rd round. LSJ would probably have the actual statistics still in a notebook somewhere and could provide mathematical analysis thereof and stuff. =) Or just post the stats and let us mash numbers on our own, if that was easy enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:49:53 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <4b1dqs03tlkaulqjs...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Tiger Woods, of course, could endorse things like K-Y and >>he'd still be hand over fist rich, but he's a big exception, not the >>rule. > >What an, erm, interesting image. And a fairly leud thought. ;) Hm. Maybe I shouldn't use the words "K-Y" and "hand over fist" in the same sentence, huh. Oh well. As long as everyone was entertained. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >In article <8o3oml$bim$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> I understand the concept of relative value of one commodity vis a vis >> another in a free market ecomomic system. If you were going to >> _spend_ your points on some other commodity which was no more or less >> plentiful then the value of the points would "inflate" and you would >> tend to receive more of the other commodity. But you don't "spend" >> victory points, you just accumlulate them and the person with the >> highest total is declared victor (or the highest 4 or 5 may move on to >> the finals). If it were any harder to accumulate points because people >> dropped out, then I'd be concerned. Since it's no easier or harder to >> accumulate them before or after a player leaves, > >It is harder to accumulate victory points because there are less to be >had. That, by itself, is not a reason why victory points would be harder to get. It would be if the same number of people were competing for the smaller number. But there aren't - there are correspondingly fewer people. I'm kind of frustrated that this has been said a bunch of times already and you've neither responded to it nor seem to ever take it into account in your reasoning. >> >Points become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior >> >to the quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after >> >the quitter has quitted. >> >> No, they are not. It's just as easy to get them in the third round >> as it was in the first. > >Here is where I would disagree with you. There are less points >availible in the third round than in the first. Often this comes in the >form of a 4 person table being created or a six-person table being >eliminated. In a large enough tournament, there should be nothing but four and five- person tables. No matter. As I've already pointed out to you, it's as easy to get a victory point on a four-person table as a five-person table. >Now here is were the problems begin. If you get put on the >4 person table, you can sweep the table but you gain one less point than >a person who sweeps a five player table. And, since you have only three opponents, sweeping the table is correspondingly easier on a four-person table. This is why judges do not take pains to equalize competition on four vs. five person tables. And also, assuming one type of table were easier to win points on than another, then dropping out *still* doesn't cause a problem because one has a 20% chance of causing the drop of an entire table and creating four five-person tables out of four four-person tables and an 80% chance of reducing the size of one five-person table to four-people. This is statistically a wash: the person has overall the same chance of increasing a table size as decreasing one. It's not important but it should eliminate and remaining problems you would have with the "table size" issue. >> If we were spending our points on fabulous prizes at the end of the >> tournament, then there'd be some kind of effect, I suppose. But that >> doesn't happen. > >But we are spending our points, we are spending them to purchase a seat >in the finals. BZZZZZT!!!!! Wrong answer. You do not spend points in any way, shape, or form. You simply accumulate them and you receive the seat by being the person with one of the top five totals. This doesn't work the same way as a monetary system that has inflation, deflation, commodity vales, etc. None the less, I can see what you're getting at: if there's less points in the system, it requires fewer points to make the finals. That may well be true, particularly if someone sweeps two tables and quits in the third round. None the less, it does *not* cause unfairness. Keep in mind that the tournament is a contest for victory points. In order to be fair, all that's important is that all the players have an equally difficult time winning them. It isn't necessary for purposes of fairness that it be equally difficult to win them in each round - recall game shows where the points in the first round are usually pretty meaningless, increased significantly in the second round, and some single dramatic contest in the final round usually decides the victor (the show's sponsors need that!). Still, a Jyhad tournament is designed to be that way so we'll assume it's important. So I ask you, if I have to face a table full players in the first OR third round, what's the difference if the tournament is missing a table or two? Not a damn thing! Fred

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 24 Aug 2000 20:13:36 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>>I don't comprehend how you can NOT see that turning one's back on >>>stripminers is a great way to leave the public image of CCGs as >>>exactly what it is - a money-burning crack habit. >> >>Well, I guess that's all pretty much subjective perception. I guess my >>answers are that the public will have that perception anyway, that strip- >>mining draft tournaments isn't central to causing that perception (I >>think it has a hell of a lot more to do with the amount of money people >>spend on boxes and singles and things like reports of card theft, etc.), > >All of these things contribute as well. It makes me sick to see the >prices for Sabbat boxes on eBay right now - one of the nice things >about this game for me always was that you didn't NEED certain cards >to be competetive. You still don't, really, and the price for >singles/etc certainly hasn't got anywhere near the ridiculous Magic >levels. (protected resources going for $20, and it's no good if you >like bleed or combat decks). We may not be able to stop all of it, >but why not stop what we can? It can't but help. It depends on what you want to do stop it. LSJ offering an extra pack for completing the tournament is a good, positive thing. Castigating people for their normal tendencies to acquire the cards they need to play is a bad thing, as long as they're not trampling on others to do it. We have a dispute over whether the quitters actually hurt their fellow tournament-goers underway elsewhere and it seems the key point. Other than that, I don't see the problem with it. And allowing a relative newcomer like Andrew to get Sabbat cards fairly easily is an important aid to recruiting new players! [ quoted text not captured ] What?!? Well, what are YOU proposing to do??? Your solution, as near as I can figure out, is to tell people not to enter a tournament unless they can finish it! You don't see the incongruity here? If telling people not to enter a tournament they can't finish is an option, I say just having them inform the judge as the leave works too. It's "kinder and gentler" and works on the exact same principle: chastisement of the offender. Don't bark at James for quitting. Chew him out for not telling Scott. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >>Dropouts did not seem to cause LSJ any great problem in that particular >>tournament. I did notice he was having quite a problem in the last round >>of the US Open, but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players >>not warning him they were going to drop. > >Listen to yourself here. "Dropouts did not _seem_ to cause LSJ any great >problem". Do you know that for sure? Have you talked to LSJ? Oh, cripes. I can see what he was doing and it didn't look difficult to me. It only sucked in that one round of the US Open because there were so many of them and because Scott felt the need to make sure no one had the same opponent twice or the same starting position twice. In a pinch, the second criteria seems pretty negligible to me and even the first one isn't that important. But to answer your question directly, yes: I am making some assumptions that seem reasonable and natural to me. I could be wrong about them but I don't think they're that farfetched, myself. And what about yourself? Since you've raised this issue, you've insisted that your interest in the quitters at the Sabbat Draft has nothing to do with your being the first one in line who failed to get a spot. Instead, it has to do with the interests of others who played in the tournament, of whom you weren't one, and now of the judge, a position you didn't fill either. None of these people are complaining, which would be a lot more productive because at least they could speak from direct experience about the problems they were caused. >Actually I did have a suggestion in my last post to James. I suggested that >he ask the judge how he would feel about him possibly dropping out of the >tournament before the last round. If it's fine with the judge and doesn't >make the tournament unworkable (dropping the number of players to 7, 11 or >another unworkable number) I agree it's probably not that big a deal. I agree: that is much more constructive comment than where you started. >>>I also must assume you have never been affected by #3 since continue to >>>only consider your theories and deny that has ever created a problem. >> >>Of COURSE I've been affected by #3. I was at EVERY tournament at GenCon >>except the duels. There were drops at every one of them (except maybe >>the NJL "team" tournament run by Bernie Thursday night). I'm sure I was >>"affected" by them in the sense you're talking about. Never noticed it, >>never cared. Why do you think I'm arguing with you? I'm arguing because >>I think it's ridiculous and upsurd to sit around worrying and obsessing >>about who could have been my opponent for a late round but isn't because >>they're gone now. I've got plenty of other silly little trifles to >>obsess over when I'm feeling sorry for myself. I don't need yours. > >Let me reword that then. You have never been _seriously_ affected by it. That's just the point. Because I've never been seriously affected by it - including in the very tournament you were concerned about - I have an issue with your telling some of the other people in that tournament that they were "bad-n-evil" when I never even noticed they were missing. Some of the other things you talk about, I might have other opinions about. A final where people drop? Did the judge tell the qualifiers and did they agree to show up? If yes and yes, then they're assholes if they didn't show up. Otherwise, the judge needs to find all the qualifiers after the last round and if he can't or if they don't agree to show, then he goes down the list and finds the next highest until he has five. (If someone complains about being passed over, you ask them where they were when the judge was looking for them.) As for people not showing up for a regular round and not telling the judge they were quitting, they're assholes, too. For not informing the judge, not for quitting at all. Whether that's serious or not kind of depends on how many people do it. The judge should do what Scott does and lay out out the tables and not allow anyone to start until everyone's at their position. Then, if people don't show after about 5 or 10 minutes (depends on the situation), you drop the absent and rearrange as necessary. If this is driving the judge batty, he lectures everybody about it at the start of the tournament. More often if necessary. I would think with enough gum flapping, you'll get a high enough compliance rate to at least stay sane. But whether or not you do, blame the practice that's actually causing the problem: not quitting but quitting without notice. --- Stuff snipped. We switched gears to the subject of whether I'm advocating people being irresponsible and uncaring about the effect their actions have on others: >When people make decisions they usually do so without having a negative >effect on others. When they find out that the decision may have a negative >effect on others they usually choose not to make that decision unless they >have to. I pointed at an example where that wasn't true and shouldn't be true: the "election" example - where I can and should be free to make up my mind who is the best candidate even when my vote will have a negative effect on other candidates. Also, note, this example demonstrates how your actions can have a negative effect on _somebody_ no matter what you do! For instance, if I vote, I have to vote for somebody. The alternative is to not vote, which I'm supposed to do as a public-minded citizen. If you don't agree with my take, please resolve this for me. Examples like these in life are quite common, whether you care to admit it or not. >All of this was to make one simple point. You say, "The problem here is not >that I don't care how my actions affect others." but then go on to say, "The >problem is that sometimes what you do may have negative effects on others >but I still have a right and legitimate interest in doing them." The point >is that you say the problem isn't