LSJ - How can this be right

I participated in my first competitive game of VTES in about 3 and half years or so at the weekend. The UK Nationals as it happened. I qualified for the final, played as well as I could (in light of the fact I knew none of the new cards and could only remember how to play 'about well enough') but got screwed over so I ended up third. All the way through the preliminary rounds it was drummed into me that there's a play to win rule now - you've gotta be prey focussed, and can get pulled up by the judge if they think you are taking a move which isn't in the interest of you nabbing a VP. And yet, in the final, a deal was struck where someone agreed to come SECOND, help another player oust me (who would therefore take first) and then roll over. Where's the playing to win here? Why do you not have to play to win in a final? Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more than what's on offer for first? Or worse still, can I just back oust someone, then transfer myself out, because a good mate of mine is my grand-predator and I'd really like him to win? If this is the state of competitive VTES play now, I'm bloody glad I'm out of it. Marty Super pissed about the turn of events

[ quoted text not captured ] still sounds like a fun tournament. standard tournament finals time out, usually because of some frenchman babbling about deals in pidgin english for two hours straight. after 5 years of witnessing loads of fruitless discussions about playing-to-win, I still believe the best method of enforcing this rule is to punch the dealmakers in the face :)

In message <1191829130.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk writes: >All the way through the preliminary rounds it was drummed into me that >there's a play to win rule now - you've gotta be prey focussed, and >can get pulled up by the judge if they think you are taking a move >which isn't in the interest of you nabbing a VP. You have to play to win, but you do not have to play to nab every VP. For example, you can back oust a player or cross-table oust a player, and that doesn't violate Play to Win if it's in your interests. For example, you're in a choice between oust your prey or back oust your predator. If you get your prey, you'll go back up to 7 or 8 pool, but then your predator will stealth-bleed you out. So you can happily pass up the VP to back-oust your predator. There are many other situations like this. If the judge believes that you're still trying to play to get the Game Win, it's likely to be legitimate Play to Win[0] play. Additionally, it is absolutely not the judge's responsibility to correct poor play. As anyone who's ever watched a tense game of V:TES knows, there are tons of times when you see someone make a mistake that loses them the game. The judge is not supposed to correct poor play, if it's actually poor play. That is, you must always play for a table win, however it's available. If there are several ways of getting a table win (a 3-2 split, a 5-0 sweep), pick whichever you want. You cannot give up the game win and come second, but the judge cannot disallow a move just because it stops you getting a particular VP. Then if you're not able to get a table win, you play to get as many VPs as possible. >And yet, in the final, a deal was struck where someone agreed to come >SECOND, help another player oust me (who would therefore take first) >and then roll over. > >Where's the playing to win here? Why do you not have to play to win >in a final? Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more >than what's on offer for first? Yes. Devil's advocate: Would you be happy coming away from a tournament with a prize you didn't want, when you could have got the one you really wanted? However, for this reason, it is a bad idea to have prizes specifically allocated to places (other than, say, a small trophy for first place). Have prizes, let players pick. Two rare pieces of artwork and a booster box? Let the first three players pick which they want. Player in first place doesn't give a stuff about art? He walks off with a box of boosters instead. Organizer doesn't think that's appropriate for first place, who must get something "better"? Organizer gets over himself. >Or worse still, can I just back oust >someone, then transfer myself out, because a good mate of mine is my >grand-predator and I'd really like him to win? That would potentially violate either the Sportsmanship or, potentially, Collusion clauses of the rules. Players in the final are assumed to be playing to win, but that doesn't mean that all actions are therefore legal. [0] That's not to say that *every* piece of behaviour that will lead to a Game Win is legal. Some of it might be collusion with another player, say, or illegal somehow in some other way. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] The answer to your question is simple. In any vtes game not everyone is in a position to win. Most of the time it is only 1 or 2 depending on the development of the game. However, some people can optimise the amount of victory points by making a deal. Furthermore, to be prey focused is not necessarily the way to play the game. say you play weenie pander and your small prey is a weenie auspex, you might chill on your prey for him to take on VP before you kill him. In general, the aim is to gain the maximum points out of a given situation, someitmes if this means giving the table to someone else, so be it. Ruben

With all due respect James, I want to hear LSJs 'official' answer in this. Playing to win, no matter HOW you look at is, it not making a deal to get no more VPs on the final table, and to give the game to someone else (your prey, FFS). Simply stating that he could no oust his prey, and therefore struck a deal with his him instead is ludicrous. Believe me, he could very well had ousted him, if he had only tried. Instead, he gave up, and rolled over like a bitch. And I'm not asking judges to correct poort play, but it'd be nice for judges to to enforce the play to win rule, which was blatantly ignored here - though apparently, isn't in effect in a final anyway...

> Furthermore, to be prey focused is not necessarily the way to play the > game. say you play weenie pander and your small prey is a weenie > auspex, you might chill on your prey for him to take on VP before you > kill him. Should things like this not be taken on a case by case basis? Sure, there are circumstances where you are in that situation, but it is my belief that he was not. He had 3 minions, and about 12 pool. Hardly in his death throes. Sure, he may not had had any immediate ousting power, but who's to say what would happen in 5 cards time.

In message <iMb3Z2Ts...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >In message <1191829130.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk writes: >>And yet, in the final, a deal was struck where someone agreed to come >>SECOND, help another player oust me (who would therefore take first) >>and then roll over. >> >>Where's the playing to win here? Why do you not have to play to win >>in a final? Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more >>than what's on offer for first? > >Yes. > >Devil's advocate: Would you be happy coming away from a tournament with >a prize you didn't want, when you could have got the one you really >wanted? Oh, I should also point out that prior to "Play to Win", this sort of thing happened anyway. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e5a6de01f26bd319 [c] i wanted second prize this year because it was signed Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both Sheldon and Ron SPencer. From... Legbiter. I would much rather see a final where this didn't happen, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Can we get more gory details? Who were the finalists and who won? And who was the roll-over bitch? -- Johannes Walch

> Oh, I should also point out that prior to "Play to Win", this sort of > thing happened anyway. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e5a6... > [c] i wanted second prize this year because it was signed > Sheldon artwork and i am a BIG fan of both Sheldon and Ron > SPencer. > > From... Legbiter. > > I would much rather see a final where this didn't happen, of course. > Ok, so now we're post 'play to win', just what is the difference? It happened then, it happens now.

> Can we get more gory details? Who were the finalists and who won? And > who was the roll-over bitch? > > -- > Johannes Walch Memories hazy, and I don't recall all the names as I've not been about for years, but final was me (Martin Cubberley) playing Ravnos with Dom (really, absolutely nothing new or any tricks there) bleeding Antonio playing a 2/3 Ventrue law firm deck bleeding Graham playing Imbued *spits* bleeding Anthony Coleman playing a 1/2 Ventrue law firm bleeding a nice French guy who's name escapes me now who was playing a Pot/Cel/Fort rush deck. The Embued were stymied early on, due to their ability to run away with things, and everything seemed quite social. I had a few fights with the Pot/Cel/Fort guy, but due to Crows/Trapparition combat and an overly harsh (though to the letter of the law) ruling by a judge he ended up in a worse state than me, so had to chuck everything backwards instead. Eventually Graham and Frenchie were ousted, but by this point I had a couple of key permanents out, had stopped my prey running away with things, and had a hand ready to fend off Coleman, and was going for the double oust and win. Then Antonio made a deal with Coleman, he claimed there was no way he could oust him, and so he'd settle for second place and help him oust me. Coleman of course agreed, so Antonio Misdirected my untapped vampire and had several bleeds bounced in my direction (there were discussions previous as to exactly how many deflections Coleman had in his hand etc). I fended off Antonio fine, then a few of Colemans early actions, but it seems he managed to pull a Conditioning just when he needed it and got the oust that turned. Then Antonio rolled for him - didn't even play it out...

> Where's the playing to win here? Why do you not have to play to win > in a final? Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more > than what's on offer for first? Or worse still, can I just back oust > someone, then transfer myself out, because a good mate of mine is my > grand-predator and I'd really like him to win? > > If this is the state of competitive VTES play now, I'm bloody glad I'm > out of it. > > Marty > Super pissed about the turn of events Playing to win means this: 1) You have to strive to get a gamewin. 2) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get a gamewin, you have to strive to maximize the amount of VPs you get. 3) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get another VP , you are free to do whatever you want (lose as you choose). So, if this player was in situation 3, and could get more prizes from playing one way or the other, that's his full right. Sucks to be you! :P Cheers, B

[ quoted text not captured ] And as an addendum: 1) In the final round, you must play to maximize your standing.

> Playing to win means this: > > 1) You have to strive to get a gamewin. > 2) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get a gamewin, you have > to strive to maximize the amount of VPs you get. > 3) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get another VP , you are > free to do whatever you want (lose as you choose). > > So, if this player was in situation 3, and could get more prizes from > playing one way or the other, that's his full right. > > Sucks to be you! :P > > Cheers, > B Who's to say he didn't have a reasonable chance of ousting his prey though? He looked at his cards and seemed to think 'well, that's it, I'm doomed', but cards get played, hands change, and suddenly a crud hand becomes a game winner. At that moment in time he might not have had enough to oust him, but he was still alive, and would have been for at least another turn after that, that would have been enough to potentially hit his prey for 15+ pool damage. Which, btw, would have definitely ousted him. Annoyingly, had he done this, and then gotten ousted by me, he would have STILL been second place, but he wouldn't have handed the victory to the reigning champ (yes, this is his 4th in a row).

[ quoted text not captured ] wait. when it was down to two players, one of them rolled over? The one who currently did NOT have a Game Win? I think that's against the rules. Unless the rolling player did not think they had a reasonable chance of ousting the other player anyway. But even then it could be a bit iffy. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Oct 8, 11:10 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. > I think that's against the rules. Unless the rolling player did not > think they had a reasonable chance of ousting the other player anyway. > But even then it could be a bit iffy. The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances to win. 3.5. Conceding Games Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to win rule, -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

> The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > to win. > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > win rule, > > -- > Damnans > And how did you reach that conclusion? Do you REALLY believe that he had NO CHANCE to oust his prey?

On Oct 8, 11:33 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > > to win. > > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > > win rule, > > > -- > > Damnans > > And how did you reach that conclusion? By using our judgment taking into account game state (pool totals, minions in play, hands, etc.) > Do you REALLY believe that he had NO CHANCE to oust his prey? Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is the one that suffices. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Oct, 10:15, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > to win. > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > win rule, So what happened to talking to the head judge about it? :o) In all seriousness, I honestly don't see how either of you could have 'ruled' that he had no reasonable chances of winning. I saw the same things as you and I just do not agree. While I may not know all the new cards etc. I would hope I qualify to assess the state of a game. As far as I can see, nothing has changed there. I just didn't agree with you and out of courtesy didn't say anything. Out of interest, Hugh clearly thought the rules here were very poor, what is your opinion Gines?

> Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to > determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is > the one that suffices. > > -- > Damnans > Ok, perhaps you could tell me why you believe he had no reasonable chance of winning. I had a sensory dep in my hand, and Gabrin out who could tap any one of my predators minions, to enable my prey to oust him. You didn't take in all the facts when you 'determined' there was no reasonable chance for him to win. I'd suggest you took in relatively few of them in fact, I don't even recall you looking at my hand for a start...

[ quoted text not captured ] He didn't, I checked. As I have said in my 1st post on here in years, I do not agree with that opinion and to be virtually 'shushed' by one of the other judges when trying to discuss it was fairly offensive.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey, So - as I see it the decisions made in the final were legal, I dont doubt that. THey did however leave a very nasty taste in the mouth for a number of players, just check the uk forum out for eveidence of THAT. The only thing worth discussing is if the ruels as they stand are the rules the majority want to play by? As it stands its perfectly OK and legal to try to deal with palyers in loosing positions for an advantage for you.. teaming up oin other strong players Is there a will to change this tourny rule? Or is this a part of multiplayer games?

Hi, I'm Antonio Cobo, I'm going to try to explain why I choose to deal with Tony, At the moment I chose to deal with him I'm at 7 pool, with a predator who has 2 vampires with dominate, one of them with Treasured Samadji, Fortune teller shop and he played before 2 conditionings, my hand is something like 3 GTU 3 Conditioning and 1 Misdirection, I had Edward Vignes with 2 bloods and Boss Cahillan with 1 blood, and also one imbued I manages to steal, tony had 9 pool, and 3 minions untapped, all of them with dominate(deflection is a good card), as I don't have any deflection in hand and I know that my predateur plays dominate cards and tony plays deflections, I prefer to finish in the second place, the reasons are: -I discarded 2 daring the Dawn when my prey was the imbued deck -I don't have any deflection in hand, and having Tony 3 minions untapped I can't kill him -As my predator plays a Ravnos Dominate deck I supose he also plays deflections so I can't bleed Tony with stealth and I don't have any Delaying Tactics nor Deflections. So at that moment the only way to try to win IMHO is to try to stall the game to force de time limit, and for me, STALLING IS CHEATING. I don't know if my explanations are enough for you but I have to remind you that Damnans(one of the jugdes of the final was close to me and he knew my hand) so he agreed with the fact that I couldn't oust Tony. So at that moment I prefer to deal with Tony to be second. That's all. cheers Antonio

On Oct 8, 11:47 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to > > determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is > > the one that suffices. > > > -- > > Damnans > > Ok, perhaps you could tell me why you believe he had no reasonable > chance of winning. I had a sensory dep in my hand, and Gabrin out who > could tap any one of my predators minions, to enable my prey to oust > him. [...] Would you have allowed your prey to oust Anthony (thus giving him the tournament win, since Antonio already had 1 VP)? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 8, 11:10 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:47 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > > > Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to > > > determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is > > > the one that suffices. > > > > -- > > > Damnans > > > Ok, perhaps you could tell me why you believe he had no reasonable > > chance of winning. I had a sensory dep in my hand, and Gabrin out who > > could tap any one of my predators minions, to enable my prey to oust > > him. [...] > > Would you have allowed your prey to oust Anthony (thus giving him the > tournament win, since Antonio already had 1 VP)? > > -- > Damnans I find this statement scary... If I then went on to oust Antonio, I would have had 1 VP from that, 1 from remaining in the game, and the most table points/GWs & VPs going on to break the tie in my favour. Therefore, he would NOT have won. The only way for any of the 3 remaining players to win was to oust the other two.

On 8 Oct, 11:10, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:47 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > > > Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to > > > determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is > > > the one that suffices. > > > > -- > > > Damnans > > > Ok, perhaps you could tell me why you believe he had no reasonable > > chance of winning. I had a sensory dep in my hand, and Gabrin out who > > could tap any one of my predators minions, to enable my prey to oust > > him. [...] > > Would you have allowed your prey to oust Anthony (thus giving him the > tournament win, since Antonio already had 1 VP)? But surely then the allowed deal would have been that Antonio would have rolled over to Martin not Anthony, thus giving him the same placing AND one more vp?? I don't see the logic there at all. (Marty on 2 vps and last in, Antonio on 2 vps and placing second)

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, you are right. Anyway, that wasn't something I took into account to make my decision. It just occurred to me now. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > remaining players to win was to oust the other two.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This is how I saw it too. Is there a misunderstanding or a change in the way you win with points in the final? Pehaps that is something we are missing?

On 8 Oct, 11:19, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 11:10 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 11:47 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > > > > > Yes. Even though the "no chance" clause is not required for a judge to > > > > > determine a player can't win. The "no reasonable chances" factor is > > > > > the one that suffices. > > > > > > -- > > > > > Damnans > > > > > Ok, perhaps you could tell me why you believe he had no reasonable > > > > chance of winning. I had a sensory dep in my hand, and Gabrin out who > > > > could tap any one of my predators minions, to enable my prey to oust > > > > him. [...] > > > > Would you have allowed your prey to oust Anthony (thus giving him the > > > tournament win, since Antonio already had 1 VP)? > > > > -- > > > Damnans > > > I find this statement scary... If I then went on to oust Antonio, I > > would have had 1 VP from that, 1 from remaining in the game, and the > > most table points/GWs & VPs going on to break the tie in my favour. > > Therefore, he would NOT have won. The only way for any of the 3 > > remaining players to win was to oust the other two. > > Ah, you are right. Anyway, that wasn't something I took into account > to make my decision. It just occurred to me now. Are you serious? Man.

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > I participated in my first competitive game of VTES in about 3 and > half years or so at the weekend. The UK Nationals as it happened. I > qualified for the final, played as well as I could (in light of the > fact I knew none of the new cards and could only remember how to play > 'about well enough') but got screwed over so I ended up third. > > All the way through the preliminary rounds it was drummed into me that > there's a play to win rule now - you've gotta be prey focussed, and Well, there's always been a play to win rule (it's part of "sportsmanship"), but yes, there is one now still. You don't have to be prey-focussed. You simply play to win. If PTW involves focus on your prey, fine. If not, fine. > can get pulled up by the judge if they think you are taking a move > which isn't in the interest of you nabbing a VP. Well, if the activity is counter to the interest of PTW. > And yet, in the final, a deal was struck where someone agreed to come > SECOND, help another player oust me (who would therefore take first) > and then roll over. > > Where's the playing to win here? Apparently the play couldn't come in first himself. So second, being the best he can do, is PTW. > Why do you not have to play to win > in a final? Well, why wouldn't you play for the best finish you can? In preliminaries, there are future game considerations. In the final, there are none such. So, barring collusion or other in-itself illegal activity, all activity in a final can be assumed to be PTW, since the player has no other conflicting considerations. > Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more > than what's on offer for first? The default state of affairs is for first place prize to be a strict superset of any other. > Or worse still, can I just back oust > someone, then transfer myself out, because a good mate of mine is my > grand-predator and I'd really like him to win? No. That would be unsportmanlike (possibly collusion).

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course you don't qualify rob! You no longer frequent #vtes which is an obvious prerequisite for being a head judge in any non-welsh GB tournament. :P Cheers, Bram

[ quoted text not captured ] > Bram- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Right Bram you a**hole :o) I'll sort that today. How you doing anyway man? Reply to email if you wanna chat.

On Oct 8, 11:42 am, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > On 8 Oct, 10:15, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > > to win. > > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > > win rule, > > So what happened to talking to the head judge about it? :o) In all > seriousness, I honestly don't see how either of you could have 'ruled' > that he had no reasonable chances of winning. I saw the same things as > you and I just do not agree. While I may not know all the new cards > etc. I would hope I qualify to assess the state of a game. As far as I > can see, nothing has changed there. I just didn't agree with you and > out of courtesy didn't say anything. According to you, what were Antonio's chances to win? According to Martin (in the UK forum): "They colluded against me to take me out because they KNEW they couldn't beat me any other way. " According to me, Antonio was screwed and could not move forward safely enough, since his lack of defense against Martin was complete. He just had 2 vampires (low on blood) and 1 imbued. No combat cards in his hand, no reactions. > Out of interest, Hugh clearly thought the rules here were very poor, > what is your opinion Gines? I do not like the fact that the rules allow a finalist not to play to win the tournament IIRC (e.g., they can play to get a better prize instead). Other than that, I see no problem with the current PTW rules. Could the PTW be better? Probably. But how could they be improved? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] No non Quid Pro Quo deals. IE: no deals involving placing, VP's or anything over 1 turn. Easy. What do I win? :O)

On 8 Oct, 11:40, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > > > to win. > > > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > > > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > > > win rule, > > > So what happened to talking to the head judge about it? :o) In all > > seriousness, I honestly don't see how either of you could have 'ruled' > > that he had no reasonable chances of winning. I saw the same things as > > you and I just do not agree. While I may not know all the new cards > > etc. I would hope I qualify to assess the state of a game. As far as I > > can see, nothing has changed there. I just didn't agree with you and > > out of courtesy didn't say anything. > > According to you, what were Antonio's chances to win? I think we should take that offline maybe but the non-emotive bullet points for me were as follows: - On Antonios turn he offered the deal. Had he waited one turn I think Anthony would have been in a very bad way having one minion Sense Depped and one possibly in torpor leaving him on 1 active minion. - As far as I recall, Antonio had a misdirection in hand as well. It certainly was not just 'all bleed' - Anthony had a hand with no stealth and no real way of getting through Martys defense. I'm not saying that couldn't have changed in a blink but *at that point* he imo couldn't take out Ant. - Antonio had 3 minions, Martin had 3 minions. Taking hands out of the equation (as nobody looked at Martins and therefore you have to) that would influence the decision for me. - The state of the *game* was not considered imo. If this is not required of a judge then fine. There are other things but I do not want to bandy those around on here out of respect. > According to Martin (in the UK forum): "They colluded against me to > take me out because they KNEW they couldn't beat me any other way. " > > According to me, Antonio was screwed and could not move forward safely > enough, since his lack of defense against Martin was complete. He just > had 2 vampires (low on blood) and 1 imbued. No combat cards in his > hand, no reactions. How can you consider a defence against something you have not even seen? Its like comparing one car's top speed to another without knowing what the other car is. > > Out of interest, Hugh clearly thought the rules here were very poor, > > what is your opinion Gines? > > I do not like the fact that the rules allow a finalist not to play to > win the tournament IIRC (e.g., they can play to get a better prize > instead). > > Other than that, I see no problem with the current PTW rules. > > Could the PTW be better? Probably. But how could they be improved? Working on it :o)

On Oct 8, 11:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Well, why wouldn't you play for the best finish you can? > How about because if by doing so you would bring about a situation where you directly determine the winner of the game (you become a kingmaker), consequently you decide that to have invested 8 hours of your weekend in a game that is eventaully determined in such a manner is not a good precident for others to follow?

[ quoted text not captured ] So let me get this straight. Your position is (according to other posts you have made) that you have the ability to judge what the correct play for the player on the table is, but you cannot correctly calculate VPs? And then you seem even vaguely surprised that people find your ruling erroneous?

On Oct 8, 11:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Apparently the play couldn't come in first himself. > So second, being the best he can do, is PTW. Two points. Firstly, this player had two avenues for 2nd place: 1. To oust his prey with my help, then 'roll' to me 2. To help is prey oust me, then 'roll' to him. The fact that both of these two would have netted him the same positioning means that other factors then come into it. > > Well, why wouldn't you play for the best finish you can? Well, that really is the question isn't it. Making a deal to place 2nd is hardly 'the best you can'. The best any of us 3 could have finished was first. Simple as that. We all had pool, we all had minions, we all had ways to oust our prey. There are so many factors that simply weren't considered. As previously stated, I had Gabrin out that could have been used to tap younger vamps - ie. all of my predators. I had a sensory dep, and the stealth to push it through. I had little forward pressure in my hand, but a lot of defensive tricks. All of this adds up to my predator being up against it, and my prey probably being able to force his way through and gain another VP that way. And they it comes down to a one on one between me and him. Again, a battle that could have gone either way. In short, I don't believe he was playing to win.

On Oct 8, 12:05 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > So let me get this straight. Your position is (according to other > posts you have made) that you have the ability to judge what the > correct play for the player on the table is, but you cannot correctly > calculate VPs? And then you seem even vaguely surprised that people > find your ruling erroneous? That was my understanding too. I didn't want this to become some sort of muck slinging blame game, but digging deeper it does appear to have been an ill thought through ruling that potentially cost me the national title.

[ quoted text not captured ] As far as I understand it, the judge just has to believe that the *player* is reasonably sure they cannot advance their position. That player is not allowed to look at your hand, and is also not required to believe anything you might say about your hand or what plays you might make. It leaves a god-awful taste in the mouth, and can generate some nasty ill-will when it happens. But at the end of the day, isn't it just a game? (I'm not saying don't vent, and don't just sit back and accept the way the rules are. I do believe most people would love to hear suggestions about how to minimise king-making, and try and reign deal-making back into more 'acceptable' levels). But as has been shown countless times, just saying 'the rules suck' doesn't help much for the establishment of better rules. There needs to be options. Like that Nystulc person. They're trying, and they're thinking. Which is all good. And it's stimulating healthy debate (and it's taken an amazingly long time for the thread to get flamey, I am so proud of everyone!). I don't agree with much of what Nystulc is saying, but that doesn't mean what they're saying isn't right, or at the least isn't worth thinking about. [ quoted text not captured ]

mgre...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Well, why wouldn't you play for the best finish you can? >> > How about because if by doing so you would bring about a situation > where you directly determine the winner of the game (you become a > kingmaker), If you cannot win, then this (Dealing for 2nd and Kingmaking in the process) is PTW (you are free to lose in the manner of your choosing). If you can win, then winning is also "directly determining the winner", so you'd try to win.

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:27 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Apparently the play couldn't come in first himself. >> So second, being the best he can do, is PTW. > > Two points. Firstly, this player had two avenues for 2nd place: > 1. To oust his prey with my help, then 'roll' to me > 2. To help is prey oust me, then 'roll' to him. > The fact that both of these two would have netted him the same > positioning means that other factors then come into it. All of which are acceptable. The player is free to choose any available avenue from among the avenues that lead to the same "winning" status for that player. >> Well, why wouldn't you play for the best finish you can? > > Well, that really is the question isn't it. Making a deal to place > 2nd is hardly 'the best you can'. ? It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > The best any of us 3 could have > finished was first. Simple as that. We all had pool, we all had > minions, we all had ways to oust our prey. There are so many factors > that simply weren't considered. Then why didn't the player play for first? The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. > In short, I don't believe he was playing to win. Perhaps. But then, what motive would he have for doing as he did?

[ quoted text not captured ] I believe Damnans was looking for improvements that are feasible.

On 8 Oct, 12:25, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] How does stating the current (poor imo) situation answer that question? Just feels very inconsistant with the rest of the game is all I think. Couple that with the events of Saturday and a very questionable but allowed deal then you have almost a whole country (included the guy who benifitted from this) up in arms. The assumption that people will play to win in the final is flawed. I don't think you can deny that. Is there merit in having the final wiped slate clean of VP's and playing then as if it were a round? This would allow some of the suspense of a final and still advantage to a leading player in seating order but then play to win comes in again. I don't see the merit of binning that rule just for the final or rather making it a lot more difficult to judge.

On Oct 8, 12:25 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If you cannot win, then this (Dealing for 2nd and Kingmaking in the process) is > PTW (you are free to lose in the manner of your choosing). > Are you free to let out-of-game considerations determine your choice? Straight question. No agenda. No malice. GreenO

[ quoted text not captured ] How are those suggestions hard to implement? And how are they harder to implement that the current situation?

On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > ? > It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. And who determined for this player that 1st wasn't reasonably possibly? Someone who by his own admission doesn't understand the way scoring works, and didn't look at my hand to determine if I had any ousting power there. All that was taken into account was the cards on the table at face value - and if that's all it takes to determine who's going to win a game, why not just play for 15 minutes and get a judge to walk round and determine a winner for each round... > Then why didn't the player play for first? > > The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck > in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. But as I pointed out, that simply was not true. With my help we could have taken out his prey (my predator), and then duked it out, just the two of us. Which could have led him to oust me, and go on to win over all (and STILL leave me in 3rd place, incidentally) > Perhaps. > But then, what motive would he have for doing as he did? Well, now you're opening a can of worms. The player that won overall had already said he wouldn't take part of the first place prize, meaning it would pass to the person placing in 2nd, maybe he really wanted that prize. Perhaps he was a friend of the guy who placed first. Perhaps he was crashing on his floor after the tourney. Perhaps he just didn't like me. I can't get inside the guys head, all I can do is point out the facts as they stand - any one of use could have won.

[ quoted text not captured ] In the absence of in-game considerations (the only thing 'in-game' that you could be basing your decision on is how many vps you get, which we have determined already is 0 more..), surely those are the *only* things you can base your decision on? [ quoted text not captured ]

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> ? >> It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > > And who determined for this player that 1st wasn't reasonably > possibly? It only had to be the player himself. and the judge just had to believe that that player himself believed that to be the case. LSJ, correct me if i am wrong? If it just the judge who makes the decision, then surely that would lead to cases where the judge has to penalise and/or correct mere poor play, which is something I don't think is the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Oct, 12:38, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > Then why didn't the player play for first? > > > The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck > > in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. > > But as I pointed out, that simply was not true. With my help we could > have taken out his prey (my predator), and then duked it out, just the > two of us. Which could have led him to oust me, and go on to win over > all (and STILL leave me in 3rd place, incidentally) To be fair that was then up to you to offer/have turned down etc etc. You didn't and that was admirable but lost you the game. Fact.

Someone please give me a rational and reasoned answer as to why the idea of no points, nothing in the final, play for the win, no prize splits is such a big deal? Holy cows and all aside, that is.

On Oct 8, 12:43 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > To be fair that was then up to you to offer/have turned down etc etc. > You didn't and that was admirable but lost you the game. Fact. Admirable? Or stupid? Ultimately, I wanted to play a game of cards, not a battle of wills. Believe me, I've got into such debates with various parties in the past (yourself including) and all it does is rile people up and cause bad feeling. Being penalised because someone isn't especially eloquent or witty should NOT EVER be a part of this game. Being glib or charming should not be a factor in a game - ability to play should. Being able to browbeat someone into submission until they agree to do what you want them to should also be left at the door (noe, I'm not suggestng this is what happened here, but it HAS happened before - I've seen it).

On Oct 8, 12:53 pm, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > Being penalised because someone isn't especially eloquent or witty > should NOT EVER be a part of this game. Being glib or charming should > not be a factor in a game - ability to play should. Being able to > browbeat someone into submission until they agree to do what you want > them to should also be left at the door (noe, I'm not suggestng this > is what happened here, but it HAS happened before - I've seen it). Amen brother, preach it. Anyways, it seems you lost because you didn't invite Antonio to sleep on your floor. You should clearly have meta-gamed for that.