that you don't care, but go on to say you >will do things that may have a negative effect on others if you have the >right and basically want to do so. That shows when it comes down to it your >not really concerned. How can you care and still drop when it could screw >others? Because I have a right to my own life! What you're failing to grasp is that there's a difference between things you want to do for people to be nice and things you just don't owe other people. For instance, if you get in line at the grocery store, others coming up behind you have to wait that much longer to get checked out. That's a negative thing and you caused it and you're not going to fix it. You may yield your position to someone with two items if you have a full grocery cart. But other than that, you were in line first and you're gonna get checked out first - because it's the fairest way. By the same token, should you have to get booted out of tournament while someone enters who just wants the cards and to play a single round? Well, they were ahead of you in line (or procured their ticket per the convention rules properly) so it's the fairest way. This is NOT about not caring what affect you have on others. >>>Finally I find it very interesting you sniped the part, without a >>>response, where I asked you if dropping out would still be "trival" >>>and have little effect if 29 players decided drop out. Why did you not >>>answer that? >> >>Because it isn't an issue. If mass dropouts start affecting tournaments >>then it behooves the organizers to address the problem. But the first >>question would be _why_ 29 people decided to drop out of a tournament. >>If, for instance, they'd have offered free Sabbat cards (carrot to get >>entrants) and put on an 8-round tournament with no bathroom breaks, they'd >>probably have a gotten a near-total resignation rate. But I'd say there'd >>be some changes they could make to fix the problem. > >This shows the problem with your position. You have to admit that if the >majority of players acted in the way you state is perfectly fine we would >have a problem. Either the action is ok or it's not. Nope! I utterly reject that principle! There's a lot of stuff people do that "if everybody did them" it would cause a problem. If everyone flushes their toilet or picks up their telephone at the same moment, it causes the utilities a problem. Is flushing a toilet or picking up a telephone evil? I think not. You have to be a bit practical when you set your standards about public behavior. If lots of people quitting is a problem, then we start asking people to assess their behavior. But again, I still the first thing you look at is why this is going on. If everyone wants to quit a tournament at some point, maybe the last part of the tournament isn't all it should be in terms of fun for some reason. It would bear looking at. Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> Six-player tables are not supported at V:EKN tournaments: all tables >> are to be four- or five-player tables. [VEKN 3.1.2] > >Thanks. >So a twenty-one person tournament is 4 tables of 4 and one table of 5 >instead of 3 tables of 5 and one of six. So now if a person drops the >seating goes to 4 tables of 5. Now the players on the single initial >table of 5 have a potential advantage over the tables of 4 because they >had the potential to win 5 victory points where everyone else only had >the potential to win 4 victory points. So in effect, a player dropping >out of the tournament has just penalized 16 players. Now, your counter >to this may be that those sixteen players would be penalized the length >of the entire tournament, but in reality what the judge would do is >rotate 5 new players to the 5 player table each round. So if 5 players >each round sit at the the five player table for three rounds that is >fifteen players who have access to an addition victory point, leaving 6 >players without access to the additional victory point, as opposed to >having someone quit after the first round which denies 16 players access >to an additional victory point. So by quitting you have denied and >additional 10 players access to an additional victory point. I have no idea what this could mean or where you're getting these numbers. (I want those charts and graphs in PDF format, please!) If there were 17 players and you dropped leaving 16, there was one five-player table and three four-player tables before and now there's four four-player tables, "penalizing" (though it isn't actually a bad thing as you seem to be claiming) four players in the sense of reducing their table size. If another player leaves, the remaining 15 players may *all* leave their four-player tables and go play on five-player tables. So why the hell don't you give the player who quit a medal for *helping* the rest of the players?!? SWOOSH! Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >In the first round you have 4 tables of players with access to 4 >victory points for each table and one table with access to 5 victory >points. If no one drops out of the tournament players are rotated on >and off the table with 5 victory point. Being seated at the table with >5 victory points is an advantage because you have the potential to sweep >and gain one more victory point than if you swept on a 4 person table. >So you have three rounds with 5 people each round get the opportunity to >gain a extra victory point for a total of 15 people getting the >opportunity, and the six players who did not get the opportunity to gain >an extra victory point. > >Now if a person drops after the first round and the tables are reset to >3 tables of 5 players each, now all the players for the remainder of the >tournament (barring another person quitting) have access to 5 points >each round for the remainder of the tournament. Unfortunantly since >everyone now is on a level playing field, the 5 players at the 5 person >in the first round table enjoyed an advantage that was not availible to >other 16 players during that round of a tournament. That advantage was >the opportunity to score one more victory point for a sweep. Unforunately, that's the problem. That is not an advantage since you are incorrect that sitting at a five person table is an advantage. It's true that you're theorectical maximum points in a five-player game is higher but that's not the only consideration. Consider the fact also that it's harder to sweep a five-player table. After ousting three opponents, you may still be ousted ousted by the fourth. Or that you may be near ousting your prey and starting the sweep, but there's one more person in the game who may beat you to the punch and start rolling up your opponents before you start your sweep. You keep obsessing over the fact that there's five victory points in the game. There's ALSO five players! It's not like someone came along and threw and extra VP in without the corresponding challenge. And by the way, even in your example, you started out with five players getting the advantage in three rounds - for a total of fifteen of the seventeen players - leaving two people relatively screwed. Instead, there's going to be five leaving 12 people relatively screwed. Is this supposed to be worse? How did you figure out that 15 out of 17 is good but 5 out of 17 is bad? The point is that not all players will be in the same number of four vs. five-player tables. How many is not important. Even if it is, I'm sure a couterexample can be derived where, for instance, the "unfairness" (which isn't) starts with a small number of players and someone quitting increases it. Then, would a quitter be doing a "good" thing? Can we give him a medal, now? SWOOSH! Fred

On 26 Aug 2000 16:09:44 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>like bleed or combat decks). We may not be able to stop all of it, >>but why not stop what we can? It can't but help. > >It depends on what you want to do stop it. LSJ offering an extra pack >for completing the tournament is a good, positive thing. Castigating >people for their normal tendencies to acquire the cards they need to >play is a bad thing, as long as they're not trampling on others to do >it. We have a dispute over whether the quitters actually hurt their Again, if a significant number of people leapt in and strip-mined a tournament, it would make it EXTREMELY less fun for everyone else, and leave a bad taste in the organizers' mouths, and probably result in those organizers not offering booster tournaments in the future. The analogies you offer elsewhere (what if everyone flushed the toilet at once) are almost accurate, but not quite: flushing the toilet is a Good Thing. One person grabbing their cards and running is a Small Evil. You would never bash everyone for all doing a Good Thing at once, even though it turns into a Small Evil, since it involves telling them not to do a Good Thing - so you just have to grin and bear it when they all flush at once. On the other hand, you could easily bash one person for committing a Small Evil, and it's better to stop the Small Evils than it is to let it become a Great Evil (half the entrants in a tournament grabbing the cards and running, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WILL GET if you ever let it be thought of as "OK" to do so. Do not believe that people are so "just basically good" as to not do this.) If you do not consider grabbing the cards and running to be a Small Evil, then I will openly question whether your "morality compass" is pointing due north. The purpose of running a booster tournament is NOT to hold a cheap bake sale for rare cards, as much as you'd like to believe it. It is to provide an alternate-format tournament for a little variety and fun, and there will be a little extra "oo!" involved since you get to keep the cards afterwards. This encourages attendance - using rare boosters ALSO encourages attendance, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of holding the tournament is to play the tournament. Plain and simple. If the tournament was secondary in importance, it would be posted on the boards as "Sabbat Booster Sale - $10 for 4 packs." >fellow tournament-goers underway elsewhere and it seems the key point. >Other than that, I don't see the problem with it. And allowing a >relative newcomer like Andrew to get Sabbat cards fairly easily is >an important aid to recruiting new players! Yes, which is a Good Thing, but it is a side effect, not a primary effect. And although I know Andrew didn't come in intending to strip-mine it, he left for other reasons, it still produces the same EFFECT as if he stripmined. Using that argument as one of the reasons to run draft and not worry about stripminers just won't wash. If you tolerate it for someone who is new, then why not tolerate it for someone who's been around a long time and just doesn't have much Sabbat? If you tolerate it for THEM too, why not just open the floodgates - and frankly, by then you already have. >>face of it. Someone who wants to drop will just bail, or not come >>back from food, or whatever. You can tell them 'til you're blue in >>the face "WARN THE JUDGE IF YOU DROP", and they still won't do it. >>Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call attention >>to themselves. > >What?!? Well, what are YOU proposing to do??? Your solution, as near >as I can figure out, is to tell people not to enter a tournament unless >they can finish it! You don't see the incongruity here? If telling people Fred, I don't understand what your problem is, frankly. You have successfully stated my entire argument in the nutshell I've conveniently provided for you. I am now certain that you are, indeed, reading what I'm saying. Yes, that is my solution. It is a simple one. It is not difficult to implement, especially if you tell people BEFORE the tournament starts to please not enter unless they intend to play the 3 rounds. It can be phrased extremely politely, and will offend nobody. It is reasonably simple to penalize people who do drop after being warned. Since one of the problems is people not informing the judge before dropping out, people who NEED to drop (their arm fell off and they need to go have it scotch-taped back on) will of course come and inform the judge, who will note that "Player ____, unavoidable drop, arm fell off", and no penalty need be assessed! However, I can't figure out why you think asking such a simple thing of people is so horrible. Please, do tell. It's based on the very simple principle of "finish what you start". MOST people learned this as children. Nobody will EVER object to it if they are told ahead of time, except maybe some selfish gamers who need to be LARTed anyway. This is, in fact, the way the world works - you are expected to finish things you begin. Maybe this isn't the way the CCG world works, but I personally have NO PROBLEM with V:TES leading the way back to humanity - it'll help set us apart from the crack fiends. >not to enter a tournament they can't finish is an option, I say just >having them inform the judge as the leave works too. It's "kinder and >gentler" and works on the exact same principle: chastisement of the Except it doesn't work, because those same gamers who need to be LARTed won't waste their time telling the judge as they leave, because of their very nature. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3opeqs8ke9dedeq31...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Hm. Maybe I shouldn't use the words "K-Y" and "hand over fist" in the >same sentence, huh. > >Oh well. As long as everyone was entertained. Actually, I think it was just me. (This seems more likely.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:49:42 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In article <3opeqs8ke9dedeq31...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Hm. Maybe I shouldn't use the words "K-Y" and "hand over fist" in the >>same sentence, huh. >> >>Oh well. As long as everyone was entertained. > >Actually, I think it was just me. (This seems more likely.) If it was just you, I think this says something about you. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ui1gqsg40369ifjhv...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >If it was just you, I think this says something about you. =) Yes. And? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >On 26 Aug 2000 16:09:44 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >>>like bleed or combat decks). We may not be able to stop all of it, >>>but why not stop what we can? It can't but help. >> >>It depends on what you want to do stop it. LSJ offering an extra pack >>for completing the tournament is a good, positive thing. Castigating >>people for their normal tendencies to acquire the cards they need to >>play is a bad thing, as long as they're not trampling on others to do >>it. We have a dispute over whether the quitters actually hurt their > >Again, if a significant number of people leapt in and strip-mined a >tournament, it would make it EXTREMELY less fun for everyone else, and >leave a bad taste in the organizers' mouths, and probably result in >those organizers not offering booster tournaments in the future. This I just disagree with. I don't think stripmining a tournament is a terribly bad thing that makes draft tournaments unfun. I think it can add an element of chaos to the tournament that's unforunate (players drafting for differing motivations) but I've never noticed that it's that bad. I think a lot of the other luck factors are much worse than that. IMHO, of course. >The analogies you offer elsewhere (what if everyone flushed the toilet >at once) are almost accurate, but not quite: flushing the toilet is a >Good Thing. One person grabbing their cards and running is a Small >Evil. Well, that's a problem. You think of it as a small evil. I don't see the point of looking at it as evil. The effects are unforunate in a minor way but expecting people to police themselves and never do this is just so impractical that I refuse to blame them for it. You show someone a set of cards and tell them to draft anything they want and will be allowed to keep what they pick and then you expect them to pass up an incredibly precious rare for some slight drafting strategy nuance? (This is an extreme example but it surely happens.) Sorry, people do not and will never have that much integrity. And I refuse to draw a line between "good drafting" and "bad drafting" because no obvious line exists. It's much more reasonable to just look at stripmining as something you have to deal with in drafts and not bother judging the folks who engage in it. >You would never bash everyone for all doing a Good Thing at >once, even though it turns into a Small Evil, since it involves >telling them not to do a Good Thing - so you just have to grin and >bear it when they all flush at once. On the other hand, you could >easily bash one person for committing a Small Evil, and it's better to >stop the Small Evils than it is to let it become a Great Evil (half >the entrants in a tournament grabbing the cards and running, WHICH IS >WHAT YOU WILL GET if you ever let it be thought of as "OK" to do so. >Do not believe that people are so "just basically good" as to not do >this.) Since the issue in the first place was quitting and the person raising this aspect of it was essentially saying, "Quitting is evil because if everyone does it, it ruins the tournament." I answered that this by itself does not making quitting evil and gave other examples of things done en masse that cause problems that are not evil in and of themselves. I do not and have never conceded that quitting is a "small evil" so none of this matters. The point is that en masse behavior having an ill effect does not make harmless sporatic behavior of the same sort "evil" or "more evil" than it can thought of to be otherwise. >If you do not consider grabbing the cards and running to be a Small >Evil, then I will openly question whether your "morality compass" is >pointing due north. The purpose of running a booster tournament is >NOT to hold a cheap bake sale for rare cards, as much as you'd like to >believe it. I'm not sure that that's true. If it were, then White Wolf should not have undercharged for the event as they did. I would suggest that you've decided in your own mind what the "purpose" is without really consulting anyone else. In any case, I don't there's a lot of point to judging stuff that you can't prevent, no one's really trying to prevent, and is an obvious temptation to people. >>>face of it. Someone who wants to drop will just bail, or not come >>>back from food, or whatever. You can tell them 'til you're blue in >>>the face "WARN THE JUDGE IF YOU DROP", and they still won't do it. >>>Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call attention >>>to themselves. >> >>What?!? Well, what are YOU proposing to do??? Your solution, as near >>as I can figure out, is to tell people not to enter a tournament unless >>they can finish it! You don't see the incongruity here? If telling people > >Fred, I don't understand what your problem is, frankly. You have >successfully stated my entire argument in the nutshell I've >conveniently provided for you. I am now certain that you are, indeed, >reading what I'm saying. Yes, that is my solution. It is a simple >one. But it doesn't make any sense. Why tell them not to drop at all if it's OK to drop as long as they notify you? How can you use the argument that people will ignore what you tell them if the problem is the same for either solution? What are you thinking? I can't tell. Both solutions are equally reasonable, one (telling them to notify) is less restrictive. Why ever bother with the other? >However, I can't figure out why you think asking such a simple thing >of people is so horrible. Please, do tell. Because there's no reason not to let people who want to drop do so. It's that simple. Laissez faire. Live and let live. That is always better when you can permit it and it doesn't cause a problem. >>not to enter a tournament they can't finish is an option, I say just >>having them inform the judge as the leave works too. It's "kinder and >>gentler" and works on the exact same principle: chastisement of the > >Except it doesn't work, ...in the same way that telling people not enter if they plan on quitting won't work. So your position makes no sense to me. Fred

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:LTrhMHB2...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In article <3opeqs8ke9dedeq31...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > >Hm. Maybe I shouldn't use the words "K-Y" and "hand over fist" in the > >same sentence, huh. > > > >Oh well. As long as everyone was entertained. > > Actually, I think it was just me. (This seems more likely.) > It wasn't just you. Mark Shanewood V:EKN Prince of Minneapolis (and a filthy bad naughty boy)

I'm a few days behind on reading this thread, so I apologize if my point (below) has already been made. Derek Ray wrote: > > I think you misread me. I believe it is foolish for US to expect > everyone who's going to drop to come to the TD and warn him, because > people will be just too damned lazy to do it. I don't agree. What happens at Magic tournaments is that if you don't properly inform the judge, you lose the next round. Some people were suggesting that players who drop get credited for 0 VP's for the remaining rounds. What I would find reasonable would be crediting people for 0 VP's for the round after they improperly dropped. Granted, this wouldn't be huge motivation for people to not just walk away, but it's something. > You can tell them 'til you're blue in > the face "WARN THE JUDGE IF YOU DROP", and they still won't do it. If you say so. I think that if you make it clear, people will do it. > Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call attention > to themselves. Huh? You make it sound like they'd feel guilty if people found out what they were doing. But most people who join a draft tournament just to get the cards think (IMO, rightfully) that they're behaving reasonably. > James Hamblin made an effort to do so > because he's been a V:TES player for awhile and knows LSJ. Well, I don't know LSJ any better than anyone else on the group... and I notified LSJ because I know that notifying the judge before the next round is seated is common courtesy. I'd bet that people who aren't aware that this would be appreciated don't do it, because they don't know better, not because they're lazy. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

Frederick Scott wrote: > If it were, then White Wolf should not > have undercharged for the event as they did. FYI: The V:EKN events at Gen*Con and Origins were run by Wizards of the Coast. The schedules and prices were set by agreement between myself and Wizards of the Coast before the license to V:TES changed hands. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o70ct$tut$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > [I wrote] > > Well, I think I can see where you were coming > > from now. But I still don't think your analysis > > is accurate. > > I guess we can agree to disagree. I guess we could, but I'll give it at least one more shot. ;-) > > Anyway. If you're trying to figure out the > > average number of victory points each person > > will get, assuming that who gets how many each > > game is random, it's easy: each person will > > average one (1) VP. This is because there always > > exists (except for timeouts) one VP per player. > > This is why the four-table disadvantage is not > > a *huge* disadvantage: yes, the most VPs you can > > get on a four-player table is 4, whereas you > > could get 5 on a five-player table. But *on > > average* you would get only 1 on either. > > I am not arguing for average victory points but potential victory points > which are two completely different animals. Hmm. Well, what you wrote before led me to believe that you were arguing for average victory points ("easier to get a victory point") as well as potential VPs. > > Would you argue that 20-player tables would > > give you a better chance to walk away from > > the table with a victory point than 5-player > > tables? <snip intervening material> (Not to mention that > > larger tables are more likely to time out, > > in which case VPs are lost and no one gets to > > sweep.) > > Exactly, within two hours five is the maximum number of vp's that you > can consistantly win. I'm not sure that even five can really consistently be won within two hours. I've seen five-player tables time out with all five players still in the game. More than once. > > Also: in your scenario above, if the player > > drops, fifteen players have 'access' to 14 > > total VPs and five have 'access' to 15. > > Only if that player was sitting on a four person table. If he was > sitting on the five person table thse the number changes to 4 and 16 That's true, but I don't think it changes anything: it means that you would have four players relatively advantaged (by this small effect) by the drop, and sixteen relatively disadvantaged. > If > > he does not drop, six players have 'access' > > to 12 VPs and fifteen have 'access' to 13. > > Is it really clear that this is more equitable? > > It is more equitable because it is the way the tournament starts. > Everyone understands that some players are going to not be able to sit > at the five player table. Now if you change how the seating is done, > you not only alter the players distribution of points but also the > potential to gain victory points for each player. That doesn't make it more equitable, it just means that people already know they might get screwed. Does changing how they might get screwed really make it worse? Obviously not, in any rational sense. > Also it is a matter of perception. Players tend to grumble about being > shorted the opportunity to get a point or how so and so got the > opportunity to get an extra point. But that will always happen, whether or not people drop, in a tournament that doesn't have a number of players evenly divisible by five. > > As for one VP being the difference between > > making the finals and not - perhaps you have > > been playing in larger tournaments than me, > > but I have seen many more cases where the > > fourth, fifth, and sixth-ranked players are > > separated by no more than half a VP if that, > > and who goes to the finals is determined by > > the tournament-points tiebreaker. And in > > tournaments like that, one sweep is generally > > enough to get you to the finals, whether it's > > on a four-player or five-player table. > > See here is where we differ . I have seen players sweep a 4 person > table and not make it to the finals. It is really unfair that the 4 > person table is where they swept. In addition, since they swept a > table, other players tend to gang up on them as they are perceived as a > threat. The politicing usually goes like: "Uh, oh there's Josh. He just > swept the last table. He is the biggest threat. He brought his Chinese > Tin Soldier deck (or what ever the name of your deck is). It is a > killer deck. Oh, you didn't bring a killer deck. Well I'll help you out > against him if you help me out." I always thought that in tournaments, everyone was supposed to bring a killer deck? I mean, for sure, people may try to join forces against what they perceive to be the biggest threat on their table. But do they really take more notice of how many VPs you got in your last game than of how well your deck is performing in this game? If so, I have to think they're not playing the game well. It's not to your advantage to give someone else VPs by ganging up on somebody who isn't really unstoppable. > But back to your point, if a half a point is the difference when trying > to get into the finals, then isn't the opportunity to gain another whole > point worth so much more? Well, no, because the *opportunity* is worth very little indeed. The actual VP is worth a lot. But the "chance" to get one more VP with a sweep is a small chance at best. Josh another year older and apparently no wiser [ quoted text not captured ]