On 8 Okt, 13:38, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > ? > > It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > > And who determined for this player that 1st wasn't reasonably > possibly? Someone who by his own admission doesn't understand the way > scoring works, and didn't look at my hand to determine if I had any > ousting power there. All that was taken into account was the cards on > the table at face value - and if that's all it takes to determine > who's going to win a game, why not just play for 15 minutes and get a > judge to walk round and determine a winner for each round... > > > Then why didn't the player play for first? > > > The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck > > in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. > > But as I pointed out, that simply was not true. With my help we could > have taken out his prey (my predator), and then duked it out, just the > two of us. Which could have led him to oust me, and go on to win over > all (and STILL leave me in 3rd place, incidentally) > Was this suggested to him (by you) at the time of the deal discussions? Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] Jeez :o) *grabs popcorn* Well, I feel torn here as I used to love the deal, even based my game around it but I do feel that the consistancy needs to be worked on a bit still. That deal in the final had no place imo and was a wrong ruling but there should still be *some* element of agitation in the game that is know for having elements of that. How much I don't know. Perhaps its the no vp deals in finals we are looking for here? But then drill that down and all I would do is deal for 'all your torpored minions' or 'knock you down to one pool and oops I ousted you' semantics but important to get this right I guess.

[ quoted text not captured ] Whoa there, I wouldn't suggest that for a minute. LSJ asked why someone would take such actions, I was merely pointing out to him that there are other factors a player could have taken into consideration - NONE of which were about the game in hand. I'd like to think that both Antonio and Coleman are both above that level of collusion.

On 8 Oct, 12:53, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:43 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > > > To be fair that was then up to you to offer/have turned down etc etc. > > You didn't and that was admirable but lost you the game. Fact. > > Admirable? Or stupid? > Ultimately, I wanted to play a game of cards, not a battle of wills. > Believe me, I've got into such debates with various parties in the > past (yourself including) and all it does is rile people up and cause > bad feeling. It's one of the two reasons I stopped playing.

On 8 Oct, 12:56, mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Matt, please do FUCK OFF - suggesting the fact he was crashing at my place was the reason for this is unconstructive, complete bullshit and tbh - quite what I'm comming to expect from you going by your UK forum posts. You are the most negative, bitchy moaning little c*** I've ever had to deal with on the NG/forum - whatever. Most people all agree they dont like how the UK final panned out, me included (for those not following I benefited from the deal). Most people are all trying to work out a change in the rules/debating if its necessary. You are following me around the net posting comments that were I not to know you, Id guess came from a twelve year old. So far, and let me know if I missed anything. you have implied I am: Actuivly chasing players away from the UK game, Have sociopathic tendancies, am unethical, god.. im sure there is mroe but I cant rememer... was there soemthing about not helping someone bleeding to dealth ont he floor! This is because I accepted a deal that was OFFERED TO ME that gave me the win. Get over yourself, and get of you moral high horse.

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> ? >> It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > > And who determined for this player that 1st wasn't reasonably > possibly? The player, mostly. It is a final, after all, so the player is assumed to be playing to win. If he's playing for second, then that must be PTW (unless there's some other illegal activity about). > Someone who by his own admission doesn't understand the way > scoring works, and didn't look at my hand to determine if I had any > ousting power there. All that was taken into account was the cards on > the table at face value - and if that's all it takes to determine > who's going to win a game, why not just play for 15 minutes and get a > judge to walk round and determine a winner for each round... Non-sequitur. PTW isn't about figuring out who's going to win. It's about figuring out if activity is in the interest of the player making the activity. >> Then why didn't the player play for first? >> >> The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck >> in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. > > But as I pointed out, that simply was not true. With my help we could > have taken out his prey (my predator), and then duked it out, just the > two of us. Which could have led him to oust me, and go on to win over > all (and STILL leave me in 3rd place, incidentally) And he didn't because...? (Sorry, I wasn't there, so I really don't know) >> Perhaps. >> But then, what motive would he have for doing as he did? > > Well, now you're opening a can of worms. The player that won overall > had already said he wouldn't take part of the first place prize, > meaning it would pass to the person placing in 2nd, maybe he really > wanted that prize. Perhaps he was a friend of the guy who placed > first. Perhaps he was crashing on his floor after the tourney. > Perhaps he just didn't like me. I can't get inside the guys head, all > I can do is point out the facts as they stand - any one of use could > have won. OK, then. Without any indication of illegal activity, then the actions of the finalists can be assumed to be PTW, since there is no other competing consideration.

[ quoted text not captured ] This is a multi-player game; personal interaction *is* a part of the game.

On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > So far, and let me know if I missed anything. you have implied I am: > > Actuivly chasing players away from the UK game, Have sociopathic > tendancies, am unethical, god.. im sure there is mroe but I cant > rememer... was there soemthing about not helping someone bleeding to > dealth ont he floor! The bleeding to death thing came from me - and was meant to illustrate a point rather than accuse you of doing as such. Though I would not leave you in the same room as my nan, that's for sure :) Also, I'd say you checked off each of those from a regular Friday nights drinking. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] You can state them, sure. But they are impossible to implement in a meaningful way, players being smart. The suggestion has been made before.

On Oct 8, 1:02 pm, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > Anyways, it seems you lost because you didn't invite Antonio to sleep > > on your floor. You should clearly have meta-gamed for that. > > Whoa there, I wouldn't suggest that for a minute. Well, apparently, if you are in a kingmaking position you can choose to lose how you wish. Antonio chose to lose by giving Anthony the win rather than you. There were no in-game considerations: it was Antonio's choice who won the tournament. He didn't choose you. A legal play nonetheless, and not 'collusion' either.

mgre...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:25 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> If you cannot win, then this (Dealing for 2nd and Kingmaking in the process) is >> PTW (you are free to lose in the manner of your choosing). >> > Are you free to let out-of-game considerations determine your choice? What else? All in-game considerations do not lead to any resolution between two equal (from in-game considerations) avenues, by definition.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well you could state that playing to win cannot be circumvented by deals. Ie. you are not allowed to honor a deal that was play to win when you made it, but no longer is. I prefer the current situation, though. ;) Cheers, B

On Oct 8, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > This is a multi-player game; personal interaction *is* a part of the game.- Hide quoted text - > Scott, there is a WORLD apart from personal interaction and some of the activities I've seen go on in tournaments. I see no problem at all with 'don't bleed me this turn and I won't rush you' type deals, but VP deals simply don't sit well. Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. Why are they ok in VTES circles - as long as you are eloquently able to justify it, that is.

On 8 Okt., 13:53, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > Being penalised because someone isn't especially eloquent or witty > should NOT EVER be a part of this game. Being glib or charming should > not be a factor in a game - ability to play should. I don't know many facts of the final game and don't want to make a judgment. But in my opinion being charming and pulling other Meths on your side through eloquence and wittiness IS part of a player's ability to play. I see it this way: One third is deck building, one third is playing with at least mistakes as possibly (the point I have to work on currently :o( ) and one third of reading players minds and to figure out how to behave towards them, that they work in your favour. This is the most difficult, though the most interesting part because every player react in his own special ways. Eyebrowing helps against one player, the other player just plays against you even more. Being charming towards one player is beneficial, the other one is annoyed by your attitude. So I don't think it's just playing the right cards at the right moment. It's much more and that is what makes the game the best. I know my statement doesn't help to settle this conflict. And being in Antonio's shoes I would have chosen Martin's offer to give me a VP and to play it out afterwards, maybe getting the GW. OTOH I wasn't there and don't know if I would have believed in the honesty of Martin's offer (bad english, sorry).

On Oct 8, 1:10 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] *boggle* So it's completely fine to say 'well, I have one rush in my hand, I could rush you Tony, who was my best man at my wedding, godfather to my child, and all round swell guy, or I could rush you Petey, who stole my wife and ran over my child. Both rushes benefit me equally, now, who shall it be'...

[ quoted text not captured ] OK, you seem to want to continue in your baseless accusations. Quick question. Did you even see the final? or are you making these comments blind? I sure dont remember seeing you there. Your points directed at me have basically been, correct me if im wrong. THat I'm responsible for X Y Z because I chose to accept the deal, which gave me the win, when I could have chosen to not accept it on 'moral' grounds - thereby meeting your dubious moral standards for a vtes game - and loose. Is this right? Speaking to Rob, Cooper and others they all seemj to understand my position that is: I will try to win when I am playing, I@ will use what tools I have at my disposal (ie deal making with people) but I would much rather a rules set that does not allow it. Untill that change though - why should I succum to your playground type peer pressure to not play the game as the rules dictate?

Does anyone read my post with the explanation about the final? Because it seems for me that nobody did. could anyone tell me how can I win the final at that moment of the game? I'm goind to remind you again my hand, 1 misdirection, 3 govern the unaligned, 3 conditioning and 1 misdirection. 2 vampires, one with Superior Dominate and 1 blood and the other with dominate inferior and 1 blood, and one imbued. I was at seven pool with no way to oust Tony, he had 3 vampires un tapped all the moment, the three of them with dominate, we can all of us think that he had at least one deflection. so, no stealth, no defense in hand, the only way to win is to try to force the table to arrive to the time limit with the three players alive, so to talk a lot and stalling, which is ILLEGAL, so martin is saying that I could deal with him to oust tony, ok I tried to oust tony bleeding him, tony deflects twice, so no avance in ousting tony, maybe tony didn't oust martin after his turn(that means martin deflects one of the bleeds of tony to me, so on next martin's turn I would be all tapped, so he could easily oust me, as martin was 1rt seed, my final standings would be third one and no second one. that's the reason I played to win, because I really believed that it wasn't possible for me to oust Tony, so as the rules say I clearly play to win, because I maximize my victory points and with it my final standing on the tournament. @Matt: The suggestion of colussion is one of the most stupid posts I've ever read, please think before you post, and not after

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> This is a multi-player game; personal interaction *is* a part of the game.- Hide quoted text - >> > Scott, there is a WORLD apart from personal interaction and some of > the activities I've seen go on in tournaments. I see no problem at > all with 'don't bleed me this turn and I won't rush you' type deals, > but VP deals simply don't sit well. And note that any VP deal can be couched in non-VP deal language. > Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal > interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so > I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. Oh? Any evidence for this assertion? > Why are > they ok in VTES circles - as long as you are eloquently able to > justify it, that is. Um, just as in Settlers, if it's PTW, it's PTW.

Bram Vink wrote: > Well you could state that playing to win cannot be circumvented by > deals. > Ie. you are not allowed to honor a deal that was play to win when you > made it, but no longer is. Which is the equivalent of saying "no deals". > I prefer the current situation, though. ;) Agreed.

[ quoted text not captured ] What alternative do you suggest? Have a judge come over and choose for the player?

On Oct 8, 1:16 pm, Joscha <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > But in my opinion being charming and pulling other Meths on your side > through eloquence and wittiness IS part of a player's ability to > play. I see it this way: One third is deck building, one third is > playing with at least mistakes as possibly (the point I have to work > on currently :o( ) and one third of reading players minds and to > figure out how to behave towards them, that they work in your favour. > This is the most difficult, though the most interesting part because > every player react in his own special ways. Eyebrowing helps against > one player, the other player just plays against you even more. Being > charming towards one player is beneficial, the other one is annoyed by > your attitude. > So I don't think it's just playing the right cards at the right > moment. It's much more and that is what makes the game the best. I'm not saying interaction doesn't play a part in the game. Of course it does - and it always will as long as humans play it. Deals that are 'quick fix', you do this, I'll do this sort of thing are fine. But deals like 'you appear to be losing, help me secure first place and you can take second' should not be seen here. > > I know my statement doesn't help to settle this conflict. And being in > Antonio's shoes I would have chosen Martin's offer to give me a VP and > to play it out afterwards, maybe getting the GW. OTOH I wasn't there > and don't know if I would have believed in the honesty of Martin's > offer (bad english, sorry). English was fine pal, don't worry. Truth be told, I wasn't really aware of the extent of this deal until it had begun to happen, so I was unable to 'counter offer' anyway. I am loathed to say there was a language barrier there, but I found Antonio, as a non-native English speaker, incredibly difficult to understand.

On 8 Oct, 13:19, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone read my post with the explanation about the final? [snip stuff I have read] I did dude, but I still think you could have won a couple of different ways as well. As I saw you had good bleed and a misdirection, a simple question or two to Marty would have mitigated any need for such a deal. As I said Marty would have sense dep'ed a minion of Ants and probably knocked another in torpor leaving you to misdirect the other and kill him with bleed. Would have been close imo but I think that not only did you make a bad deal (and the ruling on it was wrong) but you stood a chance of stealing the win especially as you had a VP in the bag already. I honestly do not see how that deal was allowed. Were it up to me (and some would say it was as Head Judge) then I would not have allowed it or at least considered more of the variables.

On 8 Okt., 14:14, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal > interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so > I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. Why are > they ok in VTES circles - as long as you are eloquently able to > justify it, that is. Because people value getting a safe second place higher than go for a vague GW. That is the problem of players who are glad to be better than the other three guys. They value that higher than a tough but fruitless fight for the win. Not everybody thinks that way. Erol tried and failed in the finals of the EC. But he was proud he tried to get the win even if that meant fifth place for him in the end. If you're playing Settlers of Catan there is no benefit in coming second. Otherwise I could imagine the same problems. 'If you make me second I give you my 5 brick for free and split prizes afterwards'. In VTES you get prizes and rating points. Maybe we should play "winner takes it all".

On 8 Oct, 13:09, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So far, and let me know if I missed anything. you have implied I am: > > > Actuivly chasing players away from the UK game, Have sociopathic > > tendancies, am unethical, god.. im sure there is mroe but I cant > > rememer... was there soemthing about not helping someone bleeding to > > dealth ont he floor! > > The bleeding to death thing came from me - and was meant to illustrate > a point rather than accuse you of doing as such. Though I would not > leave you in the same room as my nan, that's for sure :) I wouldn't *wan't* to be in the same room as your nan ;) > Also, I'd say you checked off each of those from a regular Friday > nights drinking. ;) Probably, but... is that PTW? Ant

On Oct 8, 1:19 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone read my post with the explanation about the final? > > Because it seems for me that nobody did. Yes, I read it Antonio, I just didn't feel I had anything to add to what you said. It's your opinion vs mine really. Also, you seem to be thinking of just that one turn - I couldn't oust you in one turn, Ant couldn't oust me, and it's highly doubtful that you could have ousted Ant. Which means we would have all gotten another turn, at least. I'm not suggesting you *would* have won, you were clearly in the weakest position at the table, however, perhaps I'm being overly tenacious or stubborn, but I will ALWAYS play for first place, no matter how desperate the situation seems to be - 2nd is as good as 5th to me, as it is Coleman too. If I try for the win and come 5th, no worries, at least I tried. If I aim to come 2nd and succeed (and hand someone else the win), is this really something to be proud of? Was screwing me over for 2nd place instead of AT LEAST 3rd really worth it? If all you wanted was that artwork, I would have given you it.

[ quoted text not captured ] I did have 4 ready vamps at the end though Rob, I think you missed one (maybe the hostile takeovered Catherine) and one in the bin. Ant

On Oct 8, 1:19 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal > > interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so > > I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. > > Oh? Any evidence for this assertion? Personal experience. I'm afraid that's the only 'evidence' I can provide.

[ quoted text not captured ] ... clearly your argument falls to pieces, everyone knows wood is the least common in settlers :o)

[ quoted text not captured ] My experience is otherwise, I'm afriad.

On Oct 8, 1:34 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did have 4 ready vamps at the end though Rob, I think you missed one > (maybe the hostile takeovered Catherine) and one in the bin. > > Ant- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's really irrelevant though mate. As long as you didn't take ANY ACTIONS from then on, I could tap one a turn, and could have dep'd another, taking that down to 2 left - meaning 1 bleed gets through a turn. The binned vamp was irrelevant - he'd have gone straight back again as soon as you hunted with him - had the rescue happened that is :) That aside, I really don't believe the situation was as bleak for Antonio as he makes out - hell, why didn't he go back on the deal, try to oust you now it was one on one, and snatch the victory away from you. At least then that was PTW. And I'd have felt MUCH better about the situation too - he manipulated you to joint screw me over, then went back on it to screw you and win. That's cool, rolling over sucks ass.

On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > So far, and let me know if I missed anything. you have implied I am: No implication: I find you a sociopathic, morally corrupt, unsportsmanlike bully. The only reason you continue to play tournament V:TES in the UK is because attendances are so low that no judge will DQ you for unsportsmanlike conduct. You behaviour wouldn't be tollerated in any other CCG I've been involved in. Telling Sam Marsh (who, lets face it, is one of the nicest V:TES players around) that he was, quote: "a fucking idiot" to his face 3 times in a single turn is unacceptable to me and to a fairly broad cross-section of society. Further examples include: *Rob joins the UK forum after 4 years and 2 people message him to make sure he ousts you should he get the chance. *I oust you x-table in Burton and 4 guys shake my hand on the way out of the venue. *You sit down at the final table on Saturday and one of the judges tells me that "at least there's two players on there that [you] can't brow-beat". All that said. You are a bloody good V:TES player. I have masses of respect for what you've achieved in winning the EC and X number of UK Nationals. You are a nice guy to hang around with, funny and articulate. Across the card table you are abhorrant. I wish you'd resist temptation a little more is all.

On Oct 8, 1:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And? Because you've seen it happen in Settlers its ok for it to happen in a game of VTES?

[ quoted text not captured ] > Ant- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 3 Marty, 3 Ant, 4 yourself, check :o) Hostiled Cath was on 1 blood right? I think it would have been close duder, clearly Marty would have gone backwards that turn. Perhaps we are discussing play styles here but I would have done things differently in Antonios position, irrelevant perhaps :o) I just recall being appaled that the deal was being allowed and *I* had looked at all players hands and heard what was said. It was very short-sighted but you could argue against me that the very nature of that sort of deal has to be short-sighted. Either way, it seemed unsatisfactory.

[ quoted text not captured ] It was your argument, not mine. Settlers has no causal relationship on VTES rules. PTW is OK in both games, yes.

On Oct 8, 1:42 pm, mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: > Across the card table you are abhorrant. > > I wish you'd resist temptation a little more is all. Funny, this was EXACTLY my opinion of Rob way back when, now he's a really good friend. I'm glad you said all that Matt, and I hope Coleman takes it with the spirit that is was intended, an almost but not quite apology. :)

On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It was your argument, not mine. Settlers has no causal relationship on VTES rules. > > PTW is OK in both games, yes. I was pointing out that in any multiplayer game human interaction exists, and yet it seems that only VTES can you screw over other players just to place second (because you are of some misguided belief that you can't win), that that sort of action is ok'd by the rules and worse, seems to be actively encouraged. I take it you see nothing wrong with the current situation as it stands then? The fact that someone can screw over another persons chance to win to guarantee 2nd place, when there was a chance, no matter how slim of them placing 1st over all? I shan't be playing competitive VTES again, and if this is the state of affairs, I'd suggest a lot of people may well not. There is even talk on the UK forum of bowing out of the VEKN and having our own tournaments - because of this situation. It is ludicrous, and you have the power to change it, yet you are fine with the way it is. EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that won, see's this as an issue.

[ quoted text not captured ] Man, this reads like some stuff that people posted/talked about playing against me. Green, I consider myself a VERY similar player to Ant, perhaps a little less ...... challenging :o) And its so hard to not play as it comes naturally. Look at you and I across a table of old. *shudder* It was the reason I didn't play on Saturday. Not you specifically :o) just wanting to see how the land lies first and I was saddened to see that it is the same in the final. Maybe nothing can be done for a lot of the citations that Scott has quoted, the major one imo being the intelligence of the player base.

On Oct 8, 1:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > What alternative do you suggest? > Caveat: With 3 players remaining and a kingmaking deal on the table. A coin flip. And I'm serious. GreenO

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It was your argument, not mine. Settlers has no causal relationship on VTES rules. >> >> PTW is OK in both games, yes. > > I was pointing out that in any multiplayer game human interaction > exists, and yet it seems that only VTES can you screw over other > players just to place second (because you are of some misguided belief > that you can't win), That is a matter of faulty perception. It is possible in most (all?) multiplayer games of human or AI interaction. Well, barring your new addition "misguided belief". The discussion is about PTW, not misguided beliefs. > that that sort of action is ok'd by the rules and > worse, seems to be actively encouraged. It is not encouraged, per se. It is simply acknowledged as an inherent and unavoidable. > I take it you see nothing wrong with the current situation as it > stands then? I haven't heard anyone offer a viable alternative, if that's what you mean. Prohibiting players from playing the game to the best of their ability to maximize their finish is antithetical to the concept of gaming. > The fact that someone can screw over another persons > chance to win to guarantee 2nd place, when there was a chance, no > matter how slim of them placing 1st over all? > > I shan't be playing competitive VTES again, and if this is the state > of affairs, I'd suggest a lot of people may well not. There is even > talk on the UK forum of bowing out of the VEKN and having our own > tournaments - because of this situation. It is ludicrous, and you > have the power to change it, yet you are fine with the way it is. Change it to what, exactly? > EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that won, > see's this as an issue. Issues are all well and good. Solutions are better.

On 8 oct, 12:14, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 11:10 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > Would you have allowed your prey to oust Anthony (thus giving him the > > tournament win, since Antonio already had 1 VP)? > > > -- > > Damnans > > I find this statement scary... If I then went on to oust Antonio, I > would have had 1 VP from that, 1 from remaining in the game, and the > most table points/GWs & VPs going on to break the tie in my favour. > Therefore, he would NOT have won. The only way for any of the 3 > remaining players to win was to oust the other two.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > Apparently, Antonio had no chance surviving his predator (you) and killing its prey. He dealt with its prey to get more points that he could *probably* have. I agree that the chances were heavily against him. "Play to win" doesn't mean "crash yourself on your prey - kill him or die in the attempt". Anyway, I understand that you're pissed about it, but in fact your prey managed to grab the second prize, so can we really consider that he has played "against the game". As long as there is no collusion, and no rule forcing you to go on forward until you die, it seems fine to me (I agree it's frustating).

On Oct 8, 2:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that won, > > see's this as an issue. > > Issues are all well and good. Solutions are better. No point offering solutions until you acknowledge there's a problem. Do this, and we can all discuss how this can be avoided in the future.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't understand your suggestion. Please offer complete definition of: Kingmaking deal (identifying it and distinguishing it from other deals) And exactly what is meant by and accomplished by: A coin flip

the moment I think I can't finish first I maximize my victory points and my final standing on the tournament being second, no matter for me who is going to be second, so as I can't be first I chose the option that assures me to be second. I think that this is PTW

A kingmaking deal: A deal whereby the actions of one player will result in him determining the outcome of a tournament. A coin flip: In such a situation a judge flips a coin to see which of the two potential kings wins. Rather than get caught up in a hail of rebuffs as to how this can be played around: what about at least giving this as an option? In the case in point Antonio can't win and neither can Ant without Antonio's help. Antonio offers help to Ant. The judge identifies this as a potential kingmaking deal and offers Martin a choice: 1) Let the deal stand: he takes on the pair of them. 2) Let a coin flip decide the winner (Ant or Martin). It seems to me to be a shade more elegant than letting OoG considerations determine an outcome. Thoughts? GreenO

LSJ schrieb: > mgre...@googlemail.com wrote: >> On Oct 8, 1:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> What alternative do you suggest? >>> >> Caveat: With 3 players remaining and a kingmaking deal on the table. >> >> A coin flip. And I'm serious. > > I don't understand your suggestion. > > Please offer complete definition of: > > Kingmaking deal (identifying it and distinguishing it from other deals) I think a king-making deal is when there is a deal for the GW with the intention of the loosing-end player to improve his standing and the winning player (obviously) winning the game. > And exactly what is meant by and accomplished by: > > A coin flip The coin flip decides who gets the winning end when player A is the loosing-end player and both B and C offer the same deal to him (e.g them winning and A being second). -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Its as good a way as any, if we allow things to get to that place. Better surely we dont allow deals that involve VP's, placings or that run over more than one turn. (including deals that rob indicates - torp ALL player X's vamps, etc: effective VP deals) I still cant see how this is harder to administer than the current rules. ant

mgre...@googlemail.com schrieb: > A kingmaking deal: > A deal whereby the actions of one player will result in him > determining the outcome of a tournament. > > A coin flip: > In such a situation a judge flips a coin to see which of the two > potential kings wins. > > Rather than get caught up in a hail of rebuffs as to how this can be > played around: what about at least giving this as an option? In the > case in point Antonio can't win and neither can Ant without Antonio's > help. Antonio offers help to Ant. > > The judge identifies this as a potential kingmaking deal and offers > Martin a choice: > > 1) Let the deal stand: he takes on the pair of them. > 2) Let a coin flip decide the winner (Ant or Martin). I think there are 3 potential kings, because the guy getting the bad end of it could in turn offer a winning deal to Antonio. So either you roll the dice on who is winning or you have a hell of a fancy coin ;-) > It seems to me to be a shade more elegant than letting OoG > considerations determine an outcome. Out of game considerations are not necessarily bad. For example one might consider someones reputation of standing up or breaking deals when choosing his king. Of course you are not inclined to deal with e.g a guy who decided to break his deals with you sometimes. -- Johannes Walch

On 8 Oct, 14:14, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > This is a multi-player game; personal interaction *is* a part of the game.- Hide quoted text - > > Scott, there is a WORLD apart from personal interaction and some of > the activities I've seen go on in tournaments. I see no problem at > all with 'don't bleed me this turn and I won't rush you' type deals, > but VP deals simply don't sit well. > Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal > interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so > I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. Why are > they ok in VTES circles - as long as you are eloquently able to > justify it, that is. I've played competitive (and casual) Catan on a national and european championship level. Your statement is, unfortunately, not correct - that type of trade DOES happen in Catan. It is rarer (in my experience), though. Tobias

On Oct 8, 1:19 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > @Matt: The suggestion of colussion is one of the most stupid posts > I've ever read, please think before you post, and not after Hang on a second. Had the roles been reversed and Anthony was your predator with the Ravnos deck rather than your prey with the Ventrue, would you have worked with Martin to give him the game win in the manner that you did for Anthony? If your answer is yes, you would, then I unreservedly apologise to both you and Anthony. You know Anthony a lot better than you know Martin and you had the opportunity to determine the winner of the game. I'm more concerned with the fact that for a player in your position collusion was a legal option, not especially whether you did or not. Matt

mgre...@googlemail.com wrote: > A kingmaking deal: > A deal whereby the actions of one player will result in him > determining the outcome of a tournament. Inadequate in distinguishing the deal from other deals. > A coin flip: > In such a situation a judge flips a coin to see which of the two > potential kings wins. And if the odds were 99-1 for the two? Then you've got a player making a deal to up the 1%-er's chances to 50. This just reorients the kingmaking. No progress. > Rather than get caught up in a hail of rebuffs as to how this can be > played around: what about at least giving this as an option? In the > case in point Antonio can't win and neither can Ant without Antonio's > help. Antonio offers help to Ant. > > The judge identifies this as a potential kingmaking deal and offers > Martin a choice: > > 1) Let the deal stand: he takes on the pair of them. > 2) Let a coin flip decide the winner (Ant or Martin). > > It seems to me to be a shade more elegant than letting OoG > considerations determine an outcome. Elegant? Certainly that doesn't apply. Workable perhaps, but it would be a kludge. How is the coin flip not equivalent to OoG consideration, anyway? It just mandates a particular choice of OoG consideration (the coin flip instead of something else).

[ quoted text not captured ] of course it would be the same, because I was playing to maximize my final standing, I don't care who wins the tournament, If I can't win I'll do everything to get the second place no matter if it's Martin who wins or Anthony

On Oct 8, 3:39 pm, mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] you have to know that before last weekend I've seen Tony only once and I didn't talk with him, he offers me to sleep at his place because I'm a friend of huruem and I know Damnans, so yes, I know Anthony better that Martin cause I played VTES twice the night before the tournament.

On Oct 8, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > How is the coin flip not equivalent to OoG consideration, anyway? If implimented, it would become one, yes. > It just mandates a particular choice of OoG consideration (the coin flip instead > of something else). One of fixed odds that none of the players have any control over. The suggestion was an attempt to remove the decision from the players to that of an impartial third party: a coin. If its unworkable, fine. I hope that I have at least given some readers something to think about.

On Oct 8, 2:43 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > of course it would be the same, because I was playing to maximize my > final standing, I don't care who wins the tournament, If I can't win > I'll do everything to get the second place no matter if it's Martin > who wins or Anthony Your final standing woudl have been unchanged, but no matter. I take your word for it. I apologise completely and look forward to playing you again. Cheers, Matt.

mgre...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> How is the coin flip not equivalent to OoG consideration, anyway? > > If implimented, it would become one, yes. Similarly we could implement a "who's taller" instead. >> It just mandates a particular choice of OoG consideration (the coin flip instead >> of something else). > > One of fixed odds that none of the players have any control over. The > suggestion was an attempt to remove the decision from the players to > that of an impartial third party: a coin. Fixed odd that don't necessarily reflect the in-game odds. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] There were 15 minutes left, I think that Martin could oust me, but not Tony, so with a time limit and with Martin ousting me the standigs : Martin first Tony second Me third

On Oct 8, 2:39 pm, mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: > I'm more concerned with the fact that for a player in your position > collusion was a legal option, not especially whether you did or not. > > Matt Agreed. I like you so have the tourney win - what a great way to determine a winner, no matter how rare the situation might be.

we might try: 2. Sanctioned tourneys and expect people not to play like this, a 'Gentleman's Agreement' if you like. in the UK and see how it works. I personally think our ECQ this year was much better as it had none of this problem in the final just 5 guys trying to win (ok we timed but at least we didn't hand another player the game, as Paul Coffey would say, 'My prey is to my left').