> Well, no, because the *opportunity* is worth > very little indeed. The actual VP is worth > a lot. But the "chance" to get one more VP > with a sweep is a small chance at best. If this is true that you believe that the opportunity to gain another victory point is not worth alot, then I would have to say that you wouldn't mind being seated at the four player table the entire tournament, while other players got the opportunity to play for five points. I think that if you play at a tournament with an odd four player table that you should stand up for your convictions and ask the judge to only seat you at four player tables. If I believed that it wasn't a handicap to be on a smaller table then I certainly would let the judge know, and stand by my convictions when he consistantly seated me at the small table as there are other players who dislike being seated there. But since I believe it is a handicap to be on the small table, I try to avoid it (while still staying in the tournament). You are a strong person for taking one for the team.:) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes (in response to Joshua Duffin's post): >> Well, no, because the *opportunity* is worth >> very little indeed. The actual VP is worth >> a lot. But the "chance" to get one more VP >> with a sweep is a small chance at best. > >If this is true that you believe that the opportunity to gain another >victory point is not worth alot, then I would have to say that you >wouldn't mind being seated at the four player table the entire >tournament, while other players got the opportunity to play for five >points. I think that if you play at a tournament with an odd four >player table that you should stand up for your convictions and ask the >judge to only seat you at four player tables. If I believed that it >wasn't a handicap to be on a smaller table then I certainly would let >the judge know, and stand by my convictions when he consistantly seated >me at the small table as there are other players who dislike being >seated there. Actually, now that you mention it, I'd probably go for it except for one thing: five-player tables are more fun than four-player tables. I wonder if that isn't why most players prefer five-player to four-player tables. You seem to reject the concept that average victory points won per player at a table is the statistic that determines how favorable it is to play at that table. To me, this seems like the only statistic that you should pay attention to. Not maximum possible points if you do the best you can possibly do. Fred

Joshua Duffin wrote in message <8o6l59$gni$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >In article <4b1dqs03tlkaulqjs...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:38:21 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> >> wrote: >> (big snip) >> Norm pointed out how horrible it is to actually come up with a listing >> of "OK, at 12 people, two can drop out but one can't" and the like. >> =) > >I wouldn't dispute that at a 12-person tournament, >dropouts can be problematic. But do people really >drop out that often from such small tourneys? Yes they do. Here in L.A. the vast majority of our Tournaments are around 12 to 15 people. Until we started making a point of telling people they should stay for the entire trournament, or not play at all, I would estimate we had some people drop out around 75% of the time. It was a real problem and many of the judges where very ticked off by it. Since we have started making a point of telling people not to play if they can't play the entire tournament the number of drop outs has dropped considerably. They still occur but not that often. >I would think that for local events like that, >you aren't that likely to get people who will find >themselves needing or wanting to leave partway >through. Since we have our tournaments at conventions (Orrcon, Gateway) almost all of them would drop to play something else. The general attitude was "I just had a couple of hours to kill and game of VTES would fill the time". We had a bunch that would drop for Legend of the 5 rings or Vampire live action games... Actually now that I think about it this may be part of the reason we have had so many drop out problems. Since our tournaments are at a game con we may have a very different experience then those that have tournaments not connected with a con. >I'd expect to see more drops in big >events at big conventions, where (a) there is lots >of other stuff you're missing out on by sitting >around in this tourney and (b) there are a lot of >players in the tourney, such that drops do not >reduce you to the awkward number of players (11). True. I'm sure the number of drops is worse in larger tournaments even though effect may not be as dramatic. However you still have a small number drop outs in smaller tournaments and the effect can be diasterous. >I don't see any problem with thinking that dropping >is okay in some cases but not others, by the way. >Is it acceptable to walk around naked in your >apartment? Probably. But is it okay to walk >around naked at a party? Maybe not. The big problem is that it says the behaviour is ok. As I have said in another post it's really hard to tell the guy that dropped out of the 39 player tournament with no compliant why he can't drop out of the 12 player tournament. It's also still a problem for the judge... Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn

> Actually, now that you mention it, I'd probably go for it except for one > thing: five-player tables are more fun than four-player tables. I wonder > if that isn't why most players prefer five-player to four-player tables. Sure, that's your reason (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) > You seem to reject the concept that average victory points won per player > at a table is the statistic that determines how favorable it is to play > at that table. To me, this seems like the only statistic that you should > pay attention to. Not maximum possible points if you do the best you > can possibly do. Well, average points per table is an interesting statistic except that I have never seen any table score exactly one point per player, and the only time I have seen the possibility in the 12 tournaments I have played of it even occuring was in this past tournament in New Orleans. The occurence that almost caused it was a domain challenge being called on the table that would have ousted everyone (including the player who called it). Of course, it was voted down immediately ,because unless you are about to be ousted, you try to score as many victory points as possible, and scoring only one victory point while being ousted just like everyone else on the table is not a viable victory stratagy to get you into the finals. Also, to address average points per player, do you build your tournament decks to merely score the average amount of points? I don't, and I honestly believe that most other players don't either. What you want is the most points. It is more likely that you will get more points if you have access to more possible points than other players. If I have access to 15 points, and you only have access to 12 points, then I can win a smaller percentage of the points I have availible to me than you can and still make it to the finals before you. And maybe, make it to the finals instead of you because although as hard as you tried you just didn't get a the same chance I did. Although, I can see why it doesn't matter to players who voluntarily quit whether they score enough points to make it to the finals or not, because they never intended to get to the finals in the first place. They are playing for a whole different set of reasons. Reasons I don't understand. Perhaps the fun is in quitting, I don't know. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8oe40...@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote: > > Actually now that I think about it this may be part of the reason we have > had so many drop out problems. Since our tournaments are at a game con we > may have a very different experience then those that have tournaments not > connected with a con. Yeah, that could be. I don't remember ever actually having someone drop out of a tournament I was running, most of which have been 'freestanding'. Although I have a vague memory of one occasion that someone might have left. Which was at a con... > The big problem is that it says the behaviour is ok. As I have said in > another post it's really hard to tell the guy that dropped out of the 39 > player tournament with no compliant why he can't drop out of the 12 player > tournament. > > It's also still a problem for the judge... Well, whatever works for you I guess. Josh 'better get yourself a lyricproof vest' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8oe4ak$gq9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > Well, no, because the *opportunity* is worth > > very little indeed. The actual VP is worth > > a lot. But the "chance" to get one more VP > > with a sweep is a small chance at best. > > If this is true that you believe that the opportunity to gain another > victory point is not worth alot, then I would have to say that you > wouldn't mind being seated at the four player table the entire > tournament, while other players got the opportunity to play for five > points. I think that if you play at a tournament with an odd four > player table that you should stand up for your convictions and ask the > judge to only seat you at four player tables. If I believed that it > wasn't a handicap to be on a smaller table then I certainly would let > the judge know, and stand by my convictions when he consistantly seated > me at the small table as there are other players who dislike being > seated there. But since I believe it is a handicap to be on the small > table, I try to avoid it (while still staying in the tournament). Well, it's certainly a different experience playing on a 4-player table rather than a 5-player one. I don't think it has a large effect on my (or anyone's) victory point totals, but it can be more fun to play on the 'full-sized' table. And I'm not denying that there *is* an effect in how many VPs you can get in a round if you sweep. I'm just saying it's a small effect, compared to things like what deck you're playing, who you sit next to, and how much sleep you've had the night before... > You are a strong person for taking one for the team.:) I know. ;-) Seriously, I like playing at 5-player tables better, and I would just as soon sit at all 5-player tables in a tournament. But I wouldn't even think of complaining that, in an event where not all the tables are 5-player, somebody else got to sit at more 5-player tables than I did. Josh 'Samson' Duffin [ quoted text not captured ]

> And I'm not denying that there *is* an effect in > how many VPs you can get in a round if you sweep. > I'm just saying it's a small effect, compared to things > like what deck you're playing, who you sit next to, > and how much sleep you've had the night before... I can agree that there are other factors that come into play. Some you can control some you can not. I believe that people quitting the tournament adversely affects the tournament for all the reasons that I have mentioned. I believe it is something that you can control. It merely requires self-control for players not to allow themselves to quit. ...and yes, I have played one or maybe even two tournaments just a tinsy tiny bit hungover. > > > You are a strong person for taking one for the team.:) > > I know. ;-) Seriously, I like playing at 5-player > tables better, and I would just as soon sit at all > 5-player tables in a tournament. But I wouldn't even > think of complaining that, in an event where not all > the tables are 5-player, somebody else got to sit at > more 5-player tables than I did. Nor would I, but I definantly think that someone dropping out of a tournament messes up the seating for everyone involved. I think that dropping out messes up the seating, messes up the point spread, messes up the image of the game, messes up the general attitude of the players for "sticking it out", and messes up the level of sportsmanship associated with the game. I think that any one of these is a reason for not quitting tournaments. I hope we see eye to eye on this. :) Comments Welcome. Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o8t3l$cun$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... > > >"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: > >>>Dropouts did not seem to cause LSJ any great problem in that particular >>>tournament. I did notice he was having quite a problem in the last round >>>of the US Open, but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players >>>not warning him they were going to drop. >> >>Listen to yourself here. "Dropouts did not _seem_ to cause LSJ any great >>problem". Do you know that for sure? Have you talked to LSJ? > >Oh, cripes. I can see what he was doing and it didn't look difficult to >me. It only sucked in that one round of the US Open because there were so >many of them and because Scott felt the need to make sure no one had the >same opponent twice or the same starting position twice. In a pinch, >the second criteria seems pretty negligible to me and even the first one >isn't that important. Again this statement is all about you and your subjective opinion. "I can see what he was doing and it didn't look difficult to ME". "In a pinch, the second criteria seems pretty negligible to ME". What you saw and thought doesn't matter diddly. It's really about what LSJ thought and felt about the situation. Everything I have seen and heard seemed to indicate he was less than thrilled with the behavior. >But to answer your question directly, yes: I am making some assumptions >that seem reasonable and natural to me. I could be wrong about them but >I don't think they're that farfetched, myself. Maybe not farfetched, but they are assumptions. I'm glad you have admitted that. >And what about yourself? Since you've raised this issue, you've insisted >that your interest in the quitters at the Sabbat Draft has nothing to do >with your being the first one in line who failed to get a spot. Instead, >it has to do with the interests of others who played in the tournament, >of whom you weren't one, and now of the judge, a position you didn't fill >either. None of these people are complaining, which would be a lot more >productive because at least they could speak from direct experience about >the problems they were caused. I have repeatedly told you my views and why I have them. My interest extends way beyond this single tournament and to all VTES tournaments and that state of the game in general. I have dealt with drop outs when running tournaments. I have talked to other judges and got their opinions and feelings about drop outs. I have played in over 50 tournaments and have actually been affected by drop outs several times, and been totally screwed once by one. In this particular case I talked with LSJ before the tournament about the problem of people dropping out. It was considered a problem. When I asked him about the drop out situation after it occurred he didn't say much but seemed unpleased. I do not know why LSJ has not voiced a opinion. It may be because he is officially a representative of White Wolf and has to encouraging and diplomatic all players. Even those that are annoying... (snip) >--- Stuff snipped. We switched gears to the subject of whether I'm >advocating people being irresponsible and uncaring about the effect >their actions have on others: >>When people make decisions they usually do so without having a negative >>effect on others. When they find out that the decision may have a negative >>effect on others they usually choose not to make that decision unless they >>have to. > >I pointed at an example where that wasn't true and shouldn't be true: >the "election" example - where I can and should be free to make up my >mind who is the best candidate even when my vote will have a negative >effect on other candidates. Also, note, this example demonstrates how >your actions can have a negative effect on _somebody_ no matter what >you do! For instance, if I vote, I have to vote for somebody. The >alternative is to not vote, which I'm supposed to do as a public-minded >citizen. If you don't agree with my take, please resolve this for me. The problem is this is a different situation. In a election it's the nature of the game. Everyone knows what they are getting into. One will win and the other lose. That's what they signed up for. When you sign up for a VTES tournament you are signing up for 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That's what the judge and players assume. They don't expect to get screwed or have to rearrange seating and change scores numerous times. In your example a vote against someone is the nature of the game. Dropping out of tournament goes against the nature of the game. >Examples like these in life are quite common, whether you care to admit it >or not. Examples like voting or the store line one are common. However you have failed to present a example that relates correctly to tournament drop outs. [ quoted text not captured ] Dead wrong. When you decide to play in that tournament you are giving up your right to your "own life" in many areas. Do you have the right to play a 120 card deck? No. Do you have the right to spend an hour smoking in the bathroom during the tournament? No. Do you have the right to shove cards up your sleeve or cheat in any other way? No. Why? Because you are submitting yourself to play under the rules of the game and the tournament. The rules clearly state 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That is what you submit too when you start. When you drop out you are choosing to break the rule at the possible detriment of the judge and players. If you want to "have a right to my own life" don't submit to joining the tournament in the first place. Your store line example shows my point perfectly. It demonstrates the fact there are rules that go beyond having the right to live our own lives. When I have 2 items and get stuck behind the full grocery cart I'm stuck. Why? Because of the common rules and order we live in. As you said the full grocery cart was there first and that is fair. If I'm in front, others have to wait for me. That is also fair. Why? Because the store, and society in general, says the person in line first gets severed first. Why is it suddenly different when it comes to the rules and fairness of a tournament? If I applied your logic in regards to VTES tournaments to this example I would shove the cart out of the way, say "I only have 2 items", and go to the front. After all I have a right to live my life... >By the same token, should you have to get booted out of tournament while >someone enters who just wants the cards and to play a single round? Well, >they were ahead of you in line (or procured their ticket per the convention >rules properly) so it's the fairest way. This is NOT about not caring what >affect you have on others. When it comes to getting into the tournament you are correct. Everyone ahead of me made it in fair in square. What they did after is the question... [ quoted text not captured ] LOL. Everyone flushing the tiolet at once... You just had to sink to toilet talk... :-P The difference between flushing the toilet and dropping out of a tournament is rather large. The toilet was ment to be flushed. Are tournaments ment to be dropped out of? Someone flushing a toilet is doing exactly what they should. Someone dropping out of tournament is doing something questionable. There are no rules or organization set up for toilet flushing. There are rules and organization set up for tournaments. I don't see this example relates at all except to the point that if everyone does it will become a problem. If that is the case the ultility will take steps to prevent people from doing the action, like we should in the case of people dropping out, rather than examine the "problem with toilets". I remember sometime (superbowl or maybe new years) that the utilities and the news where broadcasting that people should not flush there toilets in case of a problem. I'm simply saying people should not start a tournament and then drop out as this type of behaviour could cause problems, or may lead more behavior that could cause future problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy wrote: > > Dead wrong. When you decide to play in that tournament you are giving up > your right to your "own life" in many areas. Do you have the right to play a > 120 card deck? No. Correct, because there is a specific rule prohibiting it. (6.2) > Do you have the right to spend an hour smoking in the > bathroom during the tournament? No. You have the right, but (according to the tournament rules) you will be dropped from the tournament if you don't arrive before 15 minutes after the start of the round. (3.3) > Do you have the right to shove cards up > your sleeve or cheat in any other way? No. Correct, because cheating is specifically prohibited. (5.1) > Why? Because you are submitting > yourself to play under the rules of the game and the tournament. The rules > clearly state 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That is what you submit too when > you start. When you drop out you are choosing to break the rule at the > possible detriment of the judge and players. Incorrect. Rule (3.1.4) specifically states: > Players choosing to withdraw from an event must inform the scorekeeper before > the seatings for the next round are generated. Players leaving the tournament > after the scorekeeper begins seatings for the next round receive a 0 VP finish > in the upcoming round, and will be removed from the event after that round. That such withdrawal from the event is allowed is directly implied by this rule. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Those demigods with their nine inch nails" -- Tori Amos

In article <39AB326C...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > Steve Bucy wrote: > > Why? Because you are submitting > > yourself to play under the rules of the game and the tournament. > > The rules clearly state 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That is what > > you submit too when you start. When you drop out you are choosing > > to break the rule at the possible detriment of the judge and > > players. > > Incorrect. Rule (3.1.4) specifically states: > > > Players choosing to withdraw from an event must inform the > > scorekeeper before the seatings for the next round are generated. > > Players leaving the tournament after the scorekeeper begins > > seatings for the next round receive a 0 VP finish in the upcoming > > round, and will be removed from the event after that round. Well, then. At last it is official. [all "you"s are generic, and not aimed at specific individuals.] You will have to inform me 5 minutes after the first round starts, because I use "The Archon" tournament helper provided by Stephen "The Evil One" Buonocore that is available on http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes. Seating for all three rounds is done and decided as soon as I finish entering the names for the first round. You will receive a 0 VP finish in the 2nd round immediately upon announcing your intent to withdraw. Then I will redo the seating for the second and third rounds. If you then tell me that you are dropping before the third round, you will receive a 0 VP finish in that round, and be prohibited from the final (not that you would care, having decided to drop anyway). > That such withdrawal from the event is allowed is directly implied by > this rule. Withdrawal is allowed. It is also penalized. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8oenrv$9h9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > [snip] > Nor would I, but I definantly think that someone dropping out of a > tournament messes up the seating for everyone involved. I think that > dropping out messes up the seating, messes up the point spread, messes > up the image of the game, messes up the general attitude of the players > for "sticking it out", and messes up the level of sportsmanship > associated with the game. I think that any one of these is a reason for > not quitting tournaments. > > I hope we see eye to eye on this. :) I guess, of the reasons you named, the only one I really believe is that it messes up the seating. But I'm certainly willing to stop going around in circles about it at this point. ;-) Josh 'she don't ever holler cuckoo till the fourth day of july' [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote in message <39AB326C...@math.wisc.edu>... > >Steve Bucy wrote: >> >> Dead wrong. When you decide to play in that tournament you are giving up >> your right to your "own life" in many areas. Do you have the right to play a >> 120 card deck? No. > >Correct, because there is a specific rule prohibiting it. (6.2) > >> Do you have the right to spend an hour smoking in the >> bathroom during the tournament? No. > >You have the right, but (according to the tournament rules) you will be >dropped from the tournament if you don't arrive before 15 minutes after >the start of the round. (3.3) That's the point. You can do it, but you won't be playing in the tournament if you do. >> Do you have the right to shove cards up >> your sleeve or cheat in any other way? No. > >Correct, because cheating is specifically prohibited. (5.1) > >> Why? Because you are submitting >> yourself to play under the rules of the game and the tournament. The rules >> clearly state 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That is what you submit too when >> you start. When you drop out you are choosing to break the rule at the >> possible detriment of the judge and players. > >Incorrect. Rule (3.1.4) specifically states: > >> Players choosing to withdraw from an event must inform the scorekeeper before >> the seatings for the next round are generated. Players leaving the tournament >> after the scorekeeper begins seatings for the next round receive a 0 VP finish >> in the upcoming round, and will be removed from the event after that round. > >That such withdrawal from the event is allowed is directly implied by >this rule. Allowed yes. There are situations where someone will have to withdrawl. Illness, emergency, mom is making me leave... However it is interesting to note there is a penalty if not announced. If withdrawl is no problem why the penalty? I would still make the point that dropping out is not intended to be part of the tournament. [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote in message <39AB326C...