On 8 Oct, 13:42, mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So far, and let me know if I missed anything. you have implied I am: > > No implication: I find you a sociopathic, morally corrupt, > unsportsmanlike bully. The only reason you continue to play tournament > V:TES in the UK is because attendances are so low that no judge will > DQ you for unsportsmanlike conduct. > > You behaviour wouldn't be tollerated in any other CCG I've been > involved in. Telling Sam Marsh (who, lets face it, is one of the > nicest V:TES players around) that he was, quote: "a fucking idiot" to > his face 3 times in a single turn is unacceptable to me and to a > fairly broad cross-section of society. Further examples include: > > *Rob joins the UK forum after 4 years and 2 people message him to make > sure he ousts you should he get the chance. > > *I oust you x-table in Burton and 4 guys shake my hand on the way out > of the venue. > > *You sit down at the final table on Saturday and one of the judges > tells me that "at least there's two players on there that [you] can't > brow-beat". > > All that said. > > You are a bloody good V:TES player. I have masses of respect for what > you've achieved in winning the EC and X number of UK Nationals. You > are a nice guy to hang around with, funny and articulate. > > Across the card table you are abhorrant. > > I wish you'd resist temptation a little more is all. Hey, so - like, most of what you say is true - but I didn't call Sam a fucking idiot, I said it was fucking stupid :O) I personally take the PM's to Rob to oust me as a compliment :P Ant

On Oct 8, 3:10 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There were 15 minutes left, I think that Martin could oust me, but not > Tony, so with a time limit and with Martin ousting me the standigs : > > Martin first > Tony second > Me third The game would have last 5 more minutes TOPS with only 2 of us left. It would be kill or be killed by then. 15 minutes was ample time to determine a proper outcome. That aside, I had no idea that so little time was left. And also, what happened to time limit-less finals?

i hate what happened to you, and consider it poor judging by damnans or whoever. but hey, we're all ultimately human and that's where all theories of "how it should have been" or "how it should be" go to hell. i'm sure damnans is not a robot and he's capable of making mistakes. so am i, and so is everyone else. this excludes LSJ. > Being penalised because someone isn't especially eloquent or witty > should NOT EVER be a part of this game. Being glib or charming should > not be a factor in a game - ability to play should. and this is where i fundamentaly disagree. i went to a magic tournament some time ago. there were about a hundred players. and there was silence. this game is not like that. this game is meant to be a social skills game. you have to shout, you have to be charming, you have to convince people to do things as you seem fit, not as they see fit. these things are the "ability to play" in VTES. adapt.

On 8 Oct, 15:04, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> How is the coin flip not equivalent to OoG consideration, anyway? > > > If implimented, it would become one, yes. > > Similarly we could implement a "who's taller" instead. > Funny, I don't like that as much Scott, it's known information. "Who's got the largest penis" would work better, until the inevitable compilation of Lasombra's Tournament Winning Dick Archive. Thanks for being such a creative boon to this thread. Love. Matt.

[ quoted text not captured ] time limit on the final, the player with the most VP wins the tournament, in case of same numbers of VP the seed previous the final determines the winner. if you kill me and you don't kill Tony I finish third, if you kill me and tony kills you I finish third, if you kills me and also Tony I finish second, so IMHO at that moment of the game there were more chances to me to finish in third position than to finish in second position.

On Oct 8, 6:05 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 2:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that won, > > > see's this as an issue. > > > Issues are all well and good. Solutions are better. > > No point offering solutions until you acknowledge there's a problem. > Do this, and we can all discuss how this can be avoided in the future. Kingmaking is part of many--if not most--multiplayer games. As is "gang up on the leader", and so on. Garfield created the pred/prey relationship and the VP only for ousting prey to *reduce* the amount of kingmaking possible. He never tried to create a game where kingmaking was illegal or impossible. I'm not sure it is worth arguing over whether this requires the tag "problem". It simply is an aspect of this and many other multiplayer games. That said, I'm sure most people would love to see VTES have a little less ability for king-making and less opportunity for players to quickly fold in a final and play for 2nd place. If someone has some good suggestions for how to reduce king-making and further encourage players to win the current game (finals included), I'd love to hear them. Past suggestions have been about flat prize distribution & flat rating points & flat finishes (one player wins and the rest are tied for 2nd-- this does nothing for reducing king-making but it does reduce the motivation to folding for someone to earn 2nd place). -Robert

On 8 Oct, 15:12, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, > > so - like, most of what you say is true - but I didn't call Sam a > fucking idiot, I said it was fucking stupid :O) > Darn it. I'm all apologies today. > I personally take the PM's to Rob to oust me as a compliment :P > > Ant So, unless we're cool, honour demands that we settle this with a Ro- Sham-Bo competition. Coin flip to see who goes first? GreenO

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:21:57 -0700, Robert Goudie <RobertT...@gmail.com> wrote: >Past suggestions have been about flat prize distribution & flat rating >points & flat finishes (one player wins and the rest are tied for 2nd-- >this does nothing for reducing king-making but it does reduce the >motivation to folding for someone to earn 2nd place). This looks like the best possible option. Essentially, the only thing remaining is collusion to prize split, but just ruling that illegal would help prevent that. If you want to offer minor place prizes, it should be something simple (portion of boosters), and divisible 4 ways, + main prize. Or if offering distinct prizes that can't be portioned out (multiples of artwork, I've seen), then assign them to 1st through Xth place before the finals, with a prize for the final itself, indivisible. Though, for full disclosure, I don't play tournaments. I don't have time (8-12 hours work every Fri/Sat/Sun night), don't like the style of decks that show up, and don't like the attitude even small prizee support seems to add to the atmosphere. Our last game had a Mesu Bedshet Aabbt deck preying on untricked Samedi toolbox on Setite Auspex on Gangrel toolbox on Alastor Preconstructed. The kind of game where winning is good, but having fun is better. Morgan Vening

Ok, first make note that I'm only giving my humble opinion. I think that the problem with finals in this game is just a problem of prize giving, probably because a multiplayer game needs a change in thoughts about prize givings. See, in 1 vs.1 games, it stands to logic that the person ending second should get a better prize than the person ending third, just because most times the second player beated third, or a person who has played and beated third. But the same does not hold true when the game has 5 people playing, as it encourages people make "losing" deals just to end, losing, in a better position than the other players. So, it is my opinion that in a V:TES game, the prize for people ending second to fifth, the people in the final not ending first, should be the same, so in the end, if you haven't won, it doesn't matter if you end second or fifth. I apologize for my poor english, may be a problem for all of you to understand my points. Thank you.

On Oct 8, 2:57 pm, dome <l...@email.htnet.hr> wrote: > and this is where i fundamentaly disagree. i went to a magic tournament > some time ago. there were about a hundred players. and there was > silence. > > this game is not like that. this game is meant to be a social skills > game. you have to shout, you have to be charming, you have to convince > people to do things as you seem fit, not as they see fit. these things > are the "ability to play" in VTES. adapt. Hmm, I suppose I don't really mean they should NEVER be a part of the game. As stated earlier, it's a multi-player game, there will be verbal interaction. It's the nature of the beast. But browbeating or bullying someone into doing something you wish has no place here. Convincing someone that rushing you is a bad move, and perhaps if he looked upstream instead it would be a more tactical play, sure, that's cool. And I have no issues with that. And please, don't make the assumption I'm a quiet player :) I certainly am not. I'll joke about and make comments like the above as much as the next guy, but I just don't feel right making deals that are clearly not 'optimal'. What I would like to see dropped - bullying, browbeating, aggressive comments and table splitting/VP deals. Other interaction I have no issue with.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't agree with this. The prizes were the last thing on my mind, and given the amount of cards Coleman has, not to mention the artwork on offer he already had (it seemed), I doubt they were on his mind too. If there was a pile of money for first and second place, sure, things might have been different, but I still believe this situation would have happened had no prizes been on offer at this tourney.

On 8 Oct, 15:12, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Ant- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Oh and how I would have done :o)

We had flat prize distribution in the final: one starter for palces 2-5th plus a signed card. Infact nearly all of the tournaments I run are flat as tbh the guys generally winning have too many cards as it is. However there was the additinal provisio that Anthony couldn't win the 1st place prize so it would go to the runner up -perhaps this was a mistake & it should have gone to a random player or a future prize pot

Fizeront wrote: > So, it is my opinion that in a V:TES game, the prize for people ending > second to fifth, the people in the final not ending first, should be > the same, so in the end, if you haven't won, it doesn't matter if you > end second or fifth. That's how I run mine, sure. But that's up to each organizer to decide.

[ quoted text not captured ] and I have to say that I didn't know the prizes before the final, it was Damnas who told me after the final that I won the artwork.

[ quoted text not captured ] Err, signed card? I never got one... Perhaps you daren't talk to me after the final for fear I might erupt... :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Christ, as an aside George (my son) caught me in the cluster with a swingball bat yesterday. I was out of comission for nearly an hour.

How i see the game. VTES is not just playing cards, it is a battle of wills (like Martin said, he didnt like). A 3 player game has always some aspects of kingmaking. You cannot act against your prey without helping your predator, you cannot act against your predator without helping your prey. So it looks for me like that (i am not in the UK): Martin, - you were not able to avoid the 3 player table, that always has the risk, that a deal is made against you, - you didnt kill your predator to have a 2 player table, that you could win, - you didnt offer a good deal to your predator, so that he didnt make the deal with your prey, - you were not able to be so nice, kind, aggressive, what ever was psychologicaly needed, to let your predator make you the king, so maybe you deserved getting only the third place. Frank

On Oct 8, 3:55 pm, x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > so maybe you deserved getting only the third place. > > Frank Thanks <throws comment on fuck pile>

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with you to a point but I think the issue here is not to do with prizes, unless i'm wrong the players left in the final couldn't have really cared less about the prizes. It may help sort some situations though, you are right.

mgre...@googlemail.com schrieb: > On 8 Oct, 15:04, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> mgree...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 8, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> How is the coin flip not equivalent to OoG consideration, anyway? >>> If implimented, it would become one, yes. >> Similarly we could implement a "who's taller" instead. >> > Funny, I don't like that as much Scott, it's known information. "Who's > got the largest penis" would work better, until the inevitable > compilation of Lasombra's Tournament Winning Dick Archive. It would be kinda unfair for female players. -- Johannes Walch

On 8 Oct, 15:53, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > and I have to say that I didn't know the prizes before the final, it > was Damnas who told me after the final that I won the artwork. Don't worry man, no one thinks you were colluding, its a word that gets 'tested' when this sort of thing kicks off.

[ quoted text not captured ] Only if they're unmarried. Everyone knows a husband's weiner belongs to his wife. So she could use that. Moreso than he could. Morgan Vening - Why do you think they get so upset when they're cheated on?

> You behaviour wouldn't be tollerated in any other CCG I've been > involved in. Telling Sam Marsh (who, lets face it, is one of the > nicest V:TES players around) that he was, quote: "a fucking idiot" to > his face 3 times in a single turn is unacceptable to me and to a > fairly broad cross-section of society. Cheers Matt, but to be honest having played Anthony before I just let it wash over me - and I can't have been too far wrong in my play as I won that particular game. However such abuse could easily offend, or upset players, and by that affect their play - to win or not. > You are a bloody good V:TES player. I have masses of respect for what > you've achieved in winning the EC and X number of UK Nationals. You > are a nice guy to hang around with, funny and articulate. True, > > Across the card table you are abhorrant. And often true. Sam

hugh.an...@gmail.com skrev: [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like several of the prelims during the EC: "I'll hulk my prey." "No I have a deal propo..." "Silent, I'm hulking my prey." "But if you just listen to..." "I said shut up, I'm hulking my prey." "But..." "Ok man, if you continue to intervene in my game I'll hulk you instead." "But..." "Understood?" "Yeah, ok." "So, I'm hulking my prey." I loved it :) Sten -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

> English was fine pal, don't worry. Truth be told, I wasn't really > aware of the extent of this deal until it had begun to happen, so I > was unable to 'counter offer' anyway. I am loathed to say there was a > language barrier there, but I found Antonio, as a non-native English > speaker, incredibly difficult to understand. Then that makes deal making all the more difficult, and any subtle counterdealing even more difficult. Perhaps the growth of international players are exacerbating the problem? Sam

On 8 Oct, 13:53, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > Man, this reads like some stuff that people posted/talked about > playing against me. Green, I consider myself a VERY similar player to > Ant, perhaps a little less ...... challenging :o) And its so hard to > not play as it comes naturally. Look at you and I across a table of > old. *shudder* Are you sure you want to admit to that - that is basically saying your a sociopathic bully :O) Man - Just remembering some of the funny moments of Saturday - Like when MArty, after I asked for Table service fromt he barmaid -she agreed... Marty taps the table and says "up you get then" That was FUCKING funny. I dont think we should loose sight of how muhc of a laugh the day was, over the last 5 mins fo the final.. :O)

[ quoted text not captured ] LOL Yeah - you pussy - you were lucky to make third... ;) *ducks*

[ quoted text not captured ] Just so its known - the reason I was not allowed to win the picture was that it was my picture in the first place :p Would be kinda stupid to win it back :O)

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk escribió: > On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> ? >> It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > > And who determined for this player that 1st wasn't reasonably > possibly? I did. > Someone who by his own admission doesn't understand the way > scoring works, I do understand how scoring works. I just did not take scoring into account because of the reasons I am giving below. > and didn't look at my hand to determine if I had any > ousting power there. All that was taken into account was the cards on > the table at face value - and if that's all it takes to determine > who's going to win a game, why not just play for 15 minutes and get a > judge to walk round and determine a winner for each round... All that needs to be taken into account when a VP deal is made between two players is: Is that playing to win for both players?. Anthony was playing to win (since by honouring that deal he would get the tournament win). Antonio was playing to win (since by honouring that deal he was maximizing his standing). As you have already admitted in another post, Antonio could not win: "I'm not suggesting you [Antonio] *would* have won, you [Antonio] were clearly in the weakest position at the table, however, perhaps I'm being overly tenacious or stubborn, but I will ALWAYS play for first place, no matter how desperate the situation seems to be - 2nd is as good as 5th to me, as it is Coleman too." So if he can't win the tournament he is allowed to play for second place. >> Then why didn't the player play for first? Because he couldn't. >> The usual answer is: because playing for second was playing to win for his deck >> in the position he was in at the table in the state it was in. > > But as I pointed out, that simply was not true. With my help we could > have taken out his prey (my predator), and then duked it out, just the > two of us. Which could have led him to oust me, and go on to win over > all (and STILL leave me in 3rd place, incidentally) You have already admitted above that Antonio could not win. >> Perhaps. >> But then, what motive would he have for doing as he did? > > Well, now you're opening a can of worms. The player that won overall > had already said he wouldn't take part of the first place prize, > meaning it would pass to the person placing in 2nd, maybe he really > wanted that prize. Perhaps he was a friend of the guy who placed > first. Perhaps he was crashing on his floor after the tourney. > Perhaps he just didn't like me. I can't get inside the guys head, all > I can do is point out the facts as they stand - any one of use could > have won. Try harder. I did not think for a second that the ruling I made was going to be so controversial, since it was so crystal-clear to me that Antonio could not win (which is the only thing that matters in that kind of deals). -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On 8 Oct, 17:22, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > So if he can't win the tournament he is allowed to play for second place. > > >> Then why didn't the player play for first? > > Because he couldn't. In your opinion. > > Try harder. > > I did not think for a second that the ruling I made was going to be so > controversial, since it was so crystal-clear to me that Antonio could > not win (which is the only thing that matters in that kind of deals). I still fail to see how you could make that (imho wrong) call without all the facts and even if you did ,why you told me to shush when I was trying to discuss it with you. Surely something that important (as that clearly was at that point) need specific and justifiable back up? To not consider the points standing of the game seems nothing shy of negligent in that scenario.

rptre...@aol.com escribió: > On 8 Oct, 11:40, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >>>> The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances >>>> to win. >>>> 3.5. Conceding Games >>>> Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the >>>> players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to >>>> win rule, >>> So what happened to talking to the head judge about it? :o) In all >>> seriousness, I honestly don't see how either of you could have 'ruled' >>> that he had no reasonable chances of winning. I saw the same things as >>> you and I just do not agree. While I may not know all the new cards >>> etc. I would hope I qualify to assess the state of a game. As far as I >>> can see, nothing has changed there. I just didn't agree with you and >>> out of courtesy didn't say anything. >> According to you, what were Antonio's chances to win? > > I think we should take that offline maybe but the non-emotive bullet > points for me were as follows: > > - On Antonios turn he offered the deal. Had he waited one turn I think > Anthony would have been in a very bad way having one minion Sense > Depped and one possibly in torpor leaving him on 1 active minion. Not 1, but 2 ready minions in the worst scenario. Anthony had Emerson Bridges, Timothy Crowley, Catherine DuBois, Ranjan Rishi, Jazz Wentworth and Gideon Fontaine (this one in torpor). > - As far as I recall, Antonio had a misdirection in hand as well. It > certainly was not just 'all bleed' It was a Misdirection and 'all bleed'. > - Anthony had a hand with no stealth and no real way of getting > through Martys defense. I'm not saying that couldn't have changed in a > blink but *at that point* he imo couldn't take out Ant. > - Antonio had 3 minions, He had 4. > Martin had 3 minions. Taking hands out of the > equation (as nobody looked at Martins and therefore you have to) that > would influence the decision for me. > - The state of the *game* was not considered imo. If this is not > required of a judge then fine. It was considered. When the deal was made, I only had to consider whether Antonio had reasonable chances to win the tournament or not. He couldn't afford to tap out (2 almost empty vampires and 1 imbued) and fail to oust Anthony, since his pool was low, Martin had 3 vampires (2 of which had +1 bleed), and Antonio would have been defenseless against Martin afterward. > There are other things but I do not want to bandy those around on here > out of respect. I am really astonished. You wrote that you said nothing to me during the final out of courtesy, and now you write there are other things you do not want to say out respect. If you considered that deal was illegal, you should have told me and make your points about it. But you said nothing to me instead. And now you are complaining about it?. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "courtesy" and "respect". >> According to Martin (in the UK forum): "They colluded against me to >> take me out because they KNEW they couldn't beat me any other way. " >> >> According to me, Antonio was screwed and could not move forward safely >> enough, since his lack of defense against Martin was complete. He just >> had 2 vampires (low on blood) and 1 imbued. No combat cards in his >> hand, no reactions. > > How can you consider a defence against something you have not even > seen? Its like comparing one car's top speed to another without > knowing what the other car is. Read above. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

rptre...@aol.com escribió: > On 8 Oct, 17:22, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > >> So if he can't win the tournament he is allowed to play for second place. >> >>>> Then why didn't the player play for first? >> Because he couldn't. > > In your opinion. > >> Try harder. >> >> I did not think for a second that the ruling I made was going to be so >> controversial, since it was so crystal-clear to me that Antonio could >> not win (which is the only thing that matters in that kind of deals). > > I still fail to see how you could make that (imho wrong) call without > all the facts and even if you did ,why you told me to shush when I was > trying to discuss it with you. Surely something that important (as > that clearly was at that point) need specific and justifiable back up? Oh, sorry. I thought you were discussing it with your friends. You were at the other side of the table and should have approached Hugh or me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 8, 4:57 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > mgree...@googlemail.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Well unless the female in mention has a boyfriend/husband. Because then she wins as she has a human sized dick right next to her. ;)

On 8 Oct, 17:54, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > rptreas...@aol.com escribió: [ quoted text not captured ] > http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yeah - As much as I'm all for telling Rob to STFU in general, telling the head judge to shush when discussing a GW del in the final is a bit funny :O) These things happen though, communication breakdown. Ant

[ quoted text not captured ] > then she wins as she has a human sized dick right next to her. ;)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Urm, Mate - you might see yourself like that - I dont share your global evaluation of the male spouse :O)

On 8 Oct, 17:41, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [snip] > > > - Anthony had a hand with no stealth and no real way of getting > > through Martys defense. I'm not saying that couldn't have changed in a > > blink but *at that point* he imo couldn't take out Ant. > > - Antonio had 3 minions, > > He had 4. No, I think you'll find he had 3 as you quote later in this post. > > Martin had 3 minions. Taking hands out of the > > equation (as nobody looked at Martins and therefore you have to) that > > would influence the decision for me. > > - The state of the *game* was not considered imo. If this is not > > required of a judge then fine. > > It was considered. > > When the deal was made, I only had to consider whether Antonio had > reasonable chances to win the tournament or not. Perhaps this is the problem here. I was looking at play to win overall not 'win the tournament'. As I have said elsewhere I think he still stood a fair chance and rather than ruling this way maybe they should have been made to play the game out. I just feel that had Antonio even asked and found out Marty's intentions (something that would have happened had the deal not been allowed) then we would have seen those questions asked and then a very different and more suitable (to all?) outcome? > He couldn't afford to tap out (2 almost empty vampires and 1 imbued) and > fail to oust Anthony, since his pool was low, Martin had 3 vampires (2 > of which had +1 bleed), and Antonio would have been defenseless against > Martin afterward. Were you looking further than that turn out of interest? Not a cheap jibe, I am trying to get the full picture. > > There are other things but I do not want to bandy those around on here > > out of respect. > > I am really astonished. > > You wrote that you said nothing to me during the final out of courtesy, > and now you write there are other things you do not want to say out > respect. Well, as I have said I think you made a very bad call and worse, appeared to be rude to me, commented on by several other players but I did not want to say that on here. That was all I was refering to. > If you considered that deal was illegal, you should have told me and > make your points about it. But you said nothing to me instead. And now > you are complaining about it?. I think you misunderstand the meaning of > "courtesy" and "respect". Do I really? Ok, if that is your opinion, fine. See above, when I was trying to discuss this with you, you held up your hand and said something like shush (dismissive, be quiet type of thing). Not wishing to detract from the main issue at hand I did not take it up then and there. Perhaps I should have but I did not want to undermine players confidence in the pool of judges by starting another argument. > > How can you consider a defence against something you have not even > > seen? Its like comparing one car's top speed to another without > > knowing what the other car is. > > Read above. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

On Oct 8, 7:04 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > Urm, Mate - you might see yourself like that - I dont share your > global evaluation of the male spouse :O) Dont see myself that way, just going on the average female "He's a bastard!" response. Maybe working with divorced people is clouding my judgement here... ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] What confuses me, since I'm only reading about this on the internet, is why Marty hadn't made his intentions known regardless of whether the offending deal was ruled legal. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] that is something that only Martin can answer, but at that moment I was at 7 pool with no defense and my predator had 3 minions, 2 of them with +1 bleed.

On 8 Oct, 18:22, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: [snip] > What confuses me, since I'm only reading about this on the internet, > is why Marty hadn't made his intentions known regardless of whether > the offending deal was ruled legal. > > witness1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You would have to ask him. Knowing him as I do, if I had to say I would go for a mix of surprise at the deal, not wanting to get involved with it and playing his cards close to his chest. By the time the deal was approved, there was no room for this and no real reason for him to say it pre-deal.

[ quoted text not captured ] But why was there no room to say it after the deal was approved? I mean, the deal can be offered, challenged, and declared legal, and you should still be able to counteroffer, assuming you have something to offer? witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Honest opinion is that Marty had lost all taste for the game then and also had his minions misdirected and bled by Antonio with Deflection from Anthony. Had to be there but after ruling the whole thing took perhaps 30 seconds.

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> ? >> It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > Well, now you're opening a can of worms. The player that won overall > had already said he wouldn't take part of the first place prize, > meaning it would pass to the person placing in 2nd, maybe he really > wanted that prize. Well, i think *that's* still the problem to be fixed with tournament's rules - imho prizes should *not* be allowed to be part of a tournament's final deal (as isn't allowed in the previous rounds) - Often lots of bad blood flows by that, in the very moment that a would-be losing player trades his "losing" position with prizes, dealing with some other at the table. This is a thing that needs badly to be fixed, IMHO. Emiliano, italian NC www.italybynight.org

On 8 Oct, 18:47, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Could be but that really wasn't the issue at all here imo.

[ quoted text not captured ] Are you sure ? From what i cited in the previous post, seems like the prize splitting allowance was actually a big incentive in creating the premise from which the troubled deal was made. Maybe i'm wrong, of course best

On 8 Oct, 18:56, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > best- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Fair enough but I think we are going down an entirely different and unpleasent road there which I don't think applies. Ant had no need/want for the prize and I KNOW could not give a monkeys about most prizes, same as me. Marty was so blown away by the whole thing I don't think that even entered his head. Antonio is the only unknown and he would have to comment but again, I did not feel that was the motivator there.

On Oct 8, 7:56 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I repeat, I din't know the prizes, so I played the final to win, and at the moment it wasn't posible for me I played to get the second place. I didn't know about the artwork, Damnans told me about that AFTER the final

LSJ replied to mgree... > > If implimented, it would become one, yes. > > Similarly we could implement a "who's taller" instead. Please do this. I'm sure that Jay Kristoff will also agree that it's a good idea. Jesse

On Oct 8, 1:56 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It sounds very much to me like Antonio was in a very bad position and made as much of it as he thought was possible. Just to make sure I'm clear on what happened, I'll go through this. If I get anything wrong, please correct me. Antonio's minions were weak, he had 6 bleed cards and a misdirection, and Anthony had enough untapped minions to block every action, or every action but 1 if he played misdirection. He might be able to get a single bleed through this turn if he plays misdirection on his prey, and his prey has no deflections or wakes. If he does this, he is tapped out. Martin has 5 bleed to Antonio's 7 pool, without playing any cards. He can go all out forward and hope that Martin does not oust him next turn for some reason. He can do nothing this turn and hope that his options are somehow better next turn. Without some kind of deal, his situation looks pretty close to hopeless. Once Antonio decides to attempt a deal, he can deal with his prey or his predator. If he deals with his predator (Martin), he may be able to gain 1 VP and 6 pool. He has to convince his Martin to Sense Dep and Gabrin-tap Anthony's minions (and he can't be sure that Sense Dep is even in Martin's hand). Unfortunately, Antonio doesn't have much to offer to entice Martin into this deal - he essentially has to credibly threaten to gang with Anthony. Also unfortunately, Antonio has no way to ensure that Martin will live up to his end of the deal, or survive if Martin decides to break it. Anthony might even be able to backoust him if he deals with Martin. Antonio can also not guarantee that his placement will end up better than 2nd even if he does get one additional VP by ousting Anthony with Martin's help. He gains 6 pool, which helps, but his minions are still weak and he will spend most or all of their blood by bleeding Anthony. If Martin breaks the deal, Anthony could fall into 3rd place. Instead, Antonio offers a deal to Anthony, to oust Martin and secure 2nd place with near certainty. There is no incentive for Anthony to decline or break the deal, and no incentive for Anthony not to take the deal. It's as close to a guaranteed 2nd place finish as you can get. Without having been there or reading anyone's mind, it's possible that Antonio may have even been trying to prompt Martin to make the counteroffer, but he can't take a deal that's not offered. Given that, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Antonio made his decision based on where that piece of artwork was going, though it still would have been a better idea to let (make?) Anthony keep his artwork if he won the tournament (he could then offer it as prize at the next tournament if he really wanted to). witness1

On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > As you have already admitted in another post, Antonio could not win: > "I'm not suggesting you [Antonio] *would* have won, you [Antonio] were > clearly in the weakest position at the table, however, perhaps I'm being > overly tenacious or stubborn, but I will ALWAYS play for first place, no > matter how desperate the situation seems to be - 2nd is as good as 5th > to me, as it is Coleman too." No I bloody well did not. I said he was in the weakest position, I did not, and would not say he could not win. He could have - any of us 3 could have. You wanna pull me up ona point, get yer facts straight. > >> Then why didn't the player play for first? > > Because he couldn't. Yes he could. He could have gone back on his deal with Coleman for a start. > You have already admitted above that Antonio could not win. Please stop accusing me of this baseless bullshit. I did not, nor would I say this. > Try harder. Nice counter argument there. > I did not think for a second that the ruling I made was going to be so > controversial, since it was so crystal-clear to me that Antonio could > not win (which is the only thing that matters in that kind of deals). How was it crystal clear to you? Are you able to see into the future? Perhaps I missed your divination bones from earlier rounds...

On Oct 8, 7:35 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: <SNIP> That is a reasonably close approximation of things. I will add that aside from one newly influenced vampire, two of my others were on 2 or 3 blood each tops, both with blood dolls on them, so I was hardly in the best shape either. Truth be told, Coleman was probably in the best shape overall, if you just looked at the cards on the table. I had the Fortune Teller Shop to, so I *could* have pushed through a bleed I suppose, but it was fair for me to assume Antonio had at least one deflection in his hand, considering the number he had played previously to that point. The way I see it, the easy way out was taken instead of playing things out, for whatever reason. I see this as a cop out, nothing less. Throw in some seriously misguided judge rulings, and it's not an experience I am in a hurry to replicate. Marty

[ quoted text not captured ] I would also add that Antonio had no way of knowing if Ant had deflections as you have stated that he had no way of knowing about dep etc. I also think that there was *no* convincing needed to be done to get Marty to go backwards with the Dep and tap and more. I honestly think from all my experience of reading how games pan out (and the added bonus of seeing hands etc.) that Marty and Ant would have hamstrung each other to some extent that turn or at least Marty would have been weakened and Ant made a lot more manageable... if it would have played out. Then by doing literally nothing that turn, (maybe Govern down??) Antonio would have been in a better position and could have lunged at the right time to get Ant. Who can really say as it didn't roll like that but that is my educated opinion.

[ quoted text not captured ] The only vampire I had on my uncontrolled region wasn't younger than my ready vampires.

[ quoted text not captured ] I have to admit that it sucks, a lot. And I give you major props for coming back into this game and getting 3rd place in the UK Nationals. But I think it would also kinda suck (suck less, but still suck) to tell someone who's got good reason to believe that second is the best they can get that they aren't allowed to secure it for themselves. Anyway, I really hope you keep playing in spite of this. The game needs good players. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] What did you draw after playing the Misdirection? What did you draw after playing the govern + conditioning? Quite frankly, just chickening out and saying, "Hey best I can possibly get is 2nd, so I'll just be your little bunny" is a sad way to play. It might be the play that you thought was best for you as it stands in regards to placings, but, frankly, IMO, its the most ball-less play. And that I cannot ever respect. If you know its either 3rd or 2nd, no matter what happens, but 1st is possible, go for broke. - rest of comment self censored...- All respect to Martin for playing for the win, and well done to Anthony for taking advantage of a gift horse.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't remember the three next cards I got, but 2 of them were Slaughthering the Herd, but I guess you don't care about the cards, so IMHO at that moment I took the best and the correct decission, if anyone doesn't think like me it's simple, you can play the UK Nats and get better result than me before the final, as this way I won't be on the final. Cheers, Antonio

[ quoted text not captured ] > my ready vampires.- Hide quoted text - No problem man, for what it's worth I think you played very well in that situation and up till then and kept cool when all around you was in chaos. I suppose I wouldn't have played things that way, but that is meaningless and possibly wrong but I can really understand why you did what you did too. The issue is with the game in allowing that play theoretically imo, however it was judged. Also, other posters, lets cut this horse shit about it being prize orientated, that was NOT the case here.