@math.wisc.edu>... > > > >Steve Bucy wrote: > >> > >> Do you have the right to spend an hour smoking in the > >> bathroom during the tournament? No. > > > >You have the right, but (according to the tournament rules) you will be > >dropped from the tournament if you don't arrive before 15 minutes after > >the start of the round. (3.3) > > That's the point. You can do it, but you won't be playing in the tournament > if you do. You said (above) "do you have the right ...? No." How is that a correct statement? > However it is interesting to note there is a penalty if not announced. If > withdrawl is no problem why the penalty? Unannounced withdrawal is a problem, since it requires the TO to reseat the round, which can be a hassle. However, if the TO is notified properly, there really isn't a problem; you'll have to do the same amount of work seating the round, you just toss away one of your index cards (or whatever). > I would still make the point that dropping out is not intended to be part of > the tournament. Well, consider that the V:EKN tournament rules are based on the DCI tournament rules, which are based on the DCI tournament rules for Magic. And in Magic (as in every other card game I've ever heard of), dropping part-way through a tournament is acceptable. Look: I'm sick of arguing the "morality" of dropping out. Clearly you feel very passionately on the subject. As much as I disagree with you, you're always going to harbor animosity towards people who drop from a tournament. The point I'm trying to make is that this is _your_ problem. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be permitted. You (or someone like you) have already agreed that it would be nearly impossible to keep people from dropping voluntarily. By making such a huge deal out of this, what happens to casual players who would like to play in tournaments but don't necessarily want to stick around getting their butts kicked the whole time? They're not going to understand why you want them to stay (I sure don't), and your attitude may very well sour them on the whole tournament experience. My opinion is that we could use as many people playing in tournaments at major events as possible. If some of them drop, people aren't going to think "what a crappy game, people dropped out so it must be crappy". If they play _any_ other card game, they will be aware that people drop out of tournaments. It doesn't mean the game sucks; it means they were doing crappy, and since they drove hundreds of miles to get to a friggin' convention, they're not about to sit around not having fun while there's 200 other fun things to be doing. As I write this, I'm imagining all the counter-arguments being brought up _again_ and wonder why I even bother. So, if anyone has anything else new to say on the matter, please do... otherwise, I'm just too sick of this thread to bother anymore. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote in message <8o8t3l$cun$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... >> >>"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >> >>>>Dropouts did not seem to cause LSJ any great problem in that particular >>>>tournament. I did notice he was having quite a problem in the last round >>>>of the US Open, but I feel the problem had a lot more to do with players >>>>not warning him they were going to drop. >>> >>>Listen to yourself here. "Dropouts did not _seem_ to cause LSJ any great >>>problem". Do you know that for sure? Have you talked to LSJ? >> >>Oh, cripes. I can see what he was doing and it didn't look difficult to >>me. It only sucked in that one round of the US Open because there were so >>many of them and because Scott felt the need to make sure no one had the >>same opponent twice or the same starting position twice. In a pinch, >>the second criteria seems pretty negligible to me and even the first one >>isn't that important. > >Again this statement is all about you and your subjective opinion. "I can >see what he was doing and it didn't look difficult to ME". "In a pinch, the >second criteria seems pretty negligible to ME". What you saw and thought >doesn't matter diddly. When you start bitching about stuff the judge himself doesn't complain about (and for the record, I wouldn't make any assumptions either way) then that's the only means I have of telling. This gets back to your practice of complaining for other people. You might be right or you might not but until someone can describe it in first person, my subjective means as much as yours. More if it involves incidents in which I was present and you weren't. >>And what about yourself? Since you've raised this issue, you've insisted >>that your interest in the quitters at the Sabbat Draft has nothing to do >>with your being the first one in line who failed to get a spot. Instead, >>it has to do with the interests of others who played in the tournament, >>of whom you weren't one, and now of the judge, a position you didn't fill >>either. None of these people are complaining, which would be a lot more >>productive because at least they could speak from direct experience about >>the problems they were caused. > >I have repeatedly told you my views and why I have them. My interest extends >way beyond this single tournament and to all VTES tournaments and that state >of the game in general. I have dealt with drop outs when running >tournaments. I have talked to other judges and got their opinions and >feelings about drop outs. I have played in over 50 tournaments and have >actually been affected by drop outs several times, and been totally screwed >once by one. In this particular case I talked with LSJ before the tournament >about the problem of people dropping out. It was considered a problem. When >I asked him about the drop out situation after it occurred he didn't say >much but seemed unpleased. The problem I've seen in your complaints is that you're generally applying some specific circumstance which wasn't present at the Sabbat Draft. There were more than 12 people, many more. No one dropped out of the final. The number of drops appeared managable, IMHO. >I do not know why LSJ has not voiced a opinion. It may be because he is >officially a representative of White Wolf and has to encouraging and >diplomatic all players. That's probably a reasonable guess and I can think of several others besides (like not being driven to waste time arguing about it the way you and I are). Again, I make no assumptions. >>--- Stuff snipped. We switched gears to the subject of whether I'm >>advocating people being irresponsible and uncaring about the effect >>their actions have on others: >>>When people make decisions they usually do so without having a negative >>>effect on others. When they find out that the decision may have a negative >>>effect on others they usually choose not to make that decision unless they >>>have to. >> >>I pointed at an example where that wasn't true and shouldn't be true: >>the "election" example - where I can and should be free to make up my >>mind who is the best candidate even when my vote will have a negative >>effect on other candidates. Also, note, this example demonstrates how >>your actions can have a negative effect on _somebody_ no matter what >>you do! For instance, if I vote, I have to vote for somebody. The >>alternative is to not vote, which I'm supposed to do as a public-minded >>citizen. If you don't agree with my take, please resolve this for me. > >The problem is this is a different situation. In a election it's the nature >of the game. Everyone knows what they are getting into. One will win and the >other lose. That's what they signed up for. When you sign up for a VTES >tournament you are signing up for 2 or 3 rounds and a final. That's what the >judge and players assume. I dispute that. These are the precise details of the player drop issues have been argued about elsewhere. In any event, I've made my point right there: that the issue is not about advocating people be uncaring in general about what effect their actions have on others. It's simply that we disagree about the specifics of whether it's reasonable to drop out of tournaments. If it is, then the two situations correspond for these purposes. I'm not going to rehash all the points and counterpoints of whether someone has morally committed himself to a certain amount of play just by virtue of entering a tournament. The point is that if you accept that they haven't then they're making decisions about living their own life that they have every right to make whatever decision they wish to make and others need to accept that and go on. >Dead wrong. When you decide to play in that tournament you are giving up >your right to your "own life" in many areas. Do you have the right to play a >120 card deck? No. Do you have the right to spend an hour smoking in the >bathroom during the tournament? No. Do you have the right to shove cards up >your sleeve or cheat in any other way? No. Why? Because you are submitting >yourself to play under the rules of the game and the tournament. The rules >clearly state 2 or 3 rounds and a final. Whatever. This is a different argument. There _are_ 2 or 3 rounds and a final. Nothing says each entrant must partipate in them. They only need to participate if they expect to win them. These things are the domain of the tournament rules. Generally speaking, if you violate something in the tournament rules, you are saddled with a tournamment penalty which either eliminates you from the tournament or makes it more difficult for you to win the tournament. Some rules may involve penalties beyond the play of the immediate event (i.e. suspension from future VEKN tournaments). For obvious reasons, these kinds on penalties would be the only ones of interest to someone who might wish to quit a tournament before finishing. If there were such a commitment as you're trying to suggest, then one would expect to see a tournament rule involving at least review and possible suspension of players for quitting. Instead, the VEKN rules (for example), merely state that they "must inform the scorekeeper before the seatings for the next round are generated". (Rule 3.1.4, if you want to look it up.) If they fail to do so, they risk receiving no victory points (but presumedly being show as participating in the game, which I case penalizes their rating) for the next round. If you want to conjecture some further implication above and beyond the tournament rules, that's your problem. I'll care if it can be pointed out to me what actual problem is caused, but IMHO, you've failed to do that as well. ---Concerning Steve's charge that something is wrong because it would cause a problem if lots of people did it, I wrote: >>Nope! I utterly reject that principle! There's a lot of stuff people do >>that "if everybody did them" it would cause a problem. If everyone flushes >>their toilet or picks up their telephone at the same moment, it causes the >>utilities a problem. Is flushing a toilet or picking up a telephone evil? >>I think not. You have to be a bit practical when you set your standards >>about public behavior. If lots of people quitting is a problem, then we >>start asking people to assess their behavior. But again, I still the first >>thing you look at is why this is going on. If everyone wants to quit a >>tournament at some point, maybe the last part of the tournament isn't all >>it should be in terms of fun for some reason. It would bear looking at. > >The difference between flushing the toilet and dropping out of a tournament >is rather large. The toilet was ment to be flushed. Are tournaments ment to >be dropped out of? Since your reasoning returns to the issue of entering a tournament being construed as committing to its duration, I'll just refer you to my treatment of that point further up. Your response indicates that our dispute - once again - is not whether mass behavior makes individual behavior wrong. It's a dispute over whether the individual behavior is wrong in and of its own accord. >I remember sometime (superbowl or maybe new years) that the utilities >and the news where broadcasting that people should not flush there >toilets in case of a problem. Yes, this was why I rasised that particular example. >I'm simply saying people should not start a tournament and then >drop out as this type of behaviour could cause problems, or may lead more >behavior that could cause future problems. I think you do what they did with the Superbowl. (It was actually halftime at the Superbowl that was causing the problem.) If somethings like this is causing a problem, you make a special appeal to the players not to engage in it, which is limited to when and where the problem occurs. You don't tell people not to flush their toilets. You tell them not to flush their toilets at halftime during the Superbowl. You don't tell players not to quit. You tell them not to quit when you've got a 12-player tournament - and you tell them _before_ the tournament starts so they can consider their decision to enter first. If the problem of player drops is more general than that, then let's change rule 3.1.4 and start handing out suspensions (or threatening to hand out suspensions) to players who drop without some "good reason". At least that would spell out a player's responsibility in advance. But I don't see any reason for anything like that. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >>That such withdrawal from the event is allowed is directly implied by >>this rule. > >Allowed yes. There are situations where someone will have to withdrawl. >Illness, emergency, mom is making me leave... And there are situations where people merely _want_ to withdraw. >However it is interesting to note there is a penalty if not announced. If >withdrawl is no problem why the penalty? For the same reason that has been discussed over and over: quitting is not the problem. Quitting _without giving notice_ causes the last minute reseating problem which I've conceded elsewhere. So the answer is precisely what the VEKN rules prescribe: no penalty if the quitter takes care to withdraw using the correct procedure. Fred