[ quoted text not captured ] And yet a valid and potentially sound strategy in certain situations, no? I think to dismiss someone's game like that without having seen it, been there or understanding what actually happened is ignorant at best.

On Oct 8, 9:40 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > And yet a valid and potentially sound strategy in certain situations, > no? > > I think to dismiss someone's game like that without having seen it, > been there or understanding what actually happened is ignorant at best. You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, no matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. Especially in a final. Play. To. Win. Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. If a player truly believes that with 3 governs, a misdirection and three conditionings they cannot do anything, well then i feel sorry that they gave up trying. When you have no minions left, little pool and no resources, then you've lost. Till then you can keep on trying.

Acbishop wrote: > Does anyone read my post with the explanation about the final? > > Because it seems for me that nobody did. > > > could anyone tell me how can I win the final at that moment of the > game? > > > I'm goind to remind you again my hand, 1 misdirection, 3 govern the > unaligned, 3 conditioning and 1 misdirection. > > 2 vampires, one with Superior Dominate and 1 blood and the other with > dominate inferior and 1 blood, and one imbued. > > I was at seven pool with no way to oust Tony, he had 3 vampires un > tapped all the moment, the three of them with dominate, we can all of > us think that he had at least one deflection. > > so, no stealth, no defense in hand, the only way to win is to try to > force the table to arrive to the time limit with the three players > alive, so to talk a lot and stalling, which is ILLEGAL, so martin is > saying that I could deal with him to oust tony, ok I tried to oust > tony bleeding him, tony deflects twice, so no avance in ousting tony, > maybe tony didn't oust martin after his turn(that means martin > deflects one of the bleeds of tony to me, so on next martin's turn I > would be all tapped, so he could easily oust me, as martin was 1rt > seed, my final standings would be third one and no second one. > > that's the reason I played to win, because I really believed that it > wasn't possible for me to oust Tony, so as the rules say I clearly > play to win, because I maximize my victory points and with it my final > standing on the tournament. > > I wasn't there, didn't see the other decks. But 3 Governs looks like 9 pool and 3 cards cycled into my hand, some of which may be deflections. Or 3 untapped vampires of your prey and a misdirection looks like 2 untapped vampires, bleed 3 times with Govern's, the last one will get through, maybe. At least you cycle out 4 cards, maybe even 4-5 if you play a Conditioning or two. And it will get deflections out of Ant and perhap's Martin's hands as well as they bounce it back and forth between them. If Ant blocks, no doubt he plays Majesty, right, so you don't lose blood on your vamps. Or he hits you hands, you might have to hunt the next turn. Either way, you are actually at that point in a stronger position by being weaker. All that being said, I can see how you may have thought you were in a lost position. If it had been me, I think I would have feinted first at Ant, tried to land a bleed. Or Governed down each turn. But that's how I play, and I never make finals of big tournaments, so what hell do I know. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It was your argument, not mine. Settlers has no causal relationship >> on VTES rules. >> >> PTW is OK in both games, yes. > > I was pointing out that in any multiplayer game human interaction > exists, and yet it seems that only VTES can you screw over other > players just to place second (because you are of some misguided belief > that you can't win), that that sort of action is ok'd by the rules and > worse, seems to be actively encouraged. > > I take it you see nothing wrong with the current situation as it > stands then? The fact that someone can screw over another persons > chance to win to guarantee 2nd place, when there was a chance, no > matter how slim of them placing 1st over all? > > I shan't be playing competitive VTES again, and if this is the state > of affairs, I'd suggest a lot of people may well not. There is even > talk on the UK forum of bowing out of the VEKN and having our own > tournaments - because of this situation. In Italy, several topics on the vtes community forum were about this too, and a schism from the "supported" scene it's a thing that i would better avoid, in fact- seems like there's a unconscious will in keeping tournament rules oblique and prone to king-making and collusion, as they're now. Sure that's not the intent behind such rulings, but when several reports are all about finals bad blood due prize splitting, kingmaking and the like, something should be done. Besides, it makes me wonder so much that a longstanding game as VTES, that has actually a pretty tournament activity a *so* much rules (and erratas, and clarifications, and mechanics) to care for, does not has a certified judging system, another thing that actually could help a lot in keeping the tournaments scene fair and consistent > It is ludicrous, and you > have the power to change it, yet you are fine with the way it is. > EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that won, > see's this as an issue. I wasn't there, but hey, it an issue, really. best Emiliano, italian NC

rptre...@aol.com wrote: > On 8 Oct, 13:31, Joscha <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 8 Okt., 14:14, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: >> >>> Setters of Catan is also a multi-player game, with personal >>> interaction, but you don't get deals like 'well, I'm not gonna win, so >>> I'll help you to - here, have my 5 brick for your 1 corn'. Why are >>> they ok in VTES circles - as long as you are eloquently able to >>> justify it, that is. >> Because people value getting a safe second place higher than go for a >> vague GW. That is the problem of players who are glad to be better >> than the other three guys. They value that higher than a tough but >> fruitless fight for the win. Not everybody thinks that way. Erol tried >> and failed in the finals of the EC. But he was proud he tried to get >> the win even if that meant fifth place for him in the end. >> If you're playing Settlers of Catan there is no benefit in coming >> second. Otherwise I could imagine the same problems. 'If you make me >> second I give you my 5 brick for free and split prizes afterwards'. In >> VTES you get prizes and rating points. Maybe we should play "winner >> takes it all". > > ... clearly your argument falls to pieces, everyone knows wood is the > least common in settlers :o) > It's the sheep that are afraid of the wood though. Except when young master George is a little too free with the bat. Then the sheep rest easy... And wait - Martin, there is no Corn in VTES (Sheep, Wood, Ore, Brick, Grain - I guess that could be corn, I always thought it was wheat). best - chris (who doesn't even know you Rob, just weaving themes in this thread together) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Oct, 20:45, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 9:40 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > > > And yet a valid and potentially sound strategy in certain situations, > > no? > > > I think to dismiss someone's game like that without having seen it, > > been there or understanding what actually happened is ignorant at best. > > You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, no > matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. > Especially in a final. > Play. To. Win. I didn't miss that at all. > Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. > > If a player truly believes that with 3 governs, a misdirection and > three conditionings they cannot do anything, well then i feel sorry > that they gave up trying. > > When you have no minions left, little pool and no resources, then > you've lost. Till then you can keep on trying. I see your point and agree with you to an extent, however in a game of greys, that is black and white. I just don't think you should wail on Antonio for using the tools he had or be berating him for playing differently to you, for all we know that may have been his 1st final and in that instance an 80% chance at 2nd would be pretty appealing over a 20% chance (or whatever) at 1st. Don't get me wrong here either, i'm pretty sure I'd take the 20% chance of a better place any day but many wouldn't and as that stands seems to be in the rules.

LSJ wrote: > martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: >> On Oct 8, 1:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> It was your argument, not mine. Settlers has no causal relationship >>> on VTES rules. PTW is OK in both games, yes. >> >> I was pointing out that in any multiplayer game human interaction >> exists, and yet it seems that only VTES can you screw over other >> players just to place second (because you are of some misguided >> belief that you can't win), > > That is a matter of faulty perception. > It is possible in most (all?) multiplayer games of human or AI > interaction. > Well, barring your new addition "misguided belief". > The discussion is about PTW, not misguided beliefs. > >> that that sort of action is ok'd by the rules and >> worse, seems to be actively encouraged. > > It is not encouraged, per se. > It is simply acknowledged as an inherent and unavoidable. > >> I take it you see nothing wrong with the current situation as it >> stands then? > > I haven't heard anyone offer a viable alternative, if that's what you > mean. - Make prize splitting not legal in the final's deals (as much as they're not legal in the previous round). - Let's have a certified judge system for official vtes tournaments - i'm sure that all the competent rules addicts would gladly offer their contribution for developing it, and having officially recognized judges could raise the consideration players can have towards judging in official tournaments Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] >From my understanding, Antonio only had 2 vampires, with 1 blood each. His other minion was a previously stolen imbued. So at most he can tap 1 guy with misdirection, get a bleed for one through with his imbued, and get blocked with his other guys, ending up at zero blood on both guys due to hands for 1, tapped out, down to 6 pool from playing misdirection against a predator who has 5 bleed standing, and no blood left on his guys even if he cycles into a wake and deflection. > Either way, you are actually at that point in a stronger position by > being weaker. > > All that being said, I can see how you may have thought you were in a > lost position. > > If it had been me, I think I would have feinted first at Ant, tried to > land a bleed. Or Governed down each turn. But that's how I play, and I > never make finals of big tournaments, so what hell do I know. He stated above that he couldn't govern down due to age limits (no younger vampire). This means his options amount to 1) spend a pool on misdirection and bleed with his imbued (hoping his prey decides to let this one through since his other minions have dominate), 2) do nothing but discard and hope for the best, or 3) try to deal. Not saying 1 or 2 couldn't have worked, but I don't see a great reason to fault the guy for going with 3 instead. witness1

On 8 Oct, 20:53, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] *tips hat* Good lord man.... and I thought I had a lot to drink tonight :o)

Robert Goudie wrote: > On Oct 8, 6:05 am, martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>>> EVERYONE else that was at the tournment, including the guy that >>>> won, see's this as an issue. >> >>> Issues are all well and good. Solutions are better. >> >> No point offering solutions until you acknowledge there's a problem. >> Do this, and we can all discuss how this can be avoided in the >> future. > > Kingmaking is part of many--if not most--multiplayer games. As is > "gang up on the leader", and so on. Garfield created the pred/prey > relationship and the VP only for ousting prey to *reduce* the amount > of kingmaking possible. He never tried to create a game where > kingmaking was illegal or impossible. I'm not sure it is worth arguing > over whether this requires the tag "problem". It simply is an aspect > of this and many other multiplayer games. > > That said, I'm sure most people would love to see VTES have a little > less ability for king-making and less opportunity for players to > quickly fold in a final and play for 2nd place. > > If someone has some good suggestions for how to reduce king-making and > further encourage players to win the current game (finals included), > I'd love to hear them. > Imho, best way is to have a (small) flat prizes for all the 5 finalists, and then make real prizes for the final round *winner* only (at least scoring 2 points without no-one else scoring that much or more, or end up scoring at least 3 points); at the same time, prize splitting as part of deals should be not allowed in finals. my two cents Emiliano

On 8 Oct, 21:05, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Imho, best way is to have a (small) flat prizes for all the 5 finalists, and > then make real prizes for the final round *winner* only (at least scoring 2 > points without no-one else scoring that much or more, or end up scoring at > least 3 points); at the same time, prize splitting as part of deals should > be not allowed in finals. How would that help situations like this one that had nothing to do with the prizes? These deals made and unmade are rarely about prizes ime and more about good players playing and (most of the time) wanting to win, sometimes using others round the table to help them do so.

[ quoted text not captured ] Im my experience, players play to get prizes (whatever they can be), that are the form of reward of every tournament system - in my suggestion, as you win the final round, you know you will get the real prizes - stalling for time to keep just your first (or whatever it maybe) seed, therefore kingmaking some other to second (or whatever it may be) place, etc, woulnd't result in the prize reward for the (final) round winner. I'm not saying that those things (kingmaking, stalling etc)actually happened in the final in subject, but that's they're things that can happen (and they happens)... a lot under the current set of rules. Imho, basically that would suggest a very different beaviour in finalists, and since it's already allowed to give conditional prizes (lsj confirmed this some time ago), i'm considering to have it adopted as the standard prize-giving policy here in italy. best

On Oct 8, 10:23 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think I speak for many people when I say that when playing a final I couldnt care less about the prizes. VTES isnt and probably never will be a game with a big focus on prizes. They are funny/cool/neat at best. I would play to win. Nothing else. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th whatever doesnt really matter. If people are making losing deals in finals I will try to counter deal and then break it at the first opportunity if it gave me the win. PS: Dear reader. If we ever play a final together, then of course what I just wrote doesnt apply for that game. Trust me.

Howdy, > > > Then Antonio made a deal with Coleman, he claimed there was no way he > > > could oust him, and so he'd settle for second place and help him oust > > > me. Coleman of course agreed, so Antonio Misdirected my untapped > > > vampire and had several bleeds bounced in my direction (there were > > > discussions previous as to exactly how many deflections Coleman had in > > > his hand etc). I fended off Antonio fine, then a few of Colemans > > > early actions, but it seems he managed to pull a Conditioning just > > > when he needed it and got the oust that turned. Then Antonio rolled > > > for him - didn't even play it out... > > > wait. when it was down to two players, one of them rolled over? The one > > who currently did NOT have a Game Win? > > Yes. > > > I think that's against the rules. Unless the rolling player did not > > think they had a reasonable chance of ousting the other player anyway. > > But even then it could be a bit iffy. > > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > to win. > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > win rule, I've read this whole thread, and most of the discussion seems to be about the wisdom/legality of the deal when it was made. I'm not really interested in that end of the discussion, but the bit above seems to me to be both novel and important. Is this ruling really correct? If so, it seems to me that it completely moots the rule that all deals are off when the table is reduced to two players. Beyond the rules mooting issue, it also seems to me that it sucks. The clear intention of the rule is that the remaining two players should play to win the game. I don't see any way to _not_ violate Play to Win by conceding when either player could still earn enough VPs for a Game Win. What would it hurt to actually play it out? If Antonio was really in a lost position, it shouldn't take long. If not, well, then he can't concede under play to win, right? And if he won't play to win, then he is disqualified and another player can play out his position, or whatever. Really wondering, Alex

On Oct 8, 3:44 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > On Oct 8, 10:34 am, Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote: > > > > > > Where's the playing to win here? Why do you not have to play to win > > > in a final? Can I really play for 2nd place if I fancy the prize more > > > than what's on offer for first? Or worse still, can I just back oust > > > someone, then transfer myself out, because a good mate of mine is my > > > grand-predator and I'd really like him to win? > > > > If this is the state of competitive VTES play now, I'm bloody glad I'm > > > out of it. > > > > Marty > > > Super pissed about the turn of events > > > Playing to win means this: > > > 1) You have to strive to get a gamewin. > > 2) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get a gamewin, you have > > to strive to maximize the amount of VPs you get. > > 3) If you do not have a reasonable chance to get another VP , you are > > free to do whatever you want (lose as you choose). > > > So, if this player was in situation 3, and could get more prizes from > > playing one way or the other, that's his full right. > > And as an addendum: > 1) In the final round, you must play to maximize your standing. I would say that 1) Any deal which by its end result would give another player 3 VPs and therefore the game win is by default illegal. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] I like the simplicity of that, but why not make it 2 VPs? It would ensure the "short term" deals, that I think are an important aspect of the game. "You help me against my prey and I help you against yours", "Give my prey 2 damage now so he is ousted, and I will do my Kine resources on your prey" etc. etc. This would be my suggestion if we start walking down this path. 1) Any deal which by its end result would give a player the game win is by default illegal.

On Oct 8, 7:02 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:56 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > > > > rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > > > On 8 Oct, 18:47, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > >> martin.cubber...@southbeds.gov.uk wrote: > > >>> On Oct 8, 12:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >>>> ? > > >>>> It is when 1st is not reasonably possible. > > >>> Well, now you're opening a can of worms. The player that won > > >>> overall had already said he wouldn't take part of the first place > > >>> prize, meaning it would pass to the person placing in 2nd, maybe he > > >>> really wanted that prize. > > > >> Well, i think *that's* still the problem to be fixed with > > >> tournament's rules - > > >> imho prizes should *not* be allowed to be part of a tournament's > > >> final deal (as isn't allowed in the previous rounds) - > > >> Often lots of bad blood flows by that, in the very moment that a > > >> would-be losing player trades his "losing" position with prizes, > > >> dealing with some other at the table. > > >> This is a thing that needs badly to be fixed, IMHO. > > > >> Emiliano, italian NCwww.italybynight.org > > > > Could be but that really wasn't the issue at all here imo. > > > Are you sure ? > > From what i cited in the previous post, seems like the prize splitting > > allowance was actually a big incentive in creating the premise from > > which the troubled deal was made. > > Maybe i'm wrong, of course > > > best > > I repeat, I din't know the prizes, so I played the final to win, and > at the moment it wasn't posible for me I played to get the second > place. I didn't know about the artwork, Damnans told me about that > AFTER the final You played well, and people should drop this prize shit - the issue is the rules allowing game win deals, not your play and I think you have justified your actions and that you played well in the final... again its the rules that caused the debate, and made marty feel quite rightly annoyed. For my own motivation, It was winning, as always - I provided the main prize, the art, with Hugh this year - thats how much I care about prizes... Ant

[ quoted text not captured ] I said three because any player who gets 3 gets a game win automatically. I was thinking of how to set it to exclude the deals that are automatically unsportmanlike, but your suggestion on eliminating any deal that results in a GW on the other hand is quite good for eliminating grey areas and players who operate in those areas. I think actually that 2 VPs is the best one though because that is the lowest thresehold at which a Game Win may be obtained, and it can be objectively judged as the easiest to rule upon. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, > no matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. > Especially in a final. > Play. To. Win. > > Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. > > When you have no minions left, little pool and no resources, > then you've lost. Till then you can keep on trying. Wait a minute. First you say that "no matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out" then you declare a situation where it is OK to stop playing. Which is it? [confused] Oh, wait, did you mean to say that it is a *judgement call* as to whether or not you can go any farther with your resources? OK, just making sure. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

[ quoted text not captured ] And, on the other side, that would be pretty consistent with the previous (non-final) rounds, as they're played (per-GW) , which would be very good Emiliano

On Oct 8, 8:49 pm, Martin.Cubber...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] > > I did not think for a second that the ruling I made was going to be so > > controversial, since it was so crystal-clear to me that Antonio could > > not win (which is the only thing that matters in that kind of deals). > > How was it crystal clear to you? Are you able to see into the > future? Are you? > Perhaps I missed your divination bones from earlier rounds... Perhaps :-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:AurOi.5166$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > Fizeront wrote: > > So, it is my opinion that in a V:TES game, the prize for people ending > > second to fifth, the people in the final not ending first, should be > > the same, so in the end, if you haven't won, it doesn't matter if you > > end second or fifth. > > That's how I run mine, sure. But that's up to each organizer to decide. an alternate route would be to give less rating points for 2nd, or more generally less discrepancy between the points for 2nd to 5th. Many, many people covet 2nd place just for those bonus points, these days. So instead of giving a bonus of 50/30/20/10 to 2nd/3rd/4th/5th, maybe give them 25 each. It wouldn't get rid of all kingmaking issues (impossible in multiplayer anyway), but at least it'd provide an incentive to go for 1st place. It's probably been said before on another thread, I confess I'm too lazy to dig it up. And to provide even more incentive for finals not going to time limit, just make it so that a GW is needed to achieve first place. Then, players can kiss their "blabla till 20mn mark, then VP snipe, then win with 1.5VP at time limit" strategies goodbye. If no one gets 1st place, then no one gets 1st place and that's the end of it. It would require forbidding deals involving prizes, I guess. Stone

> You played well, and people should drop this prize shit - the issue is > the rules allowing game win deals, not your play and I think you have > justified your actions and that you played well in the final... again > its the rules that caused the debate, and made marty feel quite > rightly annoyed. > True enough, I do not understand your reaction, Marty... I want to formulate it. Your are in a situation where your predator has the need of only 3 cards to kill you in the next turn: 2 bleed modifiers and 1 stealth card. You have a total hand jam and you cannot cycle because you will be blocked by your prey and one more vampire will be tapped. What is the best solution is, if nobody offers you anything? Your best solution is to ally with your prey for much reasons: - free cycling of your hand. By bleeding and being bounced, you might draw deflections that allow you to survive next turn. Eventually, your bleeds might be bounced back by your predator and you might eventually find an opportunity to kill your prey. - pression on your predator. If he doesn't have all the cards to kill you, he might likely have a much more defensive behaviour next turn (if he is still alive). A sensory deprivation that could have been intended to be kept for the 2-players final dual might be used before than expected -if your predator dies, you secure the second seat. If your prey gets troubles on her way (because of combat damages or whatever) then you might play for first. The other solutions: - waiting doesn't bring you anything. With 6 bleed cards, your hand is not likely to change. Your predator has already 4 bleed points out - asking your predator to let you kill your prey. You know it is not possible because of your hand and you also know that a counter-deal will be: your prey tells your predator that he can kill you and your predator will accept because it allows him to be first or second depending on the final dual. The counter-deal could eventually be immediately offered and you could already be dead when you make the deal. Then Antonio's choice was wise. This is insulting him to suggest he might have played to collude. He played his best for play to win. I don't know how he feels right now but I feel very bad for him, knowing him as I do, to be the center of all those problematics when all he did was to abide by the rules and get a wonderful second place. Yes, being second is already

Sorry, I hav to finish ^^ [ quoted text not captured ] > being second is already a great achievement and if some players are proud to say "I tried to be first" this is already great to be second... there is no shame in being beaten and knowing it all best orian Gissler, the guy who struck a losing deal with Antony in Europeans finals, suiciding Gines in the same time... yet, he didn't complain!!!!

On 8 oct, 21:45, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, no > matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. > Especially in a final. > Play. To. Win. > > Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. I think the whole discussion lies here. Some think that "play to win" means "play for the game win", which is not true per the rules. It doesn't matter for them if you lose in the attempt. But if you don't give a try, you're chicken-hearted. Others play in order to maximize their standing in the final. If they can win, they'll try to. If it appears like suicide, they won't. Antonio played that way, like it or not. IMHO, the first way of thinking is more suitable in casual play. The second way of thinking is more suitable for competitive play (including tournaments). There's no need to debate for this any longer. It's like debating about deal-breakers and the like. Or the art on a card. The whole topic began with someone pissed off about the end of the final. Take it easy. Relax. Try to understand. And don't stop playing.

On Oct 9, 9:39 am, coincoinmas...@hotmail.com wrote: > True enough, > I do not understand your reaction, Marty... I want to formulate it. > Your are in a situation where your predator has the need of only 3 > cards to kill you in the next turn: 2 bleed modifiers and 1 stealth > card. You have a total hand jam and you cannot cycle because you will > be blocked by your prey and one more vampire will be tapped. I'm kinda tired of this discussion now, however, I was in a position to perfectly handle one persons bleeds. I could have fended my predator off for at least one turn, possibly 2, and take no pool loss, and very like, unless he had majesties, a minion or two as well. What I could not do was fend off relentless bleeds from 2 players. I'd suggest very few decks could.

On Oct 8, 8:45 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, no > matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. > Especially in a final. > Play. To. Win. > > Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. > > If a player truly believes that with 3 governs, a misdirection and > three conditionings they cannot do anything, well then i feel sorry > that they gave up trying. > > When you have no minions left, little pool and no resources, then > you've lost. Till then you can keep on trying. That is entirely my feeling on the matter mate - though I'm beginning to think it's playstyle or a 'personal interpretation' of what play to win means, rather than anything else. Some people like the above (you and other), others are happy to secure a 2nd place rather than take a risk at 1st. I'm happy to say I'll never be in the latter camp.

In message <1191862688.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes: >Well unless the female in mention has a boyfriend/husband. Because >then she wins as she has a human sized dick right next to her. ;) Wait. Who wins in a Tatu vs Tatu showdown? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1191849931.3...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, mgre...@googlemail.com writes: >A kingmaking deal: >A deal whereby the actions of one player will result in him >determining the outcome of a tournament. During the execution of a kingmaking deal, it is not impossible for the kingmaker to end up in a better position - because the predator he dealt with isn't bleeding him, for example. In such a situation, the kingmaker may be able to viably get back on his feet, and fight it out to get the win instead of second place, but will never be able to do that without the king-making deal. e.g. a deck that can now amass a bit of pool with a few pool-gain actions, when it's not having to fend off another deck so much. Carefully played, some apparently king-making deals can lead to the opportunity for back-stabbing and deal-breaking. A coin flip loses that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1191848030.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, rptre...@aol.com writes: >Man, this reads like some stuff that people posted/talked about >playing against me. Green, I consider myself a VERY similar player to >Ant, perhaps a little less ...... challenging :o) And its so hard to >not play as it comes naturally. Look at you and I across a table of >old. *shudder* There are facets of your style that are similar - relying on talking to get you out of a bad place, for example - but your styles are pretty different within that, in my experience. Ant is louder and brasher, and I have had to ask him to keep this under control at tournaments I've been judging/head multi-judging[0]. I can't recall ever being in a position where I've found that necessary with you, for example. Ant is also more aggressive when the losing side of a deal goes against him, play-wise and verbally. I have very definitely seen you take someone picking a really obviously bad deal, instead of good one you're offering, badly, and react to that player in a "Screw you" way later in the game. e.g. you won't help them later in the game, when they need someone rescuing, or whatever. But only once or twice. I've seen Ant react in that way quite a few more times, and sometimes it's been because the deal he was proposing was ditched in favour of a really crappy deal but also, sometimes, because a similarly good (or perhaps better) deal was taken from another player instead of him. [0] I have had to consider issuing penalties on several occasions, and Ant knows - as I've spoken to him about it - that on a couple of occasions, I've seriously considered removing him from a game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 9 Oct, 10:04, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1191848030.908520.262...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. Well, I hope this new idea that we are going to try can help with one element of this (final split deals) from now on but I can see a point in the future with both of us on a table that won't be pretty. I for one am prepared for that within the confines of the rules and I have done my homework :o) There was a lot that I witnessed at the Nats on Saturday from Captain Coleman that I simply would not put up with as another player.

On Oct 8, 6:47 pm, wumpus wrote: > > > The judges determined (Hugh and I) that he had no reasonable chances > > to win. > > > 3.5. Conceding Games > > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > > players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to > > win rule, > > I've read this whole thread, and most of the discussion seems to be > about the wisdom/legality of the deal when it was made. I'm not > really interested in that end of the discussion, but the bit above > seems to me to be both novel and important. Is this ruling really > correct? If so, it seems to me that it completely moots the rule that > all deals are off when the table is reduced to two players. Good point, IMO. From what I read on this thread, I'm inclined to believe that conceding the game was legal at that point (so there is not necessarily a conflict with the "all deals are void when the game is reduced to players" rule). But, when there are only two players left, is there a good reason for not playing for whatever small chance you still have to beat the other player? (Unless, maybe, the other player already has the GW and you have already guaranteed second place on tie-breakers). > Beyond the rules mooting issue, it also seems to me that it sucks. > The clear intention of the rule is that the remaining two players > should play to win the game. I don't see any way to _not_ violate > Play to Win by conceding when either player could still earn enough > VPs for a Game Win. Agreed. > What would it hurt to actually play it out? We would have to be there to know better. But I have ruled earlier this year that two players should play out a table both were about to give up on (a deadlock was by far the most likely outcome at that point). The problem with their decision was that both still had a shot at the GW, unlikely as it was. (Incidentally, the GW would get the winner a 5th seed to the final table of a continental qualifier, a situation they weren't aware of. This bit isn't important, though, as it would be an out-of-table consideration, and thus immaterial to judge the validity of their "deal"). The bottom line was that I was not sure whether or not I should tell them to play it out, or let them give up on the basis that it was not illegal play, just poor(ish) play. I still think I could have ruled either way as far as the rules go, but I thought that playing things out and trying to win is usually the best decision - and the best outcome to a good game. > If Antonio was really in a lost position, it shouldn't take long. If > not, well, then he can't concede under play to win, right? And if he > won't play to win, then he is disqualified and another player can play > out his position, or whatever. As I said before, I believe that his conceding was probably legal - because it all boils down to whether or not he still had a chance to win (even the tiniest one). More to the point, whether or not he believed he had a chance. Still, it's head to head, so I'd probably like to see this one played to the very end if I were the judge (and by no means this is meant as a criticism to Damnans or the other judges involved, I'm just throwing my personal view on this specific kind of situation). > Really wondering, > Alex Abraço, Luiz Mello

On Oct 9, 6:13 am, Martin.Cubber... wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:45 pm, Blooded Sand wrote: > > > You miss what my point is. Playing for anything but first place, no > > matter how slim the chance, is in my opinion chickening out. > > Especially in a final. > > Play. To. Win. > > Not to come second/third/fourth/fifth. Win. See, that's when things get mixed up a little bit. It's totally possible to play for second place (or third, or fourth, or fifth) and still be playing to win. All it takes for this to be true is that whatever position you are aiming at is the best position you can reasonably expect to achieve. As has been pointed out before, many times. (...) > > > When you have no minions left, little pool and no resources, then > > you've lost. Till then you can keep on trying. > > That is entirely my feeling on the matter mate - though I'm beginning > to think it's playstyle or a 'personal interpretation' of what play to > win means, rather than anything else. "Playstile", yes. "Personal interpretation" of play to win, not quite. Play to win should always be interpreted as defined by the rules. > Some people like the above (you > and other), others are happy to secure a 2nd place rather than take a > risk at 1st. I'm happy to say I'll never be in the latter camp. It's worth noting that, as a player, I fully agree with both of you. I'm always glad to risk a 2nd seed position and go for the tournament win, even if it means that I might end up fifth. But that doesn't mean I don't think that assuring the best position you can possibly get isn't a solid goal. Because it is. And it's perfectly in the spirit of playing the game. Finishing second is better than finishing third, in at least a couple of levels (tournament table and ratings). And there is not anything intrinsically wrong with that. If a player is not aiming at a better position because he is afraid of taking risks, or because his assessment of the table state is poor, then it's the player's fault (disclaimer: I'm not talking about Antonio here - from what I read here, his decision might have been the best one he could make). If a player is not aiming at a better position because he is colluding, for example, then it's illegal play. Other than poor play and illegal play, I fail to see where aiming at the best position you can possibly achieve is something bad, even if that position is not 1st anymore. Abraço, Luiz Mello

On Oct 8, 9:18 am, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > the moment I think I can't finish first I maximize my victory points > and my final standing on the tournament being second, no matter for me > who is going to be second, so as I can't be first I chose the option > that assures me to be second. I think that this is PTW The problem here is how prematurely many players decide they "know" they can't finish first. They stop playing to win and whore out for second (or whatever). Rule #3: You are not psychic. Not saying you, personally, make bad calls along these lines, but the phenomenon is rampant. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Amen to this. There were many possible things that could have happened to shake up the game. Had I not had to use a lot of my defensive cards against Antonio, and instead save them for Coleman, I could have easily sent one or two of his minions to torpor. Added to that a potential sensory dep, and suddenly Antonios 'bleak' outlook isn't so bleak anymore. At any point in a game you can decide that you are completely shafted and will be ousted in a minute, only to have something happen, and suddenly you are far and away stronger than you were, and looking likely for the win. 'Legally', you could have made a deal to secure second in that position, but what you would have actually done is shot yourself in the foot AND kingmade another player...

On Oct 8, 8:02 am, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > Well, I feel torn here as I used to love the deal, even based my game > around it but I do feel that the consistancy needs to be worked on a > bit still. That deal in the final had no place imo and was a wrong > ruling but there should still be *some* element of agitation in the > game that is know for having elements of that. How much I don't know. > Perhaps its the no vp deals in finals we are looking for here? But > then drill that down and all I would do is deal for 'all your torpored > minions' or 'knock you down to one pool and oops I ousted you' > semantics but important to get this right I guess. I think the trick here is to remove the blanket assumption that, just by virtue of having your ass in a chair at the final table, everything and anything you do is "play to win." Then judges can adequately leverage the existing PtW rule. IMO there is more abuse of PtW in the finals, as people whore out reflexively for 2nd place etc than in the prelims. In the prelims people have a natural motivator to play to win: they want to make the finals. In the finals there is no such natural motivator, and with flawed rules like the PtW assumption and the legality of prize support splits, there is even some incentive against it. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 8, 8:19 am, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm goind to remind you again my hand, 1 misdirection, 3 govern the > unaligned, 3 conditioning and 1 misdirection. > > 2 vampires, one with Superior Dominate and 1 blood and the other with > dominate inferior and 1 blood, and one imbued. > > I was at seven pool with no way to oust Tony, he had 3 vampires un > tapped all the moment, the three of them with dominate, we can all of > us think that he had at least one deflection. > > so, no stealth, no defense in hand Governing down is at +1 stealth inherently. Then you could hunt at +1 stealth inherently. Then you could Govern Down again. You could keep cycling through this Govern/Hunt process, gaining up to 9 pool from your 3 Governs. In the meanwhile, your prey would probably note that you are in a defensive posture and move forward, at least somewhat. What happens when he encounters his own prey is anybody's guess. Maybe he gets thrown under the bus and you lunge with your Governs and Conditionings. Of course we'll never know. *That* would be playing the game. But you "knew" you couldn't oust your prey, so you dealt for second. That's how I see it anyway. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] please before post read all the previous posts, I've already explain that my only vampire wasn't younger than my only vampire with superior dominate, at the moment I thought I don't have any chance to win the judges(Damnans are Hugh) agreed with my decision.

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in news:fefdnc$1r2b$1...@io.uvsq.fr: > an alternate route would be to give less rating points for 2nd, or > more generally less discrepancy between the points for 2nd to 5th. > Many, many people covet 2nd place just for those bonus points, these > days. So instead of giving a bonus of 50/30/20/10 to 2nd/3rd/4th/5th, > maybe give them 25 each. It wouldn't get rid of all kingmaking issues > (impossible in multiplayer anyway), but at least it'd provide an > incentive to go for 1st place. It's probably been said before on > another thread, I confess I'm too lazy to dig it up. > > And to provide even more incentive for finals not going to time limit, > just make it so that a GW is needed to achieve first place. Then, > players can kiss their "blabla till 20mn mark, then VP snipe, then win > with 1.5VP at time limit" strategies goodbye. If no one gets 1st > place, then no one gets 1st place and that's the end of it. > It would require forbidding deals involving prizes, I guess. > Stone > Who is this man, what speaks so wisely? Your words are compelling to me, and I would like to buy your pamphlet. (Seriously, though, good ideas. I was just trying to make a "me, too" post a bit more interesting...) DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Oct 9, 8:53 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:19 am, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm goind to remind you again my hand, 1 misdirection, 3 govern the > > unaligned, 3 conditioning and 1 misdirection. > > > 2 vampires, one with Superior Dominate and 1 blood and the other with > > dominate inferior and 1 blood, and one imbued. > > > I was at seven pool with no way to oust Tony, he had 3 vampires un > > tapped all the moment, the three of them with dominate, we can all of > > us think that he had at least one deflection. > > > so, no stealth, no defense in hand > > Governing down is at +1 stealth inherently. Then you could hunt at +1 > stealth inherently. Then you could Govern Down again. You could keep > cycling through this Govern/Hunt process, gaining up to 9 pool from > your 3 Governs. I don't think it's a good idea to assume that a player in the final of a national championship couldn't figure out what his cards do. He wrote earlier that he could not govern down because his uncontrolled vampire wasn't a legal target: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/90b937b7b045b75e witness1

On Oct 8, 10:21 am, Robert Goudie <RobertT.Gou...@gmail.com> wrote: > If someone has some good suggestions for how to reduce king-making and > further encourage players to win the current game (finals included), > I'd love to hear them. What about removing the assumption that players at final tables are playing to win no matter what? If I understand correctly, I can stand up and announce "I am not playing to win" and proceed from turn 1 to hand the game to whomever I choose, and nothing can be done about it. I'd love to mistaken about that, though. I'm also reminded of the unfinished discussion w/ Kevin (reading this Kevin?) when he asserted he didn't want different time limits because the final round should be exactly the same as the prelim rounds. I wish I would have thought about the PtW aberration when we were discussing this. An additional path to victory by timing out as top seed, and no practical Play to Win rule. Yep, sounds like the same game to me. -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil wrote: > On Oct 8, 10:21 am, Robert Goudie <RobertT.Gou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If someone has some good suggestions for how to reduce king-making and >> further encourage players to win the current game (finals included), >> I'd love to hear them. > > What about removing the assumption that players at final tables are > playing to win no matter what? If I understand correctly, I can stand > up and announce "I am not playing to win" and proceed from turn 1 to > hand the game to whomever I choose, and nothing can be done about it. > I'd love to mistaken about that, though. You are mistaken.

On Oct 9, 2:05 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > He wrote earlier that he could not govern down because his > uncontrolled vampire wasn't a legal target: One pool and 4 transfers could have rectified this. As he also stated, he had 3 minions, and I had 3 minions, meaning I wasn't gonna kill him on my next go at the very least...

On Oct 8, 8:06 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > OK, then. Without any indication of illegal activity, then the actions of the > finalists can be assumed to be PTW, since there is no other competing consideration. You have asserted this many times in the past. It seems to me that there are no practical grounds for assuming it. There is evidence to the contrary: there are less natural incentives to strive for GW's and VP's than in the preliminary rounds when everyone is trying to make the finals. If this assumption were to be repealed, wouldn't it give judges a freer hand, the same degree of freedom they have in the prelims, to judge whether a VP deal is PtW? What harm is done in bringing things back into parity? -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Come on Martin, I was at 7 pool, and you had 3 minion two of them with +1 bleed, the three with dominate, you had Fortune Teller Shop, and you'd already played 2 conditionings before

[ quoted text not captured ] But over extended myself at that point was a hugely risky move on my part. It made much better tactical sense to play it cagey and throw stuff at Ant/keep at least 1 untapped for defense than to throw everything at you in the hopes I could oust you. You'll also note that I was VERY cagey about playing any plus bleed cards, purely because of the amount of deflections that had come from you. On top of all that, the shop gives ONE minion the stealth - how was I to get the other bleeds through? Remember, all my minions had inferior Dominate, so, assuming I had a conditioning, I could have only bled at 4 max. Unless you throw Govern the Unaligned into the mix too, in which case, you were likely dead either way.

On 9 Oct, 13:44, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the trick here is to remove the blanket assumption that, just > by virtue of having your ass in a chair at the final table, everything > and anything you do is "play to win." Then judges can adequately > leverage the existing PtW rule. IMO there is more abuse of PtW in the > finals, as people whore out reflexively for 2nd place etc than in the > prelims. In the prelims people have a natural motivator to play to > win: they want to make the finals. In the finals there is no such > natural motivator, and with flawed rules like the PtW assumption and > the legality of prize support splits, there is even some incentive > against it. Agreed and also hello :o) How the devil are you? See what I did there with the devil bit?

bluedevil wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:06 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> OK, then. Without any indication of illegal activity, then the actions of the >> finalists can be assumed to be PTW, since there is no other competing consideration. > > You have asserted this many times in the past. It seems to me that > there are no practical grounds for assuming it. Only the grounds that players are humans. > There is evidence to the contrary: there are less natural incentives > to strive for GW's and VP's than in the preliminary rounds when > everyone is trying to make the finals. How so? In the prelims, the tournament structure itself could occasionally compete (someone wanting to take fewer VPs xerself in order to swing a GW from one opponent to another because that swing helps isolate/spread the GWs in a manner that raises/secures the player's own standing). In the final, there is no future consideration to compete with the final game itself. If you discount the reality of the tournament structure, you could make the case that the two were equal in natural incentives, perhaps. But not the case that the final has fewer natural incentives. Which incentives do the prelims have that the final does not? Winning rewarded most? check. VPs rewarded next most? check. > If this assumption were to be repealed, wouldn't it give judges a > freer hand, the same degree of freedom they have in the prelims, to > judge whether a VP deal is PtW? What harm is done in bringing things > back into parity? They are in parity. If a player is actively not playing to win, then the judge is free to identify the reason the player is not playing to win (the "other illegal activity" that leads to the player actively playing against xer own best interests) and correct the situation. The bit about assuming the players are playing to win in the finals barring other illegal activity is just a restatement of the reality that there is no competing consideration in the final, as there (infrequently) could be in the prelims.

[ quoted text not captured ] you also played before Fata Morgana, so If I pay one pool to get one vampire I'd be at 6 pool, with one conditioning and one Fata Morgana(cards that normally a Ravnos Dominate deck plays several of each) you could easily kill me. But the important thing for me is: 1- I propose a deal considering IMO I couldn't win 2- both judges agreed with the validity of the deal so with the points 1 and 2 valids ands legals I can't understand all the post about the UK Nats Final, it wasn't the first deal like that in the world (for example EC 2006 Final) and it's possible it won't be the last one like that in the world. I can understand you're upset because you didn't win the final but one thing is sure, there wasn't any ilegal behaviour on the final.

On Oct 9, 8:58 am, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > please before post read all the previous posts, I've already explain > that my only vampire wasn't younger than my only vampire with superior > dominate, at the moment I thought I don't have any chance to win the > judges(Damnans are Hugh) agreed with my decision. First, I read the post where you actually described your hand and the game state. I don't believe you stated there that you didn't have any younger vampires in your ready region, but if I missed that I'm sorry. Saying "read all posts" in a 200+ post thread isn't really reasonable. Second, if you had to pay one and fish, so be it. You don't "know" that would have killed you any more than you "know" you couldn't oust Anthony. It's your judgment call, and your right as a player, but don't confuse that with "knowing." The main thing to understand here is how much can change in a turn or two, the dynamics of a three-way, and the fact that you taking defensive actions would have tended to make Anthony and Martin collide, which could only be to your benefit. Lastly, Hugh and Damnans probably agreed with your decision because it was legal by the current rules. What we're really trying to discuss here are those rules, not whether you are a good player or not. I'm certainly not trying to call you a bad player, but this situation does serve as a good example of dealing based on your "knowledge" of a complex multivariable future state, rather than actually playing a card game and finding out. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 9, 9:00 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Who is this man, what speaks so wisely? Your words are compelling to me, > and I would like to buy your pamphlet. I dunno, but he's stealing my thunder. Dammit. Oh wait, when people start to agree with you, you aren't a loony anymore, are you? Rockin'. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 9, 9:05 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > I don't think it's a good idea to assume that a player in the final of > a national championship couldn't figure out what his cards do. Plenty of people know what their cards do and whore out anyway, because 95% shot at 2nd looks better to them than 10% at first (which is their legal call to make by the current rules). > He wrote earlier that he could not govern down because his > uncontrolled vampire wasn't a legal target: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/90b9... Yeah, about 100 posts further down than the one I was replying to. Sorry I missed that. Paying one to see one makes it harder, but the fundamental argument is the same. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 9, 9:13 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > You are mistaken. What rule would I be violating? Sorry if it's a stupid question, but I genuinely don't know. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 9, 3:39 am, coincoinmas...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You played well, and people should drop this prize shit - the issue is > > the rules allowing game win deals, not your play and I think you have > > justified your actions and that you played well in the final... again > > its the rules that caused the debate, and made marty feel quite > > rightly annoyed. > > True enough, > I do not understand your reaction, Marty... I want to formulate it. > Your are in a situation where your predator has the need of only 3 > cards to kill you in the next turn: 2 bleed modifiers and 1 stealth > card. You have a total hand jam and you cannot cycle because you will > be blocked by your prey and one more vampire will be tapped. > > What is the best solution is, if nobody offers you anything? Try not to act like a VP whore and try to win? > Your best solution is to ally with your prey for much reasons: > - free cycling of your hand. By bleeding and being bounced, you might > draw deflections that allow you to survive next turn. Eventually, your > bleeds might be bounced back by your predator and you might eventually > find an opportunity to kill your prey. ...after you gave him 3 VPs and you lose. So you lose... > - pression on your predator. If he doesn't have all the cards to kill > you, he might likely have a much more defensive behaviour next turn > (if he is still alive). A sensory deprivation that could have been > intended to be kept for the 2-players final dual might be used before > than expected .. and you lose, because you just gave your prey 3 VPs > -if your predator dies, you secure the second seat. If your prey gets > troubles on her way (because of combat damages or whatever) then you > might play for first. ...and you lose. You didn't even try. > The other solutions: > - waiting doesn't bring you anything. With 6 bleed cards, your hand is > not likely to change. Your predator has already 4 bleed points out > - asking your predator to let you kill your prey. You know it is not > possible because of your hand and you also know that a counter-deal > will be: your prey tells your predator that he can kill you and your > predator will accept because it allows him to be first or second > depending on the final dual. The counter-deal could eventually be > immediately offered and you could already be dead when you make the > deal. ...and you lose. 2nd place is a loss. > Then Antonio's choice was wise. This is insulting him to suggest he > might have played to collude. He played his best for play to win. I > don't know how he feels right now but I feel very bad for him, knowing > him as I do, to be the center of all those problematics when all he > did was to abide by the rules and get a wonderful second place. Yes, > being second is already ...and he lost. How much money and time did he spend so that he could whore himself out for a two player loss in the final. He lost for Christ's sake and he meant to lose. How much clearer can it be. You would think players have something better to do with their time than intentionally enter into a situation where they would LOSE. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Oct 9, 2:35 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lastly, Hugh and Damnans probably agreed with your decision because it > was legal by the current rules. What we're really trying to discuss > here are those rules, not whether you are a good player or not. I'm > certainly not trying to call you a bad player, but this situation does > serve as a good example of dealing based on your "knowledge" of a > complex multivariable future state, rather than actually playing a > card game and finding out. > Quite to the contrary in fact David, Antonio seemed like a very good player, judging by the limited interaction I had with him at any rate. And I agree, it's not so much that the deal was made, it's that the deal was allowed, and is allowable.

On Oct 9, 2:33 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > you also played before Fata Morgana, so If I pay one pool to get one > vampire I'd be at 6 pool, with one conditioning and one Fata > Morgana(cards that normally a Ravnos Dominate deck plays several of > each) you could easily kill me. > Yes, I *could* have had those cards in my hand, however, you are now turning your 'I knew I couldn't win' argument into an assumption of what I had in my hand. For all I know you could have had a number of cards that would have fended me off too - but we are not discussing assumptions, we are discussing knowledge. Which you claimed to have about the outcome of the game. Any number of things *could* have happened with the game to mess with that outcome - my gripe is that you were allowed, by the rules of tournament play, to not find out...

bluedevil wrote: > On Oct 9, 9:13 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> You are mistaken. > > What rule would I be violating? Sorry if it's a stupid question, but > I genuinely don't know. Sportsmanship.

[ quoted text not captured ] Norman, this is the most succinctly put counter argument I have read in this entire thread. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] An old phenomenon as well. :) That said, when deal-breaking is more common in the local meta-game this stuff tends to work itself out. In the NAC final this year, we had Ira verbally whoring himself out for second place early in the game. Usually when I see players do this (or do it myself) it is simply a tactic to keep the strong player from beating you down (it was in Ira's case as well). Fortunately, Ira and most other players I see do this these days are still looking for a chance to improve their position if the opportunity presents itself (it doesn't always). Historically, many of the other times I've seen the quick whore-out was either in tournaments with uneven prize splits or when the whore had never won a tournament or was in their first final ever. If second place will make you happy and give you a feeling of accomplishment then you're more willing to be somebody's stooge. -Robert

> > Quite to the contrary in fact David, Antonio seemed like a very good > player, judging by the limited interaction I had with him at any rate. Thank you for defending me Martin. A lot of people are speculing about the fact that UK Nats final could be my first final, I've to say that it wasn't my first final ever, for example I played the LCQ EC final this year (109 players) > > And I agree, it's not so much that the deal was made, it's that the > deal was allowed, and is allowable. so are you blaming Damnans and Hugh for validating the deal? or are blaming the tournament rules?

On Oct 9, 3:03 pm, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > so are you blaming Damnans and Hugh for validating the deal? or are > blaming the tournament rules? The tournament rules, most definitely.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok it was I though, I asked to be sure

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, further to this, yes, I am blaming the tournament rules, but it is totally down to ones perception as to whether this was a 'legal' deal. Simply making a blanket statement of 'I have no chance to win' and the judges simply agreeing with you, without taking everything into account (which would be your hand, your next, say, 10 cards, my hand, my next 10 cards, Ants hand, his next 10 cards, and finding out our intentions on top) just doesn't sit well with me. As I've stated previously, a pool and a minion is all you need to 'have a chance' - the fact that the judges backed you up has aggreived me, as it's down to opinion rather than fact.

[ quoted text not captured ] The stament about I can't win have to be done with the information I have at that moment, the table situation, my hand, but no ant's hand(who i don't now) your hand, etc...

[ quoted text not captured ] Ya know, I don't think I want to be allowed to call the judge, have them look at my opponents' hands, look at the next 10 cards in everybody's library, and then tell me if they think I have a chance at winning. That doesn't strike me as a good policy. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Forcing a player to take bad risks is not good for the tournament scene. Risk analysis is allowed. Just because you have a pool (you don't technically require a minion), you have a 'chance'. But forcing a player to play into a 0.0001 GW vs a 0.9999 0VP finish as opposed to, say, a 0.9 2VP vs 0.1 whatever (0 VP, 1 VP) is not in the purview of the rules. Securing a 2VP finish may be better than being forced to chase an ephermeral GW (when the game state is in such state).

[ quoted text not captured ] Which I did not, as head judge agree with at all. For me his (Antonio's) position was not lost.

On Oct 9, 3:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Forcing a player to take bad risks is not good for the tournament scene. > > Risk analysis is allowed. > > Just because you have a pool (you don't technically require a minion), you have > a 'chance'. > > But forcing a player to play into a 0.0001 GW vs a 0.9999 0VP finish as opposed > to, say, a 0.9 2VP vs 0.1 whatever (0 VP, 1 VP) is not in the purview of the rules. > > Securing a 2VP finish may be better than being forced to chase an ephermeral GW > (when the game state is in such state).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But we're not talking about this. We're talking about a definite 2nd place against a risky 1st that could turn into a 3rd if things go awry. You can quote math formula all you like. And lets be fair, 1 pool and no minions is hardly having a chance to win now, is it? And forcing someone to take bad risks? Who said anything like that? All that should be important in a final is getting the win - legally making a move that removes that chance from you is insane, and should not be allowable.

Martin.C...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 3:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Forcing a player to take bad risks is not good for the tournament scene. >> >> Risk analysis is allowed. >> >> Just because you have a pool (you don't technically require a minion), you have >> a 'chance'. >> >> But forcing a player to play into a 0.0001 GW vs a 0.9999 0VP finish as opposed >> to, say, a 0.9 2VP vs 0.1 whatever (0 VP, 1 VP) is not in the purview of the rules. >> >> Securing a 2VP finish may be better than being forced to chase an ephermeral GW >> (when the game state is in such state).- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > But we're not talking about this. We're talking about a definite 2nd > place against a risky 1st that could turn into a 3rd if things go > awry. OK. It still permits analysis. > You can quote math formula all you like. Correct. Illustrating concepts with supporting math examples is often illuminating to earnest readers. > And lets be fair, 1 pool and no minions is hardly having a chance to > win now, is it? Depends on how many quotes you intend to put around chance. I was just following the thread. > And forcing someone to take bad risks? Who said anything like that? The people who say that no deal for 2nd should be allowed if any chance exists for the GW. > All that should be important in a final is getting the win - legally > making a move that removes that chance from you is insane, and should > not be allowable. Exactly the point to which I was responding. Risk analysis not prohibited.

On 9 Oct, 15:16, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [snip] > Forcing a player to take bad risks is not good for the tournament scene. > > Risk analysis is allowed. Perhaps some guidelines need to exist in this area? The more I think about how that game would have panned out, the more I consider that Antonio stood a fair chance but I appreciate the need for a vague line (judging wise) in the destinction of his 'lost position'.

On Oct 9, 3:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Depends on how many quotes you intend to put around chance. I was just following > the thread. Now you're just being deliberately obstinate. There's 'chance' (I have 1 pool and no minions) and there's 'reasonable chance' (I have 7 pool and 3 minions). See a difference? > The people who say that no deal for 2nd should be allowed if any chance exists > for the GW. As it should be - and if the PtW rule is in effect, then deals for 2nd where a chance for 1st exists should be prohibited anyway. > Exactly the point to which I was responding. > > Risk analysis not prohibited.- Hide quoted text - So, are you suggesting you don't agree with our (for many of us are of the same opinion) issue here, and that the VTES/VEKN rules for tournaments are fine as they stand?

On Oct 8, 2:59 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > I haven't heard anyone offer a viable alternative, if that's what you > > mean. > > - Make prize splitting not legal in the final's deals (as much as they're > not legal in the previous round). > - Let's have a certified judge system for official vtes tournaments - i'm > sure that all the competent > rules addicts would gladly offer their contribution for developing it, and > having officially recognized > judges could raise the consideration players can have towards judging in > official tournaments > > Emiliano Does not address the issue. Prize splitting was not the issue at the UK's nats. IIRC from the above posts Antonio did not realize until later that second actually won anything different than third, and in any case prizes were not mentioned in the deal, and were not split afterwards. Don't drag your own horse to flog into this argument, its a long enough thread already. Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant here. They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. All certified judges do is create an obstacle for players to play in official vtes tournaments. Smaller playgroups might have difficulty finding someone willing to go through the hassle of becoming a "certified" judge. John P. Winnipeg

On Oct 9, 10:23 am, Martin.Cubber...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 3:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Forcing a player to take bad risks is not good for the tournament scene. > > > Risk analysis is allowed. > > > Just because you have a pool (you don't technically require a minion), you have > > a 'chance'. > > > But forcing a player to play into a 0.0001 GW vs a 0.9999 0VP finish as opposed > > to, say, a 0.9 2VP vs 0.1 whatever (0 VP, 1 VP) is not in the purview of the rules. > > > Securing a 2VP finish may be better than being forced to chase an ephermeral GW > > (when the game state is in such state). > > But we're not talking about this. We're talking about a definite 2nd > place against a risky 1st that could turn into a 3rd if things go > awry. > You can quote math formula all you like. That is exactly what we're talking about. You have to be allowed to make a determination, at some point, that the "risky 1st" is too risky to pursue compared to the chance of it becoming 3rd place instead. > And lets be fair, 1 pool and no minions is hardly having a chance to > win now, is it? It has happened before. If you really want to make people pursue _any_ chance, no matter how small, you must include this possibility. If not, you're merely quibbling over where the line should be drawn. witness1

Martin.C...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 3:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Depends on how many quotes you intend to put around chance. I was just following >> the thread. > > Now you're just being deliberately obstinate. There's 'chance' (I > have 1 pool and no minions) and there's 'reasonable chance' (I have 7 > pool and 3 minions). See a difference? Yes. An I saw that difference when I made my initial comment (which illustrated exactly that difference). >> The people who say that no deal for 2nd should be allowed if any chance exists >> for the GW. > > As it should be - and if the PtW rule is in effect, then deals for 2nd > where a chance for 1st exists should be prohibited anyway. > >> Exactly the point to which I was responding. >> >> Risk analysis not prohibited.- Hide quoted text - > > So, are you suggesting you don't agree with our (for many of us are of > the same opinion) issue here, and that the VTES/VEKN rules for > tournaments are fine as they stand? I'm saying that allowing risk analysis is proper. (Insert professions of numerical support as desired). Are you saying that it is not? That <insert math formula here> should be forced on players?

On Oct 9, 3:40 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > It has happened before. If you really want to make people pursue _any_ > chance, no matter how small, you must include this possibility. If > not, you're merely quibbling over where the line should be drawn. I would much rather this, yes. Throw the line, and have a 'you're alive, you play for 1st' rule in effect.

On Oct 9, 3:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > So, are you suggesting you don't agree with our (for many of us are of > > the same opinion) issue here, and that the VTES/VEKN rules for > > tournaments are fine as they stand? > > I'm saying that allowing risk analysis is proper. (Insert professions of > numerical support as desired). It's a yes or no question Scott - either you fully support the way the VEKN final rules work currently, or you do not. > Are you saying that it is not? > That <insert math formula here> should be forced on players? There's enough complications in this game without throwing math quizzes at them too. See my post above - it should be 'you're alive, you play for first'. Placing should be irrelevant. I'd be far happier seeing a tournament result go something like this: Anthony Coleman came in 1st Other finalists were X, Y, Z.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's a yes-or-no question Martin.

[ quoted text not captured ] Nice sound bite. Horrid in practice.

On Oct 9, 3:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I would much rather this, yes. Throw the line, and have a 'you're > > alive, you play for 1st' rule in effect. > > Nice sound bite. > > Horrid in practice. Why's that?

On Oct 9, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > It's a yes-or-no question Martin.- Hide quoted text - Not to get all school ground on you, but I asked you first. Also, my opinion is irrelevant here - YOU are the VTES Rule Monger. You have the ultimate say on what rules stay and what needs changing.

[ quoted text not captured ] Only the obvious results. Try it if they're not yet obvious.

Martin.C...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Oct 9, 3:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Martin.Cubber...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 3:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>> So, are you suggesting you don't agree with our (for many of us are of >>>>> the same opinion) issue here, and that the VTES/VEKN rules for >>>>> tournaments are fine as they stand? >>>> I'm saying that allowing risk analysis is proper. (Insert professions of >>>> numerical support as desired). >>> It's a yes or no question Scott - either you fully support the way the >>> VEKN final rules work currently, or you do not. >>>> Are you saying that it is not? >>>> That <insert math formula here> should be forced on players? >>> There's enough complications in this game without throwing math >>> quizzes at them too. See my post above - it should be 'you're alive, >>> you play for first'. Placing should be irrelevant. I'd be far >>> happier seeing a tournament result go something like this: >>> Anthony Coleman came in 1st >>> Other finalists were X, Y, Z. >> It's a yes-or-no question Martin.- Hide quoted text - > > Not to get all school ground on you, but I asked you first. Socrates is also old school. > Also, my opinion is irrelevant here - YOU are the VTES Rule Monger. > You have the ultimate say on what rules stay and what needs changing. And I say, as I said above, that risk analysis allowance is proper.

On Oct 9, 4:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Only the obvious results. > > Try it if they're not yet obvious. I've already stated I shall not be participating in competitive VTES anymore, so perhaps you could indulge me - what are the obvious results? ALL our friendly games are played out like this, so I cannot use that as evidence, as each and every one of those ends fine.

[ quoted text not captured ] You've actively had to deny a player the right to leave a blocker instead of lunging at a critical juncture?

On Oct 9, 4:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Socrates is also old school. Yeah, and Jimmy Hendrix played a guitar... Any relevance? > And I say, as I said above, that risk analysis allowance is proper Which isn't yes or no Scott. Either you are perfectly fine with losing (i.e. non-1st place) deals being made in finals, or you see this as an issue.