X_Ze...@email.msn.com writes: >> Actually, now that you mention it, I'd probably go for it except for >> one thing: five-player tables are more fun than four-player tables. I >> wonder if that isn't why most players prefer five-player to four-player >> tables. > >Sure, that's your reason (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Look, just because you can't get it through your head that five-player tables are not an advantage in a tournament doesn't mean no one else can. So speak for yourself. >> You seem to reject the concept that average victory points won per >> player at a table is the statistic that determines how favorable it >> is to play at that table. To me, this seems like the only statistic >> that you should pay attention to. Not maximum possible points if you >> do the best you can possibly do. > >Well, average points per table is an interesting statistic except that I >have never seen any table score exactly one point per player, and >the only time I have seen the possibility in the 12 tournaments I have >played of it even occuring was in this past tournament in New Orleans. >The occurence that almost caused it was a domain challenge being called >on the table that would have ousted everyone (including the player who >called it). Of course, it was voted down immediately ,because unless you >are about to be ousted, you try to score as many victory points as >possible, and scoring only one victory point while being ousted just >like everyone else on the table is not a viable victory stratagy to get >you into the finals. Perhaps not. But the difference is trivial. >Also, to address average points per player, do you build your >tournament decks to merely score the average amount of points? I don't, >and I honestly believe that most other players don't either. What you >want is the most points. It is more likely that you will get more >points if you have access to more possible points than other players. That would matter if it took some huge number of points to get in the final. For instance, if you over several thousand players playing for five final spots, then it might be that to have a chance to qualify for the finals, you'd have to sweep three five-player tables - in which case playing on a four-player table would be the kiss of death. But if they had that many players and that few final spots (no semi-finals, for instance), then they should be playing more preliminary rounds. As it is, our 36 player Sabbat tournament required something like five or six points, average two points or less per game, to make the finals. You can just as easily make such a showing on a five player as a four player table. Or the difference is so trivial I can't see how anyone would ever worry about it. >If I have access to 15 points, and you only have access to 12 points, >then I can win a smaller percentage of the points I have availible to me >than you can and still make it to the finals before you. Agreed. But that doesn't make any easier to do. It just means you have more contests. I suppose it would be like several teams in a baseball league where the top spot is determined by the number of games over .500 a team finishes rather than their winning percentage. 15 games would be an advantage over 12 but only a slight one. (You can lose those extra three games, too.) Especially when five spots are being fought over, not just one. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: >Yes they do. Here in L.A. the vast majority of our Tournaments are around 12 >to 15 people. Until we started making a point of telling people they should >stay for the entire trournament, or not play at all, I would estimate we had >some people drop out around 75% of the time. ... >The big problem is that it says the behaviour is ok. As I have said in >another post it's really hard to tell the guy that dropped out of the 39 >player tournament with no compliant why he can't drop out of the 12 player >tournament. If you don't tell them, there is no reason. When you tell people ahead of time they should stay for the entire tournament and you tell them why - "Our tournaments are so small that drops make a big difference to us!" - then it shouldn't be that hard to expect them not to drop. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote in message <8oj97r$4th$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>... > > >"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> writes: (snip of long and endless debate) >>I'm simply saying people should not start a tournament and then >>drop out as this type of behaviour could cause problems, or may lead more >>behavior that could cause future problems. > >I think you do what they did with the Superbowl. (It was actually halftime >at the Superbowl that was causing the problem.) If somethings like this >is causing a problem, you make a special appeal to the players not to >engage in it, which is limited to when and where the problem occurs. You >don't tell people not to flush their toilets. You tell them not to flush >their toilets at halftime during the Superbowl. You don't tell players not >to quit. You tell them not to quit when you've got a 12-player tournament - >and you tell them _before_ the tournament starts so they can consider their >decision to enter first. What we have done here in L.A. is to simply announce that all players are expected to stay for the entire tournament and if they can't they should not start. It has had a pretty good effect. The tournaments have remained about the same size but we have far less drops. However we also let the people that drop know that we don't appreciate them dropping. I don't know if LSJ annouced the tournament at Gencon was 3 rounds and a final or not. If not that may be part of the reason people dropped. >If the problem of player drops is more general than that, then let's change >rule 3.1.4 and start handing out suspensions (or threatening to hand out >suspensions) to players who drop without some "good reason". At least >that would spell out a player's responsibility in advance. But I don't >see any reason for anything like that. In L.A. we have considered taking such steps in the past. I'm entirely in agreement that something should be done if the problem gets worse. We obviously disagree strongly if something should be done now. As I have said it's because of my past experiences that I believe something should be done. You, and others, have not been effected by people dropping out and thus don't have the same opinion. At any rate I will state again what I feel the best solution is. People that are even considering the possiblity of dropping out should ask the judge how he feels about them dropping out before they begin playing. If the judge says no problem then they are fine. If not, they should not play. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn >Fred

> > Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call attention > > to themselves. > > Huh? You make it sound like they'd feel guilty if people found out what > they were doing. But most people who join a draft tournament just to > get the cards think (IMO, rightfully) that they're behaving reasonably. > Hmm so do you think it's okey to go to someone's birthdayparty just to get free food and not because you actually care about that person's birthday? So when all other people that go there bring presents with them you don't, you just go there and eat the food and leave? I don't know about you, but while it's not a crime I think such an act would be highly immoral. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8o3kji$5e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article <8o1u80$2cf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > The reason those points would be better off is that they are points > that > > would have been availible to other players. So now the final point > score > > is skewed because you left with points that should have gone to other > > players who intended to finish the tournament. The points you won on > > the table should have been won by someone else in your absence, and > the > > point that your potential ousting represents in the rounds you > > did not participate is also denied to other players. So now by > leaving > > you have "screwed" the other players out of those points. > > > > I am sorry that you can not conceptualize the impact of empty points > on > > the tournament, but that is what the above mentioned points are, > empty. > > By quitting you negate the value of those points. To use an analogy, > It > > is like taking burning U.S. Currency. The currency has a value, which > > is only good for exchange, but you are destroying it, therefore taking > > it out of circulation. The U.S. government expects a fixed supply of > > money to be availible, and bases all of its calculations on that fixed > > supply (calculations like taxes). Only now you have reduced that > fixed > > amount, therefore rendering their calculations erroneoous. There is a > > reason that destroying currency is against the law. It is a bad thing > > because it messes up the money supply. For example if the overall > money > > supply is $1,000,000.00 and you burn $100,000.00, then you now only > have > > $900,000.00. The government expects there to be $1,000,000.00 in > > circulation. So, the government taxes its citizens for $300,000.00, > but > > now there is only $900,000.00. So instead of paying a tax rate of 30% > > you are now paying a tax rate of 33%. This is a real world example of > > why removing currency from circulation is la crime. > > Oh no. No no no. This is not an accurate > economic picture. > > If, instead of burning $100,000 of the $1,000,000 > money supply, you stuck it all in your mattress, > and never spent it in your life, would that be a > crime? No, it wouldn't. Why not? Because when > you have money, you can do whatever you want with > it. The law against destroying currency is mostly > just because the government likes to tell you what > to do. > > If you *did* take your $100,000 out of circulation, > by burning it, stuffing all your pillows with it, > or whatever, that would *not* make the effective > tax rate higher. > > The remaining $900,000 would now be 'worth' what > the previous $1,000,000 was 'worth'. Taking money > out of circulation is deflationary: it causes nominal > prices to fall. Things that used to cost $1.00 will > now cost $0.90. > > If the government *did* decide to tax people for > $300,000 of their wealth (what it thought was a > 30% wealth tax), that would indeed become a 33% > wealth tax after the $100,000 was taken out of > circulation. But governments don't usually tax > wealth, for this among other reasons. Instead > they usually tax income, and they tax it at some > fixed percentage rate. If the government had an > income tax beforehand of 30% of everyone's annual > income, and it was expecting people to have > $1,000,000 in income, it would have expected to get > $300,000. After the $100,000 left circulation, > people's income would be $900,000 for the year, and > the government's 30% tax would take $270,000 of > that, which brings us right back to the government > getting 30% of the total income in the economy. > > As you can see, taking money out of circulation > *does not* change anything about the 'real' size > of the economy (that is, the amount of goods and > services produced). It changes only the numbers > attached to those goods and services, which is to > say, the 'nominal' size of the economy. > > Make sense? > > > Similarly, quitting a tournament messes up the points supply. Points > > are used to get to the finals in tournaments. If you quit, then you > > remove points from the point supply. These points would have been > there > > if you had never participated, but you, the quitter, quit and > therefore > > wrecked the points distribution for the tournament. > > Just like in an actual economy, it doesn't matter > if you take your first-two-rounds ten victory points > and go home with them. Instead of you being top seed > in the finals, the person with the next-highest VP > total will be top seed. As long as there are at least > five people remaining in the tournament, there