[ quoted text not captured ] Example: My prey has just scored 2 VPs. He is coming close to scoring a third VP by ousting my predator. Under your proposition, I MUST do everything in my power to stop my prey from ousting a third player (since that gives him an automatic game win, and loss for me) even if there is a ridiculously high (but less than 100%) chance that my predator will oust me after I spend the resources on this. I am not allowed to conserve resources and attempt to oust him for 2 VPs in the 1-on-1 game, even if my chances of doing this are much better than getting the game win. witness1

On Oct 9, 9:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Sportsmanship. OK, I'm going to pursue this. Not to be an ass (incidental side effect), but because I'm trying to resolve in my mind how these things can be simultaneously true: I am, by definition, playing to win. I announce I'm not playing to win, and violate the sportsmanship rule. But I am, by definition, playing to win. Is it that I am playing to win, but in an unsportsmanlike manner? Or is it that one is assumed to be playing to win, but a certain level of evidence to the contrary allows a judge to conclude that some activity is not play to win? If the latter, is there some VP split deal in a finals that would also fulfill the same criteria? -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil wrote: > On Oct 9, 9:52 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Sportsmanship. > > OK, I'm going to pursue this. Not to be an ass (incidental side > effect), but because I'm trying to resolve in my mind how these things > can be simultaneously true: I am, by definition, playing to win. I > announce I'm not playing to win, and violate the sportsmanship rule. > But I am, by definition, playing to win. If you are playing to win, then it is not true that your are not playing to win. Conversely, if you are not playing to win, then it is not true that you are playing to win. The "by definition" above is, as I've said, just a restatement of the fact that there is no other consideration pulling you from the stated game goal. If there is such an other consideration (collusion, waky Malk roleplaying, alternate player-given definition of "win", &c.), then the assumption doesn't hold. > Is it that I am playing to win, but in an unsportsmanlike manner? Or > is it that one is assumed to be playing to win, but a certain level of > evidence to the contrary allows a judge to conclude that some activity > is not play to win? You, the finalist, are playing to win. Why would you not? In this case, you've fictionalized a finalist who, for reasons unstated, decides not to play to win. But you don't provide the reason. You should, as this is important. Finalists have no reason not to play to win. > If the latter, is there some VP split deal in a finals that would also > fulfill the same criteria? If the finalist is playing to win by accepting with the intention of honoring the deal, then the deal is play to win. Why would the finalist take the deal with the intention of honoring it if it is no play to win? And, before anyone asks, risk analysis is allowed in determining play to win.

On Oct 9, 4:47 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > You, the finalist, are playing to win. > Why would you not? A question I have asked myself several times since the weekend too... > Finalists have no reason not to play to win. Not true. If a finalist decides he can't win, then playing for 2nd is, currently, perfectly acceptable. Playing for placing and playing to win are two totally different things.

On Oct 9, 4:09 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Example: My prey has just scored 2 VPs. He is coming close to scoring > a third VP by ousting my predator. Under your proposition, I MUST do > everything in my power to stop my prey from ousting a third player > (since that gives him an automatic game win, and loss for me) even if > there is a ridiculously high (but less than 100%) chance that my > predator will oust me after I spend the resources on this. I am not > allowed to conserve resources and attempt to oust him for 2 VPs in the > 1-on-1 game, even if my chances of doing this are much better than > getting the game win. > > witness1 If your prey scores that 3rd VP the finals as good as over anyway, so why would you not do your utmost to stop them? Again, our example plays for positioning, not for first place - i.e. you decide you can't get 1st, so you go for 2nd instead.

[ quoted text not captured ] Not true. Playing for the best finish (risk-analysis-wise) *is* playing to win.

bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1191936995.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Oct 9, 9:00 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Who is this man, what speaks so wisely? Your words are compelling to >> me, and I would like to buy your pamphlet. > > I dunno, but he's stealing my thunder. Dammit. > Yeah, he did, but he said it in a much more pithy and quotable sorta way. > Oh wait, when people start to agree with you, you aren't a loony > anymore, are you? > Well, you're still a loony, but with backup singers. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Oct 9, 5:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Not true. > > Playing for the best finish (risk-analysis-wise) *is* playing to win. I guess that's where you and I differ on our definition of winning then. A win to me is coming away in first place.

[ quoted text not captured ] And "play to win" to me (and to the topic at hand) is: playing to maximize your expected outcome.

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1191942594.640902.3780 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Of course you can conserve resources for later. You are, after all, going for the Game Win yourself. If certain actions would mean that you yourself wouldn't ultimately be able to take 1st place, then they are actions you aren't required to take. Said differently; if conserving some resources is necessary for you to try to secure 1st place, you are allowed to conserve resources. DZ AW

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in news:1191940708.6...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant > here. They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. There was a third judge, who disagreed with the other two (but was not consulted in the judging). > All certified judges do is create an obstacle for players > to play in official vtes tournaments. Smaller playgroups > might have difficulty finding someone willing to go through > the hassle of becoming a "certified" judge. If it eliminated the inconsistency between the three, it would be a benefit to have a certification system, even if only for Qualifiers, Nationals and Championships. I agree, Certified judges in small local tourneys are an unneccesary burden. If implemented, they should only be required for larger events. DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] I ask (again) then, is there any call or milage in having more stringent guidelines regarding the assessment of the stated losing/ table split deals in the final? I find it utterly bizarre that the Judge as far as I understand it only need look at the proposing player's hand. That to me is a very blinkered view of what is *always* a complex situation and therefore the decision made will always be half-assed and without justifiable cause imo.

[ quoted text not captured ] Playing to win, by language definition, is playing to get the first place. Playing to maximize (once determined by analisy-wise that you can't really "win"=get the first place) is playing to maximize. Those are different things, by definition. Still can't see the reason why you keep definitions oblique on this, avoiding at the same time the straight fact: finals as the rules stands now are not well ruled, and much prone to the kind of flame/blames we're reading here once again - and i think that lots of players agree on this. Emiliano, italian NC

[ quoted text not captured ] Let's hope he sees the issue, then :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] It is a bad idea (very bad) to allow a me to ask a judge to look at everyone else's hand to determine if I have a reasonable chance of winning. witness1

On 9 Oct, 17:49, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm fairly certain everyone sees *an* issue of various degrees but for me it's more the question of what is the better alternative or to put it more simply, solutions, not problems :o) As vocal as I have been on this i'm not sure the alternatives are any better or without their own equally grim problems.

On 9 Oct, 17:48, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > It is a bad idea (very bad) to allow a me to ask a judge to look at > everyone else's hand to determine if I have a reasonable chance of > winning. Care to say why you think that or is it just a blanket bad idea? Personally I would feel much more able to make a sound ruling on what I predict outcomes based on all eventualities would be and then apply. Hmm yes, I see a problem as I write this, I may be able to do that but others might not be willing or able to do so. Christ, what a can of worms. That stated, I do think it's far from the best solution to have that ruling based on limited information, ok now i'm back where I was after arguing with myself. Why does this rule exist in the first place please?

Howdy, > > > > I would much rather this, yes. Throw the line, and have a 'you're > > > > alive, you play for 1st' rule in effect. > > > > Nice sound bite. > > > > Horrid in practice. > > > Why's that? > > Example: My prey has just scored 2 VPs. He is coming close to scoring > a third VP by ousting my predator. Under your proposition, I MUST do > everything in my power to stop my prey from ousting a third player > (since that gives him an automatic game win, and loss for me) even if > there is a ridiculously high (but less than 100%) chance that my > predator will oust me after I spend the resources on this. I am not > allowed to conserve resources and attempt to oust him for 2 VPs in the > 1-on-1 game, even if my chances of doing this are much better than > getting the game win. It sounds to me like the finals scoring system Martin is suggesting is effectively 'winner take all'. In such a system, the game would end at the point that one player got 3 VP, so, yes, it would be entirely pointless to play for 2 VPs in the endgame. I'm sure there must also be issues with 'winner take all', but the above issue isn't one of them. You definitely go all out to stop someone else from winning, as, once they have, you can't. Of course, there would be consequences for prize support, ranking, etc. Final tables would be scored 'winner' + 'also ran'. Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] Why stop at the final table? witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] A player plays to win using only the information known to xer. Judgments on the same (what is or is not PTW for that player) should use only the information that the player has.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Marty wrote: >>> On Oct 9, 5:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Not true. >>>> >>>> Playing for the best finish (risk-analysis-wise) *is* playing to >>>> win. >>> I guess that's where you and I differ on our definition of winning >>> then. A win to me is coming away in first place. >> And "play to win" to me (and to the topic at hand) is: playing to >> maximize your expected outcome. > > Playing to win, by language definition, is playing to get the first place. Um, thanks. And, in the context of this thread, and of this game in general, it means "play to maximize your expected outcome" -- standard game stuff.

On 9 Oct, 18:18, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I ask (again) then, is there any call or milage in having more > > stringent guidelines regarding the assessment of the stated losing/ > > table split deals in the final? I find it utterly bizarre that the > > Judge as far as I understand it only need look at the proposing > > player's hand. That to me is a very blinkered view of what is *always* > > a complex situation and therefore the decision made will always be > > half-assed and without justifiable cause imo. > > A player plays to win using only the information known to xer. Judgments on the > same (what is or is not PTW for that player) should use only the information > that the player has. I can see that logic. However there is a wider element to it surely? I am torn again here between that and the fact that I agree and you should compare like for like and the fact that it allows for a lot of abuse (talked about elsewhere). Perhaps there is no better system though as I can't fault your logic there. Unfortunately humans don't often follow logic in games of VTES :o)

John P. wrote: > On Oct 8, 2:59 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: > >>> I haven't heard anyone offer a viable alternative, if that's what >>> you mean. >> >> - Make prize splitting not legal in the final's deals (as much as >> they're not legal in the previous round). >> - Let's have a certified judge system for official vtes tournaments >> - i'm sure that all the competent >> rules addicts would gladly offer their contribution for developing >> it, and having officially recognized >> judges could raise the consideration players can have towards >> judging in official tournaments >> >> Emiliano > > Does not address the issue. > > Prize splitting was not the issue at the UK's nats. IIRC > from the above posts Antonio did not realize until later > that second actually won anything different than > third, and in any case prizes were not mentioned in the > deal, and were not split afterwards. Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik topic starter just blamed the prize splitting thing in the initial post. > Don't drag your own horse to flog into this argument, > its a long enough thread already. Thanks for reminding me - but the 3D is all about how finals are ruled and, therefore, how they are judged (read it again if you want, you'll find several blames to Gines decision here) > > Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant > here. If course, i totally disagree - trusting the decision of a certified judge would be easier for players, i think, and it would help the overall judging thing in being more consistent >They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. > All certified judges do is create an obstacle for players > to play in official vtes tournaments. Care to bring some evidence ? Of course i'm referring to a certified judge for major events - smaller tournament were not in the topic here (we're speaking of a national championship, are we ?) >Smaller playgroups > might have difficulty finding someone willing to go through > the hassle of becoming a "certified" judge. Sure it would be less necessary for smaller tournament - but having the chanche to have such judge for one (being not mandatory to have it for smaller event) lesser tournament would be good anyway, i think Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] To me, easier change to implement would be ruling the final just as the other previous rounds (so, players are expected to play the round for scoring the GW, can't put prizes as part of deals, can't take into account overall standing), plus setting a conditional prize for final round GW winner only (while all the finalist get a flat prize). Having a certified judge to enforce all of this would be as much as good, too Emiliano

rptre...@aol.com wrote: > On 9 Oct, 18:18, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> I ask (again) then, is there any call or milage in having more >>> stringent guidelines regarding the assessment of the stated losing/ >>> table split deals in the final? I find it utterly bizarre that the >>> Judge as far as I understand it only need look at the proposing >>> player's hand. That to me is a very blinkered view of what is *always* >>> a complex situation and therefore the decision made will always be >>> half-assed and without justifiable cause imo. >> A player plays to win using only the information known to xer. Judgments on the >> same (what is or is not PTW for that player) should use only the information >> that the player has. > > I can see that logic. > > However there is a wider element to it surely? I am torn again here > between that and the fact that I agree and you should compare like for > like and the fact that it allows for a lot of abuse (talked about > elsewhere). The alternative is to provide the player with knowledge xe doesn't have access to in-game (by way of making the ruling, which is based on that information, known to xer). > Perhaps there is no better system though as I can't fault your logic > there. Unfortunately humans don't often follow logic in games of > VTES :o) Correct.

[ quoted text not captured ] This is redundant - there's no need to play for maximizing a first place outcome. So, you either play to win, or play to maximize the outcome when reasonably you tell you can't "win" anymore. Seems like you don't see the misunderstanding implied with your definition here.

On 9 Oct, 18:37, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > However there is a wider element to it surely? I am torn again here > > between that and the fact that I agree and you should compare like for > > like and the fact that it allows for a lot of abuse (talked about > > elsewhere). > > The alternative is to provide the player with knowledge xe doesn't have access > to in-game (by way of making the ruling, which is based on that information, > known to xer). Hmmm, I can see that being preferable to a lot of people. Plus points (among others) being - a. Potentially less of these unpopular deals being allowed b. A better and more informed ruling could be undertaken I see the issue with out of immediate game knowledge but could that not be limited with no explanation and looked at as merely pointing out (perhaps with a lump hammer or similar) they still have a bloody good chance and to play on? I am not ignoring the fact that judging 'ability' would be stretched by this though, possibly to an unacceptable level so please excuse me kind reader for thinking out loud :o)

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> Marty wrote: >>>>> On Oct 9, 5:04 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>> Not true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Playing for the best finish (risk-analysis-wise) *is* playing to >>>>>> win. >>>>> I guess that's where you and I differ on our definition of winning >>>>> then. A win to me is coming away in first place. >>>> And "play to win" to me (and to the topic at hand) is: playing to >>>> maximize your expected outcome. >>> Playing to win, by language definition, is playing to get the first >>> place. >> Um, thanks. >> >> And, in the context of this thread, and of this game in general, it >> means "play to maximize your expected outcome" -- standard game stuff. > > This is redundant - there's no need to play for maximizing a first place > outcome. The activity that produces an expected outcome of "win" *is* the activity that maximizes one's expected outcome. "no need" is out of place there. That's like saying "there's no need to walk when you're walking across the street". > So, you either play to win, or play to maximize the outcome when reasonably > you tell you can't "win" anymore. > Seems like you don't see the misunderstanding implied with your definition > here. There is no misunderstanding implied in my definition. You're missing the bit about "how to maximize expected outcome when faced with not coming in first". PTW encompasses the continuum; it doesn't have to work piecemeal to address first place on one hand and non-first-place on the other. It addresses all outcomes in one statement.

[ quoted text not captured ] The judge is not predicting the outcome of the game, as I understand it the judge is expected to judge wether the player making the deal *feels* that *they* have no chance to win the game. As the player making the deal does not know the contents of opponenets hands, the judge should not base an evaluation of the deal on the opponents' hands. Ash heaps, cards in play - yes, hand - no, not withstanding various cards that show persons hands to the participants. This opens all sorts of pandora's boxes, as sometimes players are to dense to see a way out and such, but its the best we got right now. This next bit I think you stumbled across while you were typing but just in case... As to why evaluating hands is a bad idea, where does it stop? In evaluating a particular player's hand, they only need evaluate "is it reasonable that this player considers their current position hopeless" ie not going to gain further VPs. Its not an easy evaluation, but its usually not impossible. If you add evaluation of other players hands then the judge must speculate that these other players will assist, or not assist. "Hmmm... he's got a Sens Dep. but that guy over there has a DI, I wonder if he would use it on the Sense Dep?" There quickly become too many possibilities for any judge to evaluate, and this is further increased by the fact that players do not always play logically or consistently. Person X having a Sens Dep does not neccessarily mean it would be used one way or another, and the last thing tournaments need is the judge having to pull each finalist aside to have a discussion about how they plan to use the cards in their hand at this point in time. >From a practicality standpoint, the judge must evaluate on the same perspective that the player making the deal has. "No you can't make that deal, you've still got a shot, but I can't tell you why. However I do feel that you should look at that guy over there and flatter him somewhat so that if he hypothetically can help you he might then be inclined to do so". Nudge nudge wink wink. Kinda hoses the other players who may have been relying on surprise. I don't like vp deals in the finals or even in the prelims. I think it sucks the life out of playgroups as people get turned off by them. I think the assumption of PTW in the finals is flawed as humans are essentially flawed but I got nothing better from a practical standpoint. Where does the two-man exception in 4.8 of the VEKN rules come in? "when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals." In the described situation where one player "rolled over" to the eventual winner, did this not violate the quoted exception? I guess it boils down to how they went about "rolling over". John P.

On Oct 9, 1:58 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > On 9 Oct, 18:37, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > However there is a wider element to it surely? I am torn again here > > > between that and the fact that I agree and you should compare like for > > > like and the fact that it allows for a lot of abuse (talked about > > > elsewhere). > > > The alternative is to provide the player with knowledge xe doesn't have access > > to in-game (by way of making the ruling, which is based on that information, > > known to xer). > > Hmmm, I can see that being preferable to a lot of people. Plus points > (among others) being - > > a. Potentially less of these unpopular deals being allowed > b. A better and more informed ruling could be undertaken > > I see the issue with out of immediate game knowledge but could that > not be limited with no explanation and looked at as merely pointing > out (perhaps with a lump hammer or similar) they still have a bloody > good chance and to play on? Once we get to turn ten or so, I will ask the judge every time I play a card. "Is it okay now? How about now?" If the judge has to count my stealth and bleed cards and compare them to my prey's intercept cards, deflections, etc. to make this determination, I ought to be able to reverse engineer a lot of useful information, even if he's just giving me a 'yes' or a 'no'. > I am not ignoring the fact that judging 'ability' would be stretched > by this though, possibly to an unacceptable level so please excuse me > kind reader for thinking out loud :o) It opens a great big ol' can of worms. One that is very much best kept shut. witness1

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1191949424.0...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Because only the final table is run to determine "winner", all others decide is someone is a finalist, or not. DZ AW

On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > John P. wrote: > > Prize splitting was not the issue at the UK's nats. IIRC > > from the above posts Antonio did not realize until later > > that second actually won anything different than > > third, and in any case prizes were not mentioned in the > > deal, and were not split afterwards. > > Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik topic starter just blamed the prize > splitting thing > in the initial post. Not in the initial post. Around post 92 (google's number's) http://tinyurl.com/238h5u LSJ asked why someone would not play to win in the final and Martin hypothetically speculated on prize splitting. In post 100 Martin outright stated that he did not believe prize splitting was involved. http://tinyurl.com/yrvw6x > > Don't drag your own horse to flog into this argument, > > its a long enough thread already. > > Thanks for reminding me - but the 3D is all about > how finals are ruled and, therefore, how they are judged > (read it again if you want, you'll find several blames to > Gines decision here) Several people blaming Gines yes, not sure if he should be blamed though. I'm trying not to weigh in on that one as I've read conflicting stuff and am not sure what accounts to believe. > > Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant > > here. > > If course, i totally disagree - trusting the decision of a certified judge > would be easier for players, i think, and it would help the overall judging thing in > being more consistent You do not think that Gines, Hugh, Rob etc could not pass whatever evaluation was created for certified judges? The same judges would be at the UK Nats, they would just have more work to do to become certified. > >They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. > > All certified judges do is create an obstacle for players > > to play in official vtes tournaments. > > Care to bring some evidence ? Of course i'm referring > to a certified judge for major events - smaller tournament > were not in the topic here (we're speaking of a national championship, are > we ?) Ah, your initial post said official vtes tournaments which applies to all tournaments, large and small. National and international events need quality judging, but I have yet to hear of one that did not have quality judging - including this one. The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging situation at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting the above if I got it wrong). > >Smaller playgroups > > might have difficulty finding someone willing to go through > > the hassle of becoming a "certified" judge. > > Sure it would be less necessary for smaller tournament - > but having the chanche to have such judge for one (being not mandatory > to have it for smaller event) lesser tournament would be good anyway, i > think > > Emiliano It all depends on what you mean by certification process I guess. A quick test to ensure the judge has read the VEKN rules and has knowledge of the game, not terrible. A five page test that someone has to write, and then someone has to evaluate would be excessive and would probably lead to a potential judge "giving up" rather than doing exhaustive paperwork. All a certification process would really do is give us something else to yell and scream at when things go wrong. "How did that happen? how did that judge get certified!!" would become a commonplace post on this group. No certification test would ever be perfect, no judging will ever be error free [except perhaps LSJs :D ] and the effort to create a test to accomplish unachievable goals would just keep a bunch of people busy. I have heard rumors, vauge rumors, that a rules or judging question might be added to the event registration process. But I could be wrong. -John P.

[ quoted text not captured ] Let's try again: you said that the activity to "win" is to maximize the outcome - that's pretty oblique, given the context. The activity to "win" it's just trying to do that: to win (= get first place). This is definition one. The activity of "maximize the outcome" is the one that you take when you know you *can't" win any longer. (= you can't win, so you aim for second, third or whatever place but the first) This is definition two. So, i still find that your definition here it's confusing, because you seem to make the two definitions to merge just in one. Playing to get second place is *no* playing "to win" - this for standard languange. >> So, you either play to win, or play to maximize the outcome when >> reasonably you tell you can't "win" anymore. >> Seems like you don't see the misunderstanding implied with your >> definition here. > > There is no misunderstanding implied in my definition. > > You're missing the bit about "how to maximize expected outcome when > faced with not coming in first". PTW encompasses the continuum; it > doesn't have to work piecemeal to address first place on one hand and > non-first-place on the other. > It addresses all outcomes in one statement. If it ever does, it does it in a pretty confusing manner then.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> The activity that produces an expected outcome of "win" *is* the >> activity that maximizes one's expected outcome. >> >> "no need" is out of place there. That's like saying "there's no need >> to walk when you're walking across the street". >> > Let's try again: you said that the activity to "win" is to maximize the > outcome - > that's pretty oblique, given the context. Um, OK. I was just addressing the issue you raised. > The activity to "win" it's just trying to do that: to win (= get first > place). > This is definition one. OK. But note that it ("get first place") isn't the complete definition of "what you're trying to do". If you can't get first, then you're trying to get second. If you can't get first or second, then third. If not those, then 4th. Or, more concisely: "you're trying to do as well as you can". More exactly: each individual activity is one that maximizes your expected outcome (equivalently: that leads to you finishing as best you can, after evaluating the odds and the unknowns). > The activity of "maximize the outcome" is the one that you take when you > know > you *can't" win any longer. (= you can't win, so you aim for second, third > or whatever place > but the first) > This is definition two. OK. But you can also factor in reasonableness and risk analysis when figuring "can't win". > So, i still find that your definition here it's confusing, because you seem > to make > the two definitions to merge just in one. Because it is just one: "finish the best you can". > Playing to get second place is *no* playing "to win" - this for standard > languange. It is doing the best you can if you can't finish first. >>> So, you either play to win, or play to maximize the outcome when >>> reasonably you tell you can't "win" anymore. >>> Seems like you don't see the misunderstanding implied with your >>> definition here. >> There is no misunderstanding implied in my definition. >> >> You're missing the bit about "how to maximize expected outcome when >> faced with not coming in first". PTW encompasses the continuum; it >> doesn't have to work piecemeal to address first place on one hand and >> non-first-place on the other. > >> It addresses all outcomes in one statement. > > If it ever does, it does it in a pretty confusing manner then. If you say so. I think the part that is confusing you is the use of "win" to encompass all outcome rewards. Win being used here as "acquire or secure". Play to win == win (secure) as much of the available reward as possible.

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in news:1191955737.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] If the certification process doesn't result in better congruity of judging between them, then yes, it would just be more work. That isn't the goal, of course. The goal of a cert system is to have all judges rule consistently, regardless of their particular personal history and experience. > Ah, your initial post said official vtes tournaments which applies to > all tournaments, large and small. National and international > events need quality judging, but I have yet to hear of one that > did not have quality judging - including this one. > > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > situation > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > the above if I got it wrong). > Yeah, it seems that this is the case (Hugh and Gines were secondary judges, Rob was head judge. I get the feeling that Rob came into the situation after it began. That's just a gut feeling, though...) At the very least, there was a lack of communication between the Judge who rendered the judgement, and the Head Judge. Thats enough for me to disagree that the judging was "quality". At the very worst, you have two judges for the same event who would have ruled exactly opposite to one another, given the same set of tournament rules, and the same game state... That needs to _not_ happen. > It all depends on what you mean by certification process I guess. > A quick test to ensure the judge has read the VEKN rules and > has knowledge of the game, not terrible. A five page test that > someone has to write, and then someone has to evaluate > would be excessive and would probably lead to a potential judge > "giving up" rather than doing exhaustive paperwork. > I'd say that a certified judge should show a good understanding of the fundamentals (easy enough) and be provided with a set of learning examples as to how to rule under various circumstances. Its more for me about a learning process that produces consistent judging from one judge to another, than it is taking a test for "stinking badges"... I'm personaly not even interested a certification process, per se, as I am a consistent basis for training the judging of things such as PTW, deal legality, etc. The "use _your_ judgement" model needs be discarded at some point, and be replaced with a "use _this_ judgement" model, instead. DaveZ

John P. wrote: > On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> John P. wrote: > > > Not in the initial post. Around post 92 (google's number's) > http://tinyurl.com/238h5u This is the initial post, afaics http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tree/browse_frm/thread/1134a4fd050b8900/eefc4cc50cf4ce51?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.games.trading-cards.jyhad%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F1134a4fd050b8900%2Feefc4cc50cf4ce51%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_eefc4cc50cf4ce51 you can read there's a notable blame against prize fancy worthing more than placement maximization, there. > > LSJ asked why someone would not play to win in the > final and Martin hypothetically speculated on prize splitting. > In post 100 Martin outright stated that he did not believe > prize splitting was involved. > http://tinyurl.com/yrvw6x > >>> Don't drag your own horse to flog into this argument, >>> its a long enough thread already. >> >> Thanks for reminding me - but the 3D is all about >> how finals are ruled and, therefore, how they are judged >> (read it again if you want, you'll find several blames to >> Gines decision here) > > Several people blaming Gines yes, not sure if he should > be blamed though. I'm trying not to weigh in on that > one as I've read conflicting stuff and am not sure > what accounts to believe. I'm not believing people specifically - i'm just acknowleding that there's a problem in how the finals round are rule right now, and for judges too. > >>> Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant >>> here. >> >> If course, i totally disagree - trusting the decision of a >> certified judge >> would be easier for players, i think, and it would help the overall >> judging thing in being more consistent > > You do not think that Gines, Hugh, Rob etc could not pass whatever > evaluation was created for certified judges? Of course i think , but that's still irrilevant in the respect of the fact- there's no certified judges right now, so basically everyone can judge. When an official recognized system is given (and not the loose one as we get now) i think both players and judges can feel more confident toward the consistency of ruling in official tournament (above all, in large ones such as national championships). >The same judges would be > at the UK Nats, they would just have more work to do to become > certified. > >>> They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. >>> All certified judges do is create an obstacle for players >>> to play in official vtes tournaments. >> >> Care to bring some evidence ? Of course i'm referring >> to a certified judge for major events - smaller tournament >> were not in the topic here (we're speaking of a national >> championship, are >> we ?) > > Ah, your initial post said official vtes tournaments which applies to > all tournaments, large and small. National and international > events need quality judging, but I have yet to hear of one that > did not have quality judging - including this one. You're misleading the argument - if there's a quality in judging (and sure there is) then it could be very good to recognize such quality trough an official certification. Players would have less arguments, at that point, for questioning the judge's decision (as we read here, for example), because they could feel more confident with it, given a certified system > > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > situation > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > the above if I got it wrong). Tournament can have more than one judge, of course (you don't need multijudge for that), providing there's an head judge that makes the final decision, if asked to do so. > >>> Smaller playgroups >>> might have difficulty finding someone willing to go through >>> the hassle of becoming a "certified" judge. >> >> Sure it would be less necessary for smaller tournament - >> but having the chanche to have such judge for one (being not >> mandatory >> to have it for smaller event) lesser tournament would be good >> anyway, i >> think >> >> Emiliano > > It all depends on what you mean by certification process I guess. > A quick test to ensure the judge has read the VEKN rules and > has knowledge of the game, not terrible. A five page test that > someone has to write, and then someone has to evaluate > would be excessive and would probably lead to a potential judge > "giving up" rather than doing exhaustive paperwork. > If a judges would give up , then IMHO he would not be worth to judge major tournaments. There are plenty of automated test softwares around (working with web interfaces too)- even with a more complicated test, you would get automated results and score, no need to check the result for a third person. > All a certification process would really do is give us something else > to yell and scream at when things go wrong. "How did that happen? > how did that judge get certified!!" would become a commonplace post > on this group. Then, the blame would be against the certification process, and not toward the judge himself - that would be pretty good, i think. > > No certification test would ever be perfect, no judging will ever be > error free [except perhaps LSJs :D ] and the effort to create a test > to accomplish unachievable goals would just keep a bunch of people > busy. Nothing is perfect in human activity - that's not an excuse for doing nothing, however. Vtes is a very complicated game to rule right now, why in your opinion a judge should not test his ability to do that for major tournaments, being certified and recognized as such in the process, it's a mistery. Unless you're a judge yourself and you don't like the idea to endure some tests for doing that. > > I have heard rumors, vauge rumors, that a rules or judging question > might be added to the event registration process. But I could > be wrong. You can track judging decisions on the archon notes , if you mean that, E

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: > I think the part that is confusing you is the use of "win" to > encompass all outcome rewards. Win being used here as "acquire or > secure". > Play to win == win (secure) as much of the available reward as > possible. And again: you don't "win" if you play for second place - *playing* for second (third, whatever but one) place, in front of a VP split (or placing agreement) deal, is *not* playing to win, by definition - the misuderstanding lies here. At that point you play just for maximize your losing position (or trade it for more prizes, whatever), not for "win". Emiliano

On 9 Oct, 20:20, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > > situation > > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > > the above if I got it wrong). > > Yeah, it seems that this is the case (Hugh and Gines were secondary > judges, Rob was head judge. I get the feeling that Rob came into the > situation after it began. That's just a gut feeling, though...) Nah, I was watching the entire final, I think I missed about 0.6 of a second when I went to get a beer. The reasons I didn't say anything were as follows really - Respect for the others and a nod at the fact that they potentially knew what they were talking about too :o) - It would have undermined the decision and created a whole other issue for the judges to be arguing - I probably would have really kicked off (and therefore lost objectivity) which my therapist tells me is a bad idea :o) as I was cross at being dismissed on a personal level and was unwilling to let that enter the game

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:PpQOi.1601$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> The activity to "win" it's just trying to do that: to win (= get >> first place). >> This is definition one. > > OK. But note that it ("get first place") isn't the complete definition > of "what you're trying to do". If you can't get first, then you're > trying to get second. If you can't get first or second, then third. If > not those, then 4th. > > Or, more concisely: "you're trying to do as well as you can". > It seems funny/absurd, when you term it that way; VTES's Play to Do As Well As You Can Rule. :-) > More exactly: each individual activity is one that maximizes your > expected outcome (equivalently: that leads to you finishing as best > you can, after evaluating the odds and the unknowns). > The more I read comments of this nature, the more the idea that "all finalists who are not the winner, tie for second place" appeals to me. The object of the tournament is to declare a winner, right? The concept of "maximize" outcome when you cannot be the winner is already fulfilled merely by being a Finalist, and a bunch of the muddy middle ground that is at issue here with "maximizing outcome" gets dispensed with, in terms of judging anyways. > > I think the part that is confusing you is the use of "win" to > encompass all outcome rewards. Win being used here as "acquire or > secure". > > Play to win == win (secure) as much of the available reward as > possible. > I get how it works now, I think I would rather have the simpler Play to win == playing to be the winner (of the tournament) DaveZ

rptre...@aol.com wrote in news:1191958700.942742.66410 @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On 9 Oct, 20:20, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have >> > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. >> > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. >> > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge >> > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging >> > situation >> > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting >> > the above if I got it wrong). >> >> Yeah, it seems that this is the case (Hugh and Gines were secondary >> judges, Rob was head judge. I get the feeling that Rob came into the >> situation after it began. That's just a gut feeling, though...) > > Nah, I was watching the entire final, I think I missed about 0.6 of a > second when I went to get a beer. > Intoxication!! If you weren't a Brit, I'd suggest it impaired your Judging ability. Since you are a Brit, I'll suggest that it might actually help you Judging ability... > The reasons I didn't say anything were as follows really > > - Respect for the others and a nod at the fact that they potentially > knew what they were talking about too :o) > - It would have undermined the decision and created a whole other > issue for the judges to be arguing > - I probably would have really kicked off (and therefore lost > objectivity) which my therapist tells me is a bad idea :o) as I was > cross at being dismissed on a personal level and was unwilling to let > that enter the game > Gotcha. Rob's therapist votes for a Judges cert system, too, then... ;-) DZ

On Oct 9, 9:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > The activity to "win" it's just trying to do that: to win (= get first > > place). > > This is definition one. > > OK. But note that it ("get first place") isn't the complete definition of "what > you're trying to do". If you can't get first, then you're trying to get second. > If you can't get first or second, then third. If not those, then 4th. As long as there is a difference between 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th. If it 1st and Finalists, then playing for first is the only PTW route. Stating in any way that this is not the way the rules work is missing my point that the fundamental premise of the tournament ratings rules are flawed. > Or, more concisely: "you're trying to do as well as you can". Agreed. If you go for the 1st, and not fin. > More exactly: each individual activity is one that maximizes your expected > outcome (equivalently: that leads to you finishing as best you can, after Can only win or lose if it is a x vs y 1,2,3,4. (cannot do v subscript, so just see it there) This means the activity to maximize your expected outcome is being adhered to, anything is better than finalist/equal 2nd place. > > The activity of "maximize the outcome" is the one that you take when you > > know > > you *can't" win any longer. (= you can't win, so you aim for second, third > > or whatever place > > but the first) > > This is definition two. > > OK. But you can also factor in reasonableness and risk analysis when figuring > "can't win". Yup. Totally true. For a given value of win. > > So, i still find that your definition here it's confusing, because you seem > > to make > > the two definitions to merge just in one. > > Because it is just one: "finish the best you can". Which with even finals ratings for 2-5, means, in the most literal and spirit of the rules "Play. To. Win." No qualification or embellishment need adding here. Play for the win, or the !win. If all values of !win for the final are the same, it works. > > Playing to get second place is *no* playing "to win" - this for standard > > languange. > > It is doing the best you can if you can't finish first. See above. > >> You're missing the bit about "how to maximize expected outcome when > >> faced with not coming in first". PTW encompasses the continuum; it > >> doesn't have to work piecemeal to address first place on one hand and > >> non-first-place on the other. If you create an artificial gradient in this cotinuum ;) > If you say so. Scott, you have to be one very smart guy. Cos you confuse the hell out of me sometimes, but you are always understandable. Sometimes, your kind of tough to follow, even keep up with. > I think the part that is confusing you is the use of "win" to encompass all > outcome rewards. Win being used here as "acquire or secure". > > Play to win == win (secure) as much of the available reward as possible. The reason for 1st and Finalist? Play to win seen in a purely logical manner give exactly this outcome. Perfectly so. If the current situation was amended to 1 + 4F, play to win would still agree with logic, but it would also agree with the honour/pride sense of "If I dont win, I lose."