will > be people to take all the seats in the finals. > > By ousting people instead of being ousted by them, > you have made it harder for certain individuals to > get to the finals. However, that's exactly what > would have happened to them if you *had* stayed in > the tournament and played in the finals - they would > be no less screwed if you did *not* drop than if you > do. > > > So, if your mentality is that you don't wreck the points spread by > > removing yourself from a tournament, then you obviously don't see how > > removing them from circulation affected the overall point > distribution. > > In saying that, you are saying that if you started burning cash > (thereby > > removing money from the money supply) then your taxes wouldn't > increase. > > The money would become more valuable and therefore your lump sum of > > taxes to the government would be worth more. > > But the money you have left would *also* be worth > more! Plus, the government *doesn't tax people* in > lump-sum terms. It's all in percentages, partially > because the government *doesn't know* what the money > supply is. > > > Similarly when you remove yourself from a tournament, the remaining > > points in the tournament become more valuable because there are less > to > > be had. So if you won alot of points in the first round your points > are > > more valuable now that a player has quit. Conversely, if you won no > > points in the first round and a player quits, you are screwed. Points > > become scarcer and the players with a larger win in rounds prior to > the > > quitter quitting are better off than players who win points after the > > quitter has quitted. > > This isn't right either. > > If a no-points player leaves the tournament after > the first round, there will be two fewer VPs total > to be distributed among all the players. However, > there are also two fewer player-spots trying to win > VPs. Every player's "expected VPs each round" > (that is, the statistical average number of VPs each > player would win over an infinite number of rounds) > remains the same: 1. > > There are fewer VPs to be won, yes, but it will > now require fewer VPs to make the finals! > > The only thing that keeps Jyhad tournaments from > adhering perfectly to these principles is that > the scoring system is relatively granular: there > are not that many discrete levels of VPs for > different players to have. This is because the > expected score each round is only 1, rather than, > say, 10 or 100, and there are no fractional VPs > (except for time-outs). In bowling, for example, > your score could range from 0 to 300 for a single > game. In Jyhad, it can only range from 0 to 5. > Since there are fewer possible levels, you may > end up with more ties if people with lots of VPs > do drop out before the finals. In practice, though, > I think people with many VPs are much less likely > to drop out than people with few or no VPs. > > > Do you now understand how quitting screws up the point spread or do I > > have to break out charts and graphs? > > I apologize for being blunt, but I'm not sure that > *you* understand how quitting does (or doesn't) > screw up the point spread. > > Josh "Economist" Duffin > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > No it doesn't make sense, because the government had expenses of $300,000 that they covered up with foreign loans knowing that they'd get the money to pay back with through the taxes. But now when it drops to $270,000 the government can't the loan back. Also, in the case of tournament play, when someone drops out it doesn't decrease the value of the already gained VP's among the other players. With your example 5 VP's would have become 4.5 VP's but they're still5 VP....which is what this whole discussion is about! Those who earned 5 VP's are suddenly "richer" than they would have been if the player stayed. I don't see why you can't admit that there's a significant effect here. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ok395$j6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, can...@my-deja.com wrote: [snip my attempt to explain some economic principles because it was really long] > No it doesn't make sense, because the government had expenses of > $300,000 that they covered up with foreign loans knowing that they'd > get the money to pay back with through the taxes. But now when it drops > to $270,000 the government can't the loan back. Okay, where the hell did that come from? Governments do not, in general, have pre-existing expenses that they have to pay for independent of tax revenue. They collect taxes and spend money throughout any given fiscal year. Bringing 'foreign loans' into the picture is just silly. (1) what is the analogy to Jyhad; (b) why do you want to bring foreign countries into a nice simple one-country economic model; (iii) what kind of government would have all its tax revenue committed to 'foreign loans'? > Also, in the case of tournament play, when someone drops out it doesn't > decrease the value of the already gained VP's among the other players. > With your example 5 VP's would have become 4.5 VP's but they're still5 > VP....which is what this whole discussion is about! Those who earned 5 > VP's are suddenly "richer" than they would have been if the player > stayed. I don't see why you can't admit that there's a significant > effect here. That's not what I said. In my example, if someone with no VPs drops out of a tournament after the first round, there will be two fewer VPs gained by all players collectively (VPs in the "economy") than if the player had stayed in. However, there will also be two fewer player- spots competing for VPs at the second and third round tables. Fewer VPs in the economy means that each remaining VP is "worth" more: it will take fewer VPs to qualify for the final round. If a player with several VPs after the first round drops out of the tournament, there will be, after the third round, X+2 VPs less among the players still in the tournament, where X is the number he or she had after the first round. Again, there are fewer VPs in the "economy" so the VPs of the people still in the tournament are more "valuable", and it will take even fewer VPs to qualify for the final round. What my entire economics discussion was meant to show is that, when an economy "shrinks", the "money" remaining in the economy is "worth" more in "real" terms (ie, the same nominal amount of money, or VPs, buys more than it did when there was more money, or VPs, in the economy). Thus, the only effect of a player dropping out of a tournament on VP distribution is that it will take fewer VPs to qualify for the finals. My point is not that this effect doesn't exist, but that it is insignificant, because if the player *didn't* drop out, the five people with the highest VP totals would *still* qualify for the finals. It's just that those highest VP totals might not be as high in nominal terms, since there are fewer VPs in the economy. Josh "even in my hometown people make me write it down they look at me when I talk to them and go what's he talking about?" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8olp0l$g04$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article <8ok395$j6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > can...@my-deja.com wrote: > > [snip my attempt to explain some economic > principles because it was really long] > > > No it doesn't make sense, because the government had expenses of > > $300,000 that they covered up with foreign loans knowing that they'd > > get the money to pay back with through the taxes. But now when it > drops > > to $270,000 the government can't the loan back. > > Okay, where the hell did that come from? > > Governments do not, in general, have pre-existing > expenses that they have to pay for independent of > tax revenue. They collect taxes and spend money > throughout any given fiscal year. > > Bringing 'foreign loans' into the picture is just > silly. (1) what is the analogy to Jyhad; (b) why > do you want to bring foreign countries into a nice > simple one-country economic model; (iii) what kind > of government would have all its tax revenue committed > to 'foreign loans'? Almost every country in the world has foreign loans that they have to pay off on (at least the interest rate, unless they want the debt to increase even further) and for this matter the government needs a budget. There can be thousands of scenarios as to why the governemnt doesn't get tax revenues ina given year that they had planned on. For example if a natural catastrophe occurs. The analogy with Jyhad is that a given plan is foiled if the base of the plan changes. If there's 5 spots for the final, and you happen to be #6 and trying to get enough VP's to make it to the final, you will try figure out how many points you need to get. If someone who doesn't have a chance to make it to the final drops out, then that means you lose the opportunity to get a VP by ousting him. It could be that very VP you needed to pass the current #5 player and make it to the final. It's not at all eaiser to make it to the final because someone dropped, in this case. If the dropper never had a chance to make it to the final, then his absence doesn't make the competition less, it in fact makes it even harder to reach the final, because there's one less VP to gain, and as the #6 you need as many as you can get. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8omnsj$nea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, can...@my-deja.com wrote: > If there's 5 spots for the final, and you happen to be #6 and trying to > get enough VP's to make it to the final, you will try figure out how > many points you need to get. If someone who doesn't have a chance to > make it to the final drops out, then that means you lose the > opportunity to get a VP by ousting him. It could be that very VP you > needed to pass the current #5 player and make it to the final. It's not > at all eaiser to make it to the final because someone dropped, in this > case. If the dropper never had a chance to make it to the final, then > his absence doesn't make the competition less, it in fact makes it even > harder to reach the final, because there's one less VP to gain, and as > the #6 you need as many as you can get. This is the same inaccurate logic that's been addressed several times already in this thread. I'll try to explain my perspective once more, but after that I don't think there's any point in going on. If you are #6 after two preliminary rounds and someone drops, you will still have someone sitting next to you in the third round that you can oust to get to the finals. The worst thing that can happen to you is that the drop might cause there to be one more four-player table than there was before the drop, and you could sweep that four-player table but not make it to the finals because you needed five points to make it and only got four. However, you could have been randomly seated at a four-player table even if that player had *not* dropped. You would have been equally out of luck. Furthermore, for you to have been #6 after two rounds and still #6 after three rounds after getting 4 VPs, everyone in the first five places would have to have gotten 5 VPs. An unlikely scenario, to say the least. Also note that the player who left and is no longer available to be ousted is *also* no longer trying to oust anyone. If he stayed in and ousted exactly one person, that would *still* be a VP that you could not get, and if he was not in contention for the finals that VP would be just as much "lost" as if he had dropped out. If he stayed in and *withdrew from the game*, he would keep his VP and you would still not be able to get it. Would you describe these scenarios as "increasing competition"? This is why I see the effects of a dropout in a large tournament as negligible at worst and unmeasurable at best. You don't "lose the opportunity to gain a VP by ousting him" because there will be someone *else* sitting at your table who you have the substituted opportunity to gain a VP by ousting. Only when a five-player table becomes a four-player table is an "opportunity" lost. And when a four-player table becomes a five-player table, an "opportunity" is instead gained (eg when a player drops from a 21-player tourney - before, there were four four-player tables and one five-player; after, there are four five-player tables). Josh there's just no there there [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ooblb$h3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> writes >However, you could have been randomly seated at a >four-player table even if that player had *not* >dropped. Possibly. A tournament with all 5 player tables is possible. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

can...@my-deja.com writes: >> > Stripminers certainly won't do it - they don't want to call >> >attention to themselves. >> >> Huh? You make it sound like they'd feel guilty if people found out >> what they were doing. But most people who join a draft tournament just >> to get the cards think (IMO, rightfully) that they're behaving >> reasonably. >> >Hmm so do you think it's okey to go to someone's birthdayparty just to >get free food and not because you actually care about that person's >birthday? So when all other people that go there bring presents with >them you don't, you just go there and eat the food and leave? Eh? You'd have to agree the two examples are analogous to care about this example. A lot of people don't. Fred