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps, but it still would apply to the preliminary rounds (where 2 VP is better than 1VP). So "PTW" would remain at least as complicated as it is now.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, not correct ;) PTW in finals would be lots simpler. Lots.

On Oct 9, 2:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > John P. wrote: > > On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> John P. wrote: > > > Not in the initial post. Around post 92 (google's number's) > >http://tinyurl.com/238h5u > > This is the initial post, afaics > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/tree/bro... > you can read there's a notable blame against prize fancy worthing more than > placement > maximization, there. Okay, we're starting with the same initial post but Martin does not suggest that a Prize splitting deal is involved. He asks if he can play for second place if he wants the second place prize more. What he is really asking is what does Play to Win mean. Reading through all of Martin's posts and the 15 pages of posts on the UK forum about this there is no accusation that either Antonio or Mr. Coleman made a prize splitting deal. > I'm not believing people specifically - i'm just acknowleding > that there's a problem in how the finals round are rule right now, > and for judges too. Fair enough. > > You do not think that Gines, Hugh, Rob etc could not pass whatever > > evaluation was created for certified judges? > > Of course i think , but that's still irrilevant in the respect of the fact- > there's > no certified judges right now, so basically everyone can judge. > When an official recognized system is given (and not the loose one as we get > now) i think both players and judges can feel more confident toward the > consistency of ruling in official tournament (above all, in large > ones such as national championships). But if its the same people in the same situation (plus a certification of some sort) don't you think the same problem would have occured? If there was an error it appears to have been human error, not a lack of knowledge. > > Ah, your initial post said official vtes tournaments > > which applies to all tournaments, large and small. > > National and international events need quality judging, > > but I have yet to hear of one that did not have quality > > judging - including this one. > You're misleading the argument - if there's a quality in > judging (and sure there is) then it could be very good to > recognize such quality trough an official certification. > Players would have less arguments, at that point, for > questioning the judge's decision (as we read here, for > example), because they could feel more confident with > it, given a certified system LSJ is a qualified judge. I think there are very few people on this group that would disagree. But at major events such as the Week of Nightmares leading up to the NAC and even during the NAC people argue with LSJ about rulings, trying to convince him of their point of view. Making LSJ a "certified" judge will not reduce the number of arguements that he faces at a tournament. It would gain him nothing. If people are willing to argue with the current highest authority of rules, no judge certification process will cause fewer arguements for other people. Because there are always people who will argue (some politely, some less so) with a judgement. Arguements are a good thing if people enter into them willing to listen. > Tournament can have more than one judge, of course (you don't need > multijudge for that), providing there's an head judge that makes the final > decision, if asked to do so. I had forgotten this. No local tournaments are large enough to neccessitate multiple judges here and all the ones I've travelled to have had one judge or been multijudge. I was under the impression that judges could not play in sanctioned events unless the multijudge rules were used, otherwise I do not see the difference between assistant judges and multijudges but that is not the issue at hand. > If a judges would give up , then IMHO he would > not be worth to judge major tournaments. There > are plenty of automated test softwares around > (working with web interfaces too)-even with a > more complicated test, you would get automated > results and score, no need to check the result for > a third person. We are talking about an as-yet non-existent test. If I was told I needed to spend about 12 hours taking various tests to judge local tournaments there would suddenly be unsanctioned tournaments here. This discussion about the validity of a test is less than worthless until such a test is created and we both know what the other expects. There would need to be a penalty outlined for failing the tests, probably an appeals process where reasons can be explained and considered. Nothing is really black and white in this game except really simple questions like can you play a conditioning with a bonding, and that type of test will not prove anything. > > All a certification process would really do is give us something else > > to yell and scream at when things go wrong. "How did that happen? > > how did that judge get certified!!" would become a commonplace post > > on this group. > > Then, the blame would be against the certification process, and not toward > the judge himself - that would be pretty good, i think. Not really. If the same number of people are unhappy after an event we have not moved forward at all, just shuffled the deck chairs on the Titanic. > > No certification test would ever be perfect, no judging will ever be > > error free [except perhaps LSJs :D ] and the effort to create a test > > to accomplish unachievable goals would just keep a bunch of people > > busy. > > Nothing is perfect in human activity - that's not an excuse for doing > nothing, however. Vtes is a very complicated game to rule right now, > why in your opinion a judge should not test his ability to do that for > major tournaments, being certified and recognized as such in the > process, it's a mistery. No test could encompass the entirety of VTES rulings. No person, even Scott is right all the time (as evidenced by reversals and the odd correction). What happens when a judge screws up? Does their National event become invalid? Is that what you want for VTES? > Unless you're a judge yourself and you don't like the idea to endure some > tests for doing that. I judge the local tournaments and have for the last five years. My players are very web savy and check their own rulings from time to time. So I spend a fair amount of time keeping up to date. But not everyone has the time to do this. I will take any test required of me, but there is a large unheard population out there that does not have the time that I do to monitor this newsgroup. Those potential judges should not be penalized for doing the best they can for their players. There is already a passive judge certification used for major events. The tournament organizers pick judges that they believe to be good. This is a better measure of quality judging than any test you or I could come up with. Hugh (whom I believe organized the UK nationals) decided who would be the judges at this event. As Hugh is probably one of the most well travelled VTES players I have met I would respect his choices. You are free to disagree. No organizer would willingly pick judges he believed to be bad. > > I have heard rumors, vauge rumors, that a rules or judging question > > might be added to the event registration process. But I could > > be wrong. > > You can track judging decisions on the archon notes , if you mean that, Not at all. It was something I overheard that has not been implemented yet and I am uncertain if it will be implemented. John P.

On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote innews:1191955737.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > > If the certification process doesn't result in better congruity of > judging between them, then yes, it would just be more work. That isn't > the goal, of course. The goal of a cert system is to have all judges > rule consistently, regardless of their particular personal history and > experience. And that would be great. But I don't see a quick test accomplishing your goal. A longer test might get closer but in VTES there is often more than one interpretation of events. To accomplish what you seek would require a very intensive testing and learning regimen. This is a hobby, run by volunteers, your goal is laudable, but not practical across the board. You want to do it just for major events? Fine with me, but that does not create consistent judging across the board either. > > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > > situation > > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > > the above if I got it wrong). > > Yeah, it seems that this is the case (Hugh and Gines were secondary > judges, Rob was head judge. I get the feeling that Rob came into the > situation after it began. That's just a gut feeling, though...) > > At the very least, there was a lack of communication between the Judge > who rendered the judgement, and the Head Judge. Thats enough for me to > disagree that the judging was "quality". At the very worst, you have two > judges for the same event who would have ruled exactly opposite to one > another, given the same set of tournament rules, and the same game > state... That needs to _not_ happen. The sitation appears to be more that some players did not understand the play to win rules as they currently stand. I base this on the ongoing discussions in this thread between players and LSJ. But the fact of the matter appears to be that Gines rules in accordance with the Play to Win rules. If Gines made the correct call based on the current rules then yay Gines. It would be nice if all the judges were on the same page. I think it would have to be a very exhaustive testing procedure to screen out the finer nuances of "Play to Win" alone, let alone cover the breadth of VTES rulings in the last 13 years. Consistency good. Exhaustive testing procedure to get it... not so good. > I'd say that a certified judge should show a good understanding of the > fundamentals (easy enough) and be provided with a set of learning > examples as to how to rule under various circumstances. Its more for me > about a learning process that produces consistent judging from one judge > to another, than it is taking a test for "stinking badges"... I'm > personaly not even interested a certification process, per se, as I am a > consistent basis for training the judging of things such as PTW, deal > legality, etc. The "use _your_ judgement" model needs be discarded at > some point, and be replaced with a "use _this_ judgement" model, instead. I would rather see the rules made more clear so that judges could more easily understand such things than create models to try and understand them. Examples are always good, but anybody who can google can get examples now. > DaveZ John P.

On Oct 10, 6:26 am, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > Perhaps there is no better system though as I can't fault your logic > there. Unfortunately humans don't often follow logic in games of > VTES :o) Totally! I recall having a discussion with Sven about how all economists and game theorists should really study a few VtES tournaments to show them how their assumptions of reasonable and logical behaviour don't stack up :-) Essientially this all argument can be summarised by: 1. Some people will play for 1st only and consider 2nd and 5th equivalent results, some people will play to finish in the highest position 2. Some people disagree with Antionio's assessment of his chances of a game win at the time I can certainly understand both Martin and Antonio's positions but I really can't see how anyone can say one or other is right or wrong / better or worse than the other. Simon

[ quoted text not captured ] The idea that i think was alluded to above, but not quoted here, intrigues me. /* IDEA */ Stop the final just as soon as someone gains their 3rd vp, and score the rest of the finalists on whatever they have at that point. Would stop 'i have 3vps and now roll over for you whom helped me so you can get 2vps' deals. Would force people to scramble like all hell to stop that 3rd vp slipping away if they themselves don't have any VPs (and arn't ranked high going into the finals). Maybe combine it with a 'no tiebreakers' rule if someone gets 3vps, then all people tied at that point just tie. The tournament still has a clear winner. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Judges should also not have to rule on bad play. In a final round, it's been a long day, and players screw up. Maybe my prey has a famed vampire that if i dunk it, I will get that vp and the game, but has another blocker. I've forgotten that the blocker is a stupid Daughter and whatever 'special' she has mean she can't block my one rusher. But I assume she can, and know that if i don't oust him, my predator will be able to oust me instead as i'll be tapped out. so i make a deal with someone for 2nd place, because i'm feeling pretty precarious. Should the judge step in here and say 'wait up dude, you forgot she can't block!!'. I know if I was the Daughters player OR the predator of the player who's turn it is I would be VERY pissed off. May as well just have the judge play for them. [ quoted text not captured ]

bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Goudie <RobertT.Gou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If someone has some good suggestions for how to reduce >> king-making and further encourage players to win the >> current game (finals included), I'd love to hear them. > > I'm also reminded of the unfinished discussion w/ Kevin (reading this > Kevin?) when he asserted he didn't want different time limits because > the final round should be exactly the same as the prelim rounds. I > wish I would have thought about the PtW aberration when we were > discussing this. An additional path to victory by timing out as top > seed, and no practical Play to Win rule. Yep, sounds like the same > game to me. Well, in contract to this so-called "everyone is assumed to be playing to win, since it is the finals" theory, I believe, rather, that there really ISN'T a PTW rule in the finals, since if you are in 5th place, you are allowed to behave in any ridiculously foolish fashion you want -- including self-ousting to determine the winner -- and since it isn't causing you to lose any standing, it isn't, and can't be, penalized. Personally, I would suggest a few changes to the VTES finals: a. Make the finals have only one "winner", and the rest are "runners-up". b. Make the finals have the same time limit as the prelimimary rounds. c. Either allow ANY play for ANY or NO REASON WHATSOEVER (i.e. consistent with current judging methodology, despite the "everyone is assumed to be playing-to-win" red herring) **OR** disallow SOME play (e.g. self-ousting, dubious deals) in order to PRESERVE so-called PLAY TO WIN theory. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If you are playing to win, then it is not true that you are not > playing to win. Conversely, if you are not playing to win, > then it is not true that you are playing to win. OK, understood. > You, the finalist, are playing to win. > Why would you not? Because at some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that <REASON>, thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some action which makes it 100% that you will get 0vp total> is acceptable, since you are allowed to "lose in any fashion you wish" (paraphrase mine). I am now not playing-to-win. Seems like PTW and "lose in any fashion you wish" (paraphrase mine) are contradictory. I also refer you to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/881a3a131134482 and http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9bbcc1f576d0f44c which seem to state that if you are in a losing position that you are obliged to try to hang-on for the 0.5vp, or else you aren't playing-to-win. Or do these refer to the non-final rounds? I don't agree in either case, of course, but it is the contradiction that I disagree with, not the sentiment. :) > In this case, you've fictionalized a finalist who, for reasons > unstated, decides not to play to win. But you don't provide the > reason. You should, as this is important. Since current dogma allows you, the (especially the 5th place!) finalist, to take essentially any action you wish, for any reason, elaborating on <REASON> is an exercise in futility. > Finalists have no reason not to play to win. At some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that <REASON>, thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some action which makes it 100% that you will get 0vp total> is acceptable, since you are allowed to "lose in any fashion you wish." [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] My agreeing with you doesn't mean you won't have to judge 24 hours of VTES in Columbus. best - chris (but I do agree with a & b wholeheartedly, and c with reservation) -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

> /* IDEA */ > Stop the final just as soon as someone gains their 3rd vp, and score the > rest of the finalists on whatever they have at that point. > > Would stop 'i have 3vps and now roll over for you whom helped me so you > can get 2vps' deals. Would force people to scramble like all hell to > stop that 3rd vp slipping away if they themselves don't have any VPs > (and arn't ranked high going into the finals). Maybe combine it with a > 'no tiebreakers' rule if someone gets 3vps, then all people tied at that > point just tie. The tournament still has a clear winner. DINGDINGDINGDINGDING Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have a winnah.

Kevin M. wrote: > Well, in contract to this so-called "everyone is assumed to be playing to > win, since it is the finals" theory, I believe, rather, that there really > ISN'T a PTW rule in the finals, since if you are in 5th place, you are > allowed to behave in any ridiculously foolish fashion you want -- > including self-ousting to determine the winner -- and since it isn't > causing you to lose any standing, it isn't, and can't be, penalized. Incorrect. While E has a chance to win, playing for 5th isn't PTW. While E has a chance to come in 2nd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. While E has a chance to come in 3rd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. While E has a chance to come in 4rd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. > Personally, I would suggest a few changes to the VTES finals: > a. Make the finals have only one "winner", and the rest are "runners-up". That's been proposed by many already. It is a fine idea. > b. Make the finals have the same time limit as the prelimimary rounds. That's been tried for many years. > c. Either allow ANY play for ANY or NO REASON WHATSOEVER (i.e. consistent > with current judging methodology, despite the "everyone is assumed to be > playing-to-win" red herring) **OR** disallow SOME play (e.g. self-ousting, > dubious deals) in order to PRESERVE so-called PLAY TO WIN theory. This is based on faulty premises.

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> If you are playing to win, then it is not true that you are not >> playing to win. Conversely, if you are not playing to win, >> then it is not true that you are playing to win. > > OK, understood. > >> You, the finalist, are playing to win. >> Why would you not? > > Because at some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that > <REASON>, thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some action which > makes it 100% that you will get 0vp total> is acceptable, since you are > allowed to "lose in any fashion you wish" (paraphrase mine). > > I am now not playing-to-win. Incorrect. If you are maximizing your expected outcome, you are PTW, by definition. > Seems like PTW and "lose in any fashion you wish" (paraphrase mine) are > contradictory. If not the player, then who is in charge of selecting the player's activities once xe cannot get any more VPs? You want the judge to sit down and dictate play for any player who's choices all lead to the same finish for that player? Or perhaps the finals should be terminated (stalled, whatever) as soon as a player cannot get any more VPs? >> In this case, you've fictionalized a finalist who, for reasons >> unstated, decides not to play to win. But you don't provide the >> reason. You should, as this is important. > > Since current dogma allows you, the (especially the 5th place!) finalist, > to take essentially any action you wish, for any reason, elaborating on > <REASON> is an exercise in futility. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the rules, and it is leading you to incorrect conclusions. See my response to this incorrect assertion in your other post. >> Finalists have no reason not to play to win. > > At some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that <REASON>, > thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some action which makes it 100% > that you will get 0vp total> is acceptable, since you are allowed to "lose > in any fashion you wish." Correct. If you can't get any more VPs, then any action you take leaves you with the same finish, and yet you still must choose from among the available options.

THIS: On Oct 9, 11:49 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > /* IDEA */ > Stop the final just as soon as someone gains their 3rd vp, and score the > rest of the finalists on whatever they have at that point. > > Would stop 'i have 3vps and now roll over for you whom helped me so you > can get 2vps' deals. Would force people to scramble like all hell to > stop that 3rd vp slipping away if they themselves don't have any VPs > (and arn't ranked high going into the finals). Maybe combine it with a > 'no tiebreakers' rule if someone gets 3vps, then all people tied at that > point just tie. The tournament still has a clear winner. > > -- > salem AND THIS: > From: atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> > > The more I read comments of this nature, the more the idea that "all > finalists who are not the winner, tie for second place" appeals to me. > The object of the tournament is to declare a winner, right? The concept > of "maximize" outcome when you cannot be the winner is already fulfilled > merely by being a Finalist, and a bunch of the muddy middle ground that > is at issue here with "maximizing outcome" gets dispensed with, in terms > of judging anyways. are the ideas I like most, and the ones I have been skirting around myself. A final stops when someone reaches 3vps, everyone else is a 'runner up'. This COMPLETELY negates the 'need' for VP deals in the final.

[ quoted text not captured ] Also deals with stalling, or would you suggest leaving in a time limit? Ant

On Oct 10, 1:46 pm, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also deals with stalling, or would you suggest leaving in a time > limit? > > Ant- Hide quoted text - > Nah, I don't see the point. 3 VPs should, in the majority of cases, be garnered in less than 2 hours, and certainly less than 3. No point stalling if there's nothing to stall for.

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in news:1191962051....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote >> innews:1191955737.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> >> If the certification process doesn't result in better congruity of >> judging between them, then yes, it would just be more work. That >> isn't the goal, of course. The goal of a cert system is to have all >> judges rule consistently, regardless of their particular personal >> history and experience. > > And that would be great. But I don't see a quick test accomplishing > your goal. OK. I used tetragrammaton's "certificaiton" verbiage, but in all honesty, I'm really after something else entirely; Training Judges. > A longer test might get closer but in VTES there is often more > than one interpretation of events. To accomplish what you seek > would require a very intensive testing and learning regimen. You are right, but upon reflection I'm almost totally uninterested in testing individuals, as I am with providing them with resources to make them better judges. So upon your urging, lets discard the testing aspect of the matter for now. > This is a > hobby, run by volunteers, your goal is laudable, but not practical > across the board. You want to do it just for major events? Fine > with me, but that does not create consistent judging across the board > either. > I'd be perfectly happy if it were to start to be consistent across the majors, only... We can worry about the rest at a later date. Whats more, if it were successful, then the precedent (and most of the work) would be set by which to train all others. >> > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have >> > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. >> > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. >> > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge >> > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging >> > situation >> > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes >> > correcting the above if I got it wrong). >> >> Yeah, it seems that this is the case (Hugh and Gines were secondary >> judges, Rob was head judge. I get the feeling that Rob came into the >> situation after it began. That's just a gut feeling, though...) >> >> At the very least, there was a lack of communication between the >> Judge >> who rendered the judgement, and the Head Judge. Thats enough for me >> to disagree that the judging was "quality". At the very worst, you >> have two judges for the same event who would have ruled exactly >> opposite to one another, given the same set of tournament rules, and >> the same game state... That needs to _not_ happen. > > The sitation appears to be more that some players did not > understand the play to win rules as they currently stand. I > base this on the ongoing discussions in this thread > between players and LSJ. > Rob has flat-out stated that he would have ruled exactly opposite to Damnans, but didn't make an issue of it, to preserve the peace. That needs to _not_ happen. > But the fact of the matter appears to be that Gines rules in > accordance with the Play to Win rules. If Gines made the correct > call based on the current rules then yay Gines. It would be nice if > all the judges were on the same page. > The part which concerns me is that Rob (or another judge) could have ruled in the opposite direction, using his judgment, and also would have been in accordance with the PTW rules. > I think it would have to be a very exhaustive testing procedure > to screen out the finer nuances of "Play to Win" alone, > let alone cover the breadth of VTES rulings in the last 13 years. > Consistency good. > Exhaustive testing procedure to get it... not so good. > I think you overstate the burden of testing, here, but I've already abandoned the testing idea myself, so I won't ush the topic further. I think, though, that you also underestimate the willingness of judges to consult additional training material, if it will help them in their jobs as judges. As far as I've seen, player enthusiasm for the game extendes to all aspects of it, including judging. An hour or two of evening reading is basically nothing to a VTES judge, especially if it means a better tournament experience for all. DZ AW

Marty <solomo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:1192020874.214303.324050@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] I'd leave the limit in, as it does no harm to have it, and I agree with the practical aspects of it, in terms of store hours, convention scheduling, etc. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] You do reaslise that if we change the rules to based on your rantin.. discussions, even if only in the UK, you will HAVE to reconsider your status re: playing events. Just so you know. Ant

John P. escribió: > On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> John P. wrote: [...] > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > situation > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > the above if I got it wrong).[...] The tournament organizer (Hugh) appointed me head judge for the final. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On Oct 10, 8:20 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote innews:1191962051....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > OK. I used tetragrammaton's "certificaiton" verbiage, but in all > honesty, I'm really after something else entirely; Training Judges. > > > A longer test might get closer but in VTES there is often more > > than one interpretation of events. To accomplish what you seek > > would require a very intensive testing and learning regimen. > > You are right, but upon reflection I'm almost totally uninterested in > testing individuals, as I am with providing them with resources to make > them better judges. So upon your urging, lets discard the testing aspect > of the matter for now. Woot! > I think you overstate the burden of testing, here, but I've already > abandoned the testing idea myself, so I won't ush the topic further. I > think, though, that you also underestimate the willingness of judges to > consult additional training material, if it will help them in their jobs > as judges. As far as I've seen, player enthusiasm for the game extendes > to all aspects of it, including judging. An hour or two of evening > reading is basically nothing to a VTES judge, especially if it means a > better tournament experience for all. So what exactly is the next step to better train judges? Do we need to compose a list of difficult issues/cards/situations that a judge might need examples for? John P.

On Oct 10, 9:21 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > John P. escribió:> On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> John P. wrote: > > [...] > > > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > > situation > > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > > the above if I got it wrong).[...] > > The tournament organizer (Hugh) appointed me head judge for the final. > > -- > Damnans That makes the whole sitation make more sense. John P.

John P. wrote: > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote > So what exactly is the next step to better train judges? > Do we need to compose a list of difficult issues/cards/situations > that a judge might need examples for? > > John P. "Difficulty" is merely subjective, i think. Besides, providing such tools for a judge would result just in making some blocks of questions (let's say, 10) per-argument (rulebook, faqs/errata, deals, google rulings), that would result, in the end, in a testing system - at that point, you got almost already a certification test. E

[ quoted text not captured ] You are determined to make it a testing system when it need not be. The benefit of examples laid out, explained, that judges (and players) are familiar with would be a general increase in knowledge on the part of vtes players who cared to learn. Learning examples can accomplish what you seek (better judging) without the drawbacks of testing. (which you refuse to acknowledge or dismiss out of hand). Of course difficult is subjective. But if for instance we were to look at questions that arise on this newsgroup that get a certain number of posts in their threads or some other measure we could pick up a number of topics that apparently a large number of people feel is subjectively a "difficult" topic. A quick browse over the newsgroup in the last couple of months, looking at rules/card related questions with say 10 or more posts in them would yield the following general catagories that examples and explanations might be provided for: PTW/VP deals Mask of 1000 faces Rotschreik Hand Strikes Strike:Combat Ends Imbued and what affects them Eagle sight related questions Card costs, multipliers, increases/decreases Diablerie (trophies, blood, skill cards) DI/Cancellations NRA Ordering effects/timing Retainers And more could be created/found easily enough. The problem I see with any such "Learning Program" is how does it differ from this group? I mean most of this stuff can be learned from google. Admittedly very clear examples with explanations might go a bit further in some cases, but there have been attempts before to create unified rulings pages and such that have generally met in failure for the simple reason it is easier to use this group and find the needed answers. John P.

John P. wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:52 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> John P. wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 8:20 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote >>> So what exactly is the next step to better train judges? >>> Do we need to compose a list of difficult issues/cards/situations >>> that a judge might need examples for? >> >>> John P. >> >> "Difficulty" is merely subjective, i think. >> Besides, providing such tools for a judge would result just in >> making some blocks of questions (let's say, 10) per-argument >> (rulebook, faqs/errata, deals, google rulings), that would result, >> in the end, in a testing system - at that point, you got almost >> already a certification test. >> >> E > > You are determined to make it a testing system when it need not be. > The benefit of examples laid out, explained, that judges (and players) > are familiar with would be a general increase in knowledge on the part > of vtes players who cared to learn. Learning examples can accomplish > what you seek (better judging) without the drawbacks of testing. > (which you refuse to acknowledge or dismiss out of hand). > You dind't explained what should be the drawback of a test, so far. To me, the chanche of have at hand a testing system covering the most important areas of knowledge needed to judge a (major) tournament would be a good tool for improving judges's skills, for such events. On the other side, such system would somewhat recognize officially the effort and willingness of a person that, actually, spend effort in keeping herself updated with rules and the like. > A quick browse over the newsgroup in the last couple of months, > looking at rules/card related questions with say 10 or more posts in > them would yield the following general catagories that examples and > explanations might be provided for: Google search is a pain, mostly, we know that. You can't simply have rulings scattered here and there, and this is another issue that should be adressed, speaking of rules consistency. > > PTW/VP deals > Mask of 1000 faces > Rotschreik > Hand Strikes > Strike:Combat Ends > Imbued and what affects them > Eagle sight related questions > Card costs, multipliers, increases/decreases > Diablerie (trophies, blood, skill cards) > DI/Cancellations > NRA > Ordering effects/timing > Retainers > > And more could be created/found easily enough. > Yes - "easily" and "difficult" are subjective, indeed :-) > The problem I see with any such "Learning Program" is how does it > differ from this group? I mean most of this stuff can be learned from > google. Admittedly very clear examples with explanations might go a > bit further in some cases, but there have been attempts before to > create unified rulings pages and such that have generally met in > failure for the simple reason it is easier to use this group and find > the needed answers. > IMHO, there should be some sort of "tracking" of new rulings, to be put on a more handlable list (than group search) as soon as a new ruling/clarification is officially made here. Afaik, that dind't met failure because wasn't simply attempted, so far (and right now, we would have tons of ruling to sum up, before getting a consistent list) E

On Oct 10, 1:27 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > You dind't explained what should be the drawback of a test, so far. > To me, the chanche of have at hand a testing system covering the most > important areas of knowledge needed to judge a (major) tournament > would be a good tool for improving judges's skills, for such events. > On the other side, such system would somewhat recognize officially the > effort and > willingness of a person that, actually, spend effort in keeping herself > updated > with rules and the like. If you think I have not pointed out the drawbacks of testing then you have not been understanding what I have been saying (Or you don't believe what I am saying). The drawbacks of a test: 1) Administering the test. Yeah the test can be automated but there's work involved in deciding what should be included, what level of knowledge is expected, making sure judges are tested frequently enough. This can't be taken lightly as presumably your tests are going to have consequences. 2) Penalties. If you're testing there have to be penalties (or why have a test?). Likely not letting that person judge would be a penalty. This means that an even can get screwed over when a judge suddenly gets "DQed". As soon as someone can't judge then there's going to be endless arguements about the applicability of said test. Is there an appeals process? 3) Barrier to entry. VTES needs new players and new play groups. This means that in cities where no one has played before, its advantagous to new players to be able to sign someone up to judge and actually have organized play. Yeah sure there might be mistakes for a while, but at that level it is not going to hurt anyone. If you tell a new player stuggling to get a tournament scene started that they have to pass a test before running an event, unless that test is simple in the extreme (ie worthless) some of those new players will not make it. We want every possibly player who expresses an interest in VTES organized play to be able to play. Barriers to entry, no matter how small are BAD. 4) People make errors. Testing will not eliminate errors caused by exhaustion, irritation, or stress. They MIGHT reduce errors caused by ignorance, but I'm thinking more errors in judging are not from ignorance, but from other factors. If a test cannot eliminate what I think is the most common cause of judging errors, than testing is not worthwhile, and testing is then a bad idea. There's a whole slew of issues that have to be worked out prior to any testing being considered. Until you propose a test, create a sample test to give us the idea of scope and depth, lay out penalities, etc for the test, figure out all of the logistics and consequences, you have not done sufficient work to justify proposing a test. And if your response is "I didn't mean I should write a test" then do not even bother replying. Write up a sample test or a small portion of a sample test. Tell us what you would expect from such a test. (I'm not saying program it, but just sample questions). Determine what is a "pass", what are the consequences of not passing, how often would someone need to be tested. Maybe it will be brilliant and I will become a proponent of testing, but I do not see it happening for the resons I've outlined above. I will not continue to argue about testing (other than to say it is bad) until you provide more details about what you think testing encompasses. > Google search is a pain, mostly, we know that. > You can't simply have rulings scattered here and there, and this is another > issue that should be adressed, speaking of rules consistency. Unified is nice, keeping it up to date and determining if every new question needs to go into the unified rulings is more pain. Scott does archive rulings on a yahoo group somewhere. (I get the emails, I just don't know the group name off the top of my head. Or maybe its Jeff.... no sure). > IMHO, there should be some sort of "tracking" of new rulings, to be put on a > more handlable list (than group search) as soon as a new > ruling/clarification is officially made here. Afaik, that dind't met failure because wasn't > simply attempted, so far (and right now, we would have tons of ruling to sum up, > before getting a consistent list) The yahoo rulings page, White Wolf's ruling/errata page and this group are the closest we got right now. I have seen posts on this group about people trying to do better, but the fact that they do not seem to be very popular suggests that those attempts were failures or aborted prior to starting. John P.

John P. wrote: > Scott does > archive rulings on a yahoo group somewhere. (I get the emails, I just > don't know the group name off the top of my head. Or maybe its > Jeff.... no sure). vtes-rules http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vtes-rules/ No so much an archive as a newsgroup highlight reel.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> If you are playing to win, then it is not true that you are not >>> playing to win. Conversely, if you are not playing to win, >>> then it is not true that you are playing to win. >> >> OK, understood. >> >>> You, the finalist, are playing to win. >>> Why would you not? >> >> Because at some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that >> <REASON>, thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some action which >> makes it 100% that you will get 0vp total> is acceptable, since you >> are allowed to "lose in any fashion you wish" (paraphrase mine). >> >> I am now not playing-to-win. > > Incorrect. > > If you are maximizing your expected outcome, > you are PTW, by definition. OK, accepted. [rest of rebuttal snipped] >>> Finalists have no reason not to play to win. >> >> At some point during the finals, you, with 0vp, believe that >> <REASON>, thereby allowing you to rationalize that <some >> action which makes it 100% that you will get 0vp total> is >> acceptable, since you are allowed to "lose in any fashion you wish." > > Correct. If you can't get any more VPs, then any action you take > leaves you with the same finish, and yet you still must choose from > among the available options. It just makes me sad that self-ousting and kingmaking and essentially random-play (since "I can't get any [more] VPs!") is allowed to be part of the finals (whereas it isn't during the prelims) and a judge can't stop this bad, destructive-to-the-game behavior. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Correct. If you can't get any more VPs, then any action you take >> leaves you with the same finish, and yet you still must choose from >> among the available options. > > It just makes me sad that self-ousting and kingmaking and essentially > random-play (since "I can't get any [more] VPs!") is allowed to be part of > the finals (whereas it isn't during the prelims) and a judge can't stop > this bad, destructive-to-the-game behavior. It is no more or less allowed or disallowed in the finals vs the preliminaries. In both cases, the player who must choose from equally non-winning paths chooses from among those paths. As there is a need for a choice to be made from among the equally non-winning paths, allowing a choice to be made is no reason to be sad.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Well, in contract to this so-called "everyone is assumed to be >> playing to win, since it is the finals" theory, I believe, rather, >> that there really ISN'T a PTW rule in the finals, since if you are >> in 5th place, you are allowed to behave in any ridiculously foolish >> fashion you want -- including self-ousting to determine the winner >> -- and since it isn't causing you to lose any standing, it isn't, >> and can't be, penalized. > > Incorrect. > > While E has a chance to win, playing for 5th isn't PTW. > While E has a chance to come in 2nd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. > While E has a chance to come in 3rd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. > While E has a chance to come in 4rd, playing for 5th isn't PTW. **Agreed on all points.** But it just makes me sad that self-ousting and kingmaking and essentially random-play (since "I can't get any [more] VPs!") is allowed to be part of the finals (whereas it isn't during the prelims) and a judge can't stop this bad, destructive-to-the-game behavior. >> Personally, I would suggest a few changes to the VTES finals: >> a. Make the finals have only one "winner", and the rest are >> "runners-up". > > That's been proposed by many already. > It is a fine idea. Nice to hear. :) >> b. Make the finals have the same >> time limit as the prelimimary rounds. > > That's been tried for many years. And I only state this criterion as I want to keep the finals as pure and as similar to the prelims as possible. Do I have a problem with >2hr time limits? Yes. Is this a critical point? No. >> c. Either allow ANY play for ANY or NO REASON WHATSOEVER (i.e. >> consistent with current judging methodology, despite the "everyone >> is assumed to be playing-to-win" red herring) **OR** disallow SOME >> play (e.g. self-ousting, dubious deals) in order to PRESERVE >> so-called PLAY TO WIN theory. > > This is based on faulty premises. The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly allow you to obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when you have a *significant* chance of getting >0vp are allowed. Yes, I understand these are the finals. Yes, I understand that there are differences between the prelims and the finals. But I personally do not believe that allowing these type of actions, as defined above, are in any way good for the game and therefore need to be reexamined even if they currently seem consistent and look reasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> This is based on faulty premises. > > The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly allow you to > obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when you have a *significant* chance > of getting >0vp are allowed. They are not allowed, as they are not PTW.

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in news:1192039397.748873.104120@ 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > On Oct 10, 11:52 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> John P. wrote: >> > On Oct 10, 8:20 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote >> > So what exactly is the next step to better train judges? >> > Do we need to compose a list of difficult issues/cards/situations >> > that a judge might need examples for? > A quick browse over the newsgroup in the last couple of months, > looking at rules/card related questions with say 10 or more posts in > them would yield the following general catagories that examples and > explanations might be provided for: > > PTW/VP deals > Mask of 1000 faces > Rotschreik > Hand Strikes > Strike:Combat Ends > Imbued and what affects them > Eagle sight related questions > Card costs, multipliers, increases/decreases > Diablerie (trophies, blood, skill cards) > DI/Cancellations > NRA > Ordering effects/timing > Retainers > > And more could be created/found easily enough. > > The problem I see with any such "Learning Program" is how does it > differ from this group? I mean most of this stuff can be learned from > google. Good list. What google provides is just one person's "take" on how a specific instance of a rule was judged, and the resulting disagreements from all those whose judgment was not in accord. I'd rather that examples and their associated correct judgements come from a single authority, instead. Or, that examples be run through a single authority, who would agree that the decision arrived at by the example judge was the correct one. DaveZ

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in news:kM8Pi.4483$ga5....@tornado.fastwebnet.it: > IMHO, there should be some sort of "tracking" of new rulings, to be > put on a more handlable list (than group search) as soon as a new > ruling/clarification > is officially made here. You mean like the VTES _Rulings Google Group, upon which LSJ archives all of his newsgroup rulings..? :-) > Afaik, that dind't met failure because wasn't > simply > attempted, so far (and right now, we would have tons of ruling to sum > up, before > getting a consistent list) > That's our Scott for ya'. He's waaay ahead of you, Emiliano; http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/vtes-rules/ DZ AW

On Oct 10, 2:57 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote in news:1192039397.748873.104120@ [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure I'm following here. Currently all rulings or interpretations on this group are usually (if I'm not mistaken) perused by LSJ and it seems his general policy is to correct anything that someone else rules incorrectly or provide rulings where requested. Is that not a single authority? Or are you saying that we only see the examples on the newsgroup where someone feels the need to appeal to LSJ's interpretation and so we miss the bulk of juding that goes on in VTES. While it would be nice to have a committee or single source trying to create examples of things that judges might need to know, I'm not sure how we could expect any one person to match the sheer volume of examples that this group can produce. Or am I missing your point? -John P.

[ quoted text not captured ] Not exaclty, since that not so much of an archive - arguments (rulings) are not groupable - isn't much different from group searching here then. Tough the intent it's close to what i said above, those trackings would to be somewhat organized - anyway it can be a good starting point. E

On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Which seems to be (at least on the surface) at odds with the "Finalists are assumed to be Playing To Win" stance. Either that, or non-finalists might as well be assumed to be PTW, also, since you still need to check whether a finalist actually *is* playing to win. Or is there some differentiating standard in how a judge is meant to consider a player's actions with reference to PTW in a final versus a prelim round that allows for Finalists to be held to a looser standard - assumption of PTW - than in pre-final rounds? - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] First, bad play is not illegal. If the judge spots a path to victory that the player does not, I'm not in favor of the judge pointing that out. Finalists are assumed to be playing to win unless you have reason to believe there's some consideration outside of the current game that's interfering with the goal of playing to win. It could be "I suspect this guy's sacrificing his standing to point out some flaw in the rules" or "this guy is rolling a die and bleeding randomly crosstable based on the results" or anything else. The only difference is that in the preliminary rounds, there are considerations that are out-of-game, but not out-of-tournament (like "I don't want to see deck Y in the finals"). So the "assumption" is merely pointing out that these considerations no longer exist in the finals. witness1

Meej wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> This is based on faulty premises. >>> The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly allow you to >>> obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when you have a *significant* chance >>> of getting >0vp are allowed. >> They are not allowed, as they are not PTW. > > Which seems to be (at least on the surface) at odds with the > "Finalists are assumed to be Playing To Win" stance. Either that, or > non-finalists might as well be assumed to be PTW, also, since you > still need to check whether a finalist actually *is* playing to win. They are assumed to be PTW. Because: The finalist has no reason not to play to win (other than illegal ones). So if the finalist has a significant chance of getting a better standing, why would xe switch to 100% chance of getting 0? The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive.

[ quoted text not captured ] can you switch head judges in the course of the event? I guess you'd have to be able to, in case the head judge had to go home sick, or something (got drunk and surly...? ;) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] First seed has just the incentive to stall the game, securing a finish for time-out. Or, in best case, to score as much as 1 vp and the to get the round at time out. All the others have just the incentive to score 1 vp and then to stall the game, securing a finish for time out. That's not definitively "play to win", above all in the standard sense we're used to in all the others preliminary rounds. > The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive. Given the context , the premise that all the finalist are supposed to PTW even when they're no longer (playing to win but just to maximize a lost position with a, say, prize split deal) it's pretty arbitrary and questionable, tough

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Meej wrote: >>> On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Kevin M. wrote: >>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>> This is based on faulty premises. >>>>> The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly allow >>>>> you to obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when you have a >>>>> *significant* chance of getting >0vp are allowed. >>>> They are not allowed, as they are not PTW. >>> Which seems to be (at least on the surface) at odds with the >>> "Finalists are assumed to be Playing To Win" stance. Either that, or >>> non-finalists might as well be assumed to be PTW, also, since you >>> still need to check whether a finalist actually *is* playing to win. >> They are assumed to be PTW. Because: >> The finalist has no reason not to play to win (other than illegal >> ones). >> So if the finalist has a significant chance of getting a better >> standing, why would xe switch to 100% chance of getting 0? > > First seed has just the incentive to stall the game, securing a finish > for time-out. Or, in best case, to score as much as 1 vp and the > to get the round at time out. Neither of which are 0VP, so do not conform to the flawed scenario above. > All the others have just the incentive to score 1 vp and then to > stall the game, securing a finish for time out. And again, 1VP is not 0VP, so these are also not examples of the topic at hand. > That's not definitively "play to win", above all in the standard sense we're > used to in all the others preliminary rounds. Um, yes it is. PTW = play to maximize your expected outcome. Can't do any better than winning the final in a final. >> The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive. > > Given the context , the premise that all the finalist are supposed to PTW > even when they're no longer (playing to win but just to maximize a lost > position > with a, say, prize split deal) it's pretty arbitrary and questionable, tough Doing the thing that maximizes your expected outcome is playing to win, by definition.

[ quoted text not captured ] I imagine this point has been brought up in some variation, but I haven't read all 300+ posts in this thread. In the preliminaries, every additional VP or GW has an incremental bonus associated with it: You can earn a higher ranking going into the final. Therefore, there are significant advantages for playing for every VP possible, even once you have secured a GW with 3 VPs. However, once you're at the final table, all you have to do to "win" is be better than everyone else under time constraints. If the table times out, the #1 seed wins. If you earn 1 VP and the table times out, you win. These possibilities warp play style at the final table in many instances and this is really what people are complaining about and want changed. The "play until someone has 3 VPs then stop" idea has some merit, but only insofar as determining a winner is concerned. It's fairly unsatisfying when a game ends without coming to its full conclusion. One could argue that VTES would become a race to 3 VPs which is something the game win rule was designed to mitigate. So, one bonus VP for Last Man Standing in all games, and results from finals are determined independently from standings going into finals. ;) Jeff

Tetragrammaton wrote: > John P. wrote: > >> The problem I see with any such "Learning Program" is how does it >> differ from this group? I mean most of this stuff can be learned from >> google. Admittedly very clear examples with explanations might go a >> bit further in some cases, but there have been attempts before to >> create unified rulings pages and such that have generally met in >> failure for the simple reason it is easier to use this group and find >> the needed answers. >> > IMHO, there should be some sort of "tracking" of new rulings, to be put on a > more handlable list (than group search) as soon as a new > ruling/clarification > is officially made here. Afaik, that dind't met failure because wasn't > simply > attempted, so far (and right now, we would have tons of ruling to sum up, > before > getting a consistent list) > So do it. Except for LSJ and Oscar, we are all volunteers here. No one is stopping you from doing what you are suggesting. So do it, impress everyone, and become a VTES demi-god. It was actually LSJ's path to that status. I agree with John though. If what you are saying is "someone *else* should do this thing", then bleh. If it's so important to you, and if you see that it will really improve the VTES Community, then put up or shut up. If it really does improve the VTES community, then others will then offer to help you manage it. No disrespect intended. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Self-ousting, in the finals, with 20 seconds remaining, instead of 0.5vp? Now, I know what you're going to say. :) You're going to say that, well, assuming the guy was in Xth place (let's say 5th place) and couldn't achieve any more than 5th place, then yes, he can self-oust, generally act kooky, and do what he feels is the best use of the last 20 seconds to try to prove a lesson to everyone and teach them how it is ALL THEIR FAULT that the guy who is in first place shouldn't be allowed to do nothing and win, so HAHAAROFLROFL!!I SELF OUST THEREBY CHOOSING WHO WINS, AND ROFLROFL IT WASN'T THE GUY IN 1ST PLACE!!! These kind of things have happened. Do happen. Will continue to happen. And with play-to-win assumed in the finals and some level of confusion (at least on my part) as to what level of losing-in-the-way-you-wish is allowed will continue to be "allowed". I am glad that we are having a serious discussion of possible modifications to the V:TES finals in order to ensure these kind of disgusting things are disallowed by the rules, since no one in these playgroups and/or tournaments has any courage to stand-up to their playmates and STOP this rotten behavior. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Nor 0.5 to all 5 at time out with top seed winning it's "playing to win" - again, i'm referring to the meaning of words. > >> All the others have just the incentive to score 1 vp and then to >> stall the game, securing a finish for time out. > > And again, 1VP is not 0VP, so these are also not examples of the > topic at hand. Seems like you can't see that the stalling for time as soon as one players get 1 vp (or first seeds manages effctively a table balance so that no-one get a vp in two hours) it's hardly to be taken as "playing to win" - question again: do you ackowledge *there's* a problem in how the finals are ruled now or you're perfectly right in how they're now ? Clearing this point would help in clutting all the discussion here, after all you're the rulemonger (as other have pointed out on this 3d). > >> That's not definitively "play to win", above all in the standard >> sense we're used to in all the others preliminary rounds. > > Um, yes it is. > > PTW = play to maximize your expected outcome. > > Can't do any better than winning the final in a final. > Under the current scoring system and with prizes allowed as part of deals, sure. you can't pretend any better. With little change, however, finals could be made to be played really for "win", and not as the lenghty stall battles we see most of the time now. >>> The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive. >> >> Given the context , the premise that all the finalist are supposed >> to PTW even when they're no longer (playing to win but just to >> maximize a lost position >> with a, say, prize split deal) it's pretty arbitrary and >> questionable, tough > > Doing the thing that maximizes your expected outcome is playing to > win, by definition. Playing to win is playing to get first place, this by standard definition. Maximizing the outcome is a thing that you do when you're no longer in the condition of winning. Again, you don't need to "maximize" your position if you aim for first place and you're top seed - you need just to stale the game Period

[ quoted text not captured ] I take enough effort right now as NC - but it will gladly contribute at such rules compiling, if this will be somewhat organized in a coordinated activity of some sort, between us as volunteers, lsj and any other that's interested, yes. > If it's so important to you, and if you see that it will really > improve the VTES Community, then put up or shut up. If it really > does improve the VTES community, then others will then offer to help > you manage it. Yes, i'm proposing this with that in mind, indeed best E

In message <36cPi.1489$LD2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >They are assumed to be PTW. Because: >The finalist has no reason not to play to win (other than illegal >ones). > >So if the finalist has a significant chance of getting a better >standing, why would xe switch to 100% chance of getting 0? Because you're using the word "standing", and not "outcome". I may have a reasonable chance to get second place, but give it up in order to get third place and help someone else get first, with a prize- split deal. This might particularly be the case where the situation is "winner" and "runners-up", where the non-winner places are all identical (a few boosters, say). Doesn't matter to me then if I come second or third, so I'll come third and get a share of a much bigger prize (say, half a box, or we agree to auction a piece of art for real money). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

bluedevil a écrit : > On Oct 9, 8:58 am, Acbishop <antonio_cobo_cue...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>please before post read all the previous posts, I've already explain >>that my only vampire wasn't younger than my only vampire with superior >>dominate, at the moment I thought I don't have any chance to win the >>judges(Damnans are Hugh) agreed with my decision. > > > First, I read the post where you actually described your hand and the > game state. I don't believe you stated there that you didn't have any > younger vampires in your ready region, but if I missed that I'm > sorry. Saying "read all posts" in a 200+ post thread isn't really > reasonable. eh ben si tu sais pas lire alors ferme ta gueule :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Jammer, wat beteken wat jy nou net geskryf het? ;)

Kevin M. wrote: > And with play-to-win assumed in the finals and some level of confusion (at > least on my part) as to what level of losing-in-the-way-you-wish is > allowed will continue to be "allowed". The confusion seems to be in reading two different finishing outcomes as being equal.

[ quoted text not captured ] If a player can do better than 5th, why does xe play for 5th? Same for 4th. and 4rd. and 2nd. Meaning of words I've already given. >>> All the others have just the incentive to score 1 vp and then to >>> stall the game, securing a finish for time out. >> And again, 1VP is not 0VP, so these are also not examples of the >> topic at hand. > > Seems like you can't see that the stalling for time as soon > as one players get 1 vp (or first seeds manages effctively a table > balance so that no-one get a vp in two hours) it's hardly to be > taken as "playing to win" - question again: do you ackowledge *there's* > a problem in how the finals are ruled now or you're perfectly right in how > they're now ? Stalling is illegal. Other than that, coming in first is hard to surpass, so playing to come in first is exactly PTW. > Clearing this point would help in clutting all the discussion here, after > all you're the rulemonger (as other have pointed out on this 3d). I've cleared it many times already. This post makes +1. >>> That's not definitively "play to win", above all in the standard >>> sense we're used to in all the others preliminary rounds. >> Um, yes it is. >> >> PTW = play to maximize your expected outcome. >> >> Can't do any better than winning the final in a final. >> > > Under the current scoring system and with prizes allowed as part of deals, > sure. you can't pretend any better. > With little change, however, finals could be made to be played really for > "win", > and not as the lenghty stall battles we see most of the time now. Fine, then you're free to discuss new changes too the system. But the topic at hand is the current system. >>>> The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive. >>> Given the context , the premise that all the finalist are supposed >>> to PTW even when they're no longer (playing to win but just to >>> maximize a lost position >>> with a, say, prize split deal) it's pretty arbitrary and >>> questionable, tough >> Doing the thing that maximizes your expected outcome is playing to >> win, by definition. > > Playing to win is playing to get first place, this by standard definition. > Maximizing the outcome is a thing that you do when you're no longer > in the condition of winning. > Again, you don't need to "maximize" your position if you aim for first place > and you're top seed - you need just to stale the game And that is aiming for first. Actually stalling, however, is illegal in its own right, unrelated to PTW.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <36cPi.1489$LD2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> They are assumed to be PTW. Because: >> The finalist has no reason not to play to win (other than illegal >> ones). >> >> So if the finalist has a significant chance of getting a better >> standing, why would xe switch to 100% chance of getting 0? > > Because you're using the word "standing", and not "outcome". Because they mean the same in this case. > I may have a reasonable chance to get second place, but give it up in > order to get third place and help someone else get first, with a prize- > split deal. Then that must be a better standing/outcome to you. Play to win. > This might particularly be the case where the situation is "winner" and > "runners-up", where the non-winner places are all identical (a few > boosters, say). Doesn't matter to me then if I come second or third, so > I'll come third and get a share of a much bigger prize (say, half a box, > or we agree to auction a piece of art for real money). Correct. Obviously if the rules are changed to flatten the final rewards to just two tiers ("winner" and "other finalist"), then the rule on splitting prizes would be changed as well.

On Oct 11, 12:17 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > John P. wrote: > > On Oct 10, 9:21 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > >> John P. escribió:> On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> >> John P. wrote: > > >> [...] > > >> > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have > >> > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. > >> > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. > >> > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge > >> > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging > >> > situation > >> > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting > >> > the above if I got it wrong).[...] > > >> The tournament organizer (Hugh) appointed me head judge for the final. > > >> -- > >> Damnans > > > That makes the whole sitation make more sense. > > can you switch head judges in the course of the event? The tournament organizer can. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.2. Tournament Organizer Responsibilities The tournament organizer for an event is ultimately responsible for all tournament operations and event reporting for the event. The tournament organizer's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: * Selecting the site for the event * Providing all materials to operate the event (product at Sealed Deck events, and so on) * Retaining all tournament results for one full year after the event's completion * Reporting to the V:EKN of all event results, including winner, in a timely manner * Staffing the event with appropriate personnel (including finding an appropriate head judge for the event) * Advertising the tournament sufficiently in advance of the event date The tournament organizer may choose to delegate some or all of these responsibilities. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

Damnans wrote: > On Oct 11, 12:17 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: >> John P. wrote: >> > On Oct 10, 9:21 am, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: >> >> John P. escribió:> On Oct 9, 12:32 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none..com> wrote: >> >> >> John P. wrote: >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> > The only thing that confuses me on this one is that I have >> >> > seen Mr. Treasure referred to as the head judge in some posts. >> >> > I've seen other posts that refer to Hugh and Gines doing judging. >> >> > Was the tournament multijudge? If so why was Rob as head judge >> >> > not the judge for the finals? (If anyone can elighten the judging >> >> > situation >> >> > at the final table it would be appreciated, which includes correcting >> >> > the above if I got it wrong).[...] >> >> >> The tournament organizer (Hugh) appointed me head judge for the final. >> >> >> -- >> >> Damnans >> >> > That makes the whole sitation make more sense. >> >> can you switch head judges in the course of the event? > > The tournament organizer can. > * Staffing the event with appropriate personnel (including finding > an appropriate head judge for the event) but i only see his authority in appointing "an appropriate head judge". Not "head judges as appropriate". seems like it could be read as a single head judge only, for the duration of the event. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That's covered here: "The tournament organizer for an event *is ultimately responsible for all tournament operations* [...]. The tournament organizer's responsibilities include, but *are not limited* to, the following:" [ quoted text not captured ]

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in news:1192049551.022734.324810@ 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: >> >> What google provides is just one person's "take" on how a specific >> instance of a rule was judged, and the resulting disagreements from all >> those whose judgment was not in accord. >> I'd rather that examples and their associated correct judgements come >> from a single authority, instead. Or, that examples be run through a >> single authority, who would agree that the decision arrived at by the >> example judge was the correct one. >> >> DaveZ > > I'm not sure I'm following here. > > Currently all rulings or interpretations on this group are usually (if > I'm not mistaken) perused by LSJ and it seems his general policy is to > correct anything that someone else rules incorrectly or provide > rulings where requested. Is that not a single authority? > It is. And for rulings on how various cards interact with each other and the rules, "mechanically" if you will, its sufficient and excellent. Its the cases where a judge, using his judgment, must decide if a course of action for a player is PTW, or not, or if a deal is legal, that we are getting the judging inconsistency that I poorly alluded to, above. Take the example from this thread; Damnans, using his judgment, assessed the game state and Antonio's proposed deal, and ruled it to be legal, as it was maximizing his outcome. Rob, using his judgment, asessed the game state and Antonio's proposed deal, and assessed it to be illegal, as it was not maximizing his outcome (but kept this observation to himself, as he was not the current head judge). Under the rules as they stand, with each "judge using his judgment", both of them ruled correctly. Were Gines' and Rob's roles reversed, then Rob's ruling would be the one which the rules (and LSJ) would uphold, because the rules hold the judge's judgment as inerrant with respect to the Judge's assessment of the game state, regardless of what that assessment may be. At least for the purposes of training judges, a single correct assessment of the game state should be strived for, so in that respect, Google searches are a poor tool to train with... > Or are you saying that we only see the examples on the newsgroup where > someone feels the need to appeal to LSJ's interpretation and so we > miss the bulk of judging that goes on in VTES. > There is that, although I hadn't considered it in my original (sketchy) comments. > While it would be nice to have a committee or single source trying to > create examples of things that judges might need to know, I'm not sure > how we could expect any one person to match the sheer volume of > examples that this group can produce. > > Or am I missing your point? > I hope I clarified it. DaveZ

> Correct. Obviously if the rules are changed to flatten the final rewards to just > two tiers ("winner" and "other finalist"), then the rule on splitting prizes > would be changed as well. With all due respect to those suggesting final standing be changed to "1st vs runners up", I think this is a terrible idea. It simply doesn't reflect fairly the accomplishments of the runners up - especially the potential poor sap who got 2vp. Surely he has played better, done better in achieving his goals, than the three players who got 0vp? Personally, I find this "If you don't win, you lose" attitude baffling. Sure, I play for first, and many times I've traded a safe 2nd for a shot at first - but I don't consider 2nd place in a major tournament to be unworthy of note! (Perhaps this is simply because I've only won a few major tournaments, unlike some of the more illustrious players here :) ). Many don't care about this, but thematically I find it satisfying also. We are supposed to be ancient vampires, subtly working against one another to increase our power and influence - NOT to eradicate ALL the others and be last man standing. Gaining a VP or two and withdrawing from the struggle would be far more in character. (I'm not suggesting that making withdrawal easier or more rewarding would be good for the game, mind).

illarion <dark...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:1192111584....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> Correct. Obviously if the rules are changed to flatten the final >> rewards to just two tiers ("winner" and "other finalist"), then the >> rule on splitting prizes would be changed as well. > > With all due respect to those suggesting final standing be changed to > "1st vs runners up", I think this is a terrible idea. It simply > doesn't reflect fairly the accomplishments of the runners up - > especially the potential poor sap who got 2vp. Surely he has played > better, done better in achieving his goals, than the three players who > got 0vp? > Personally, I find this "If you don't win, you lose" attitude > baffling. Sure, I play for first, and many times I've traded a safe > 2nd for a shot at first - but I don't consider 2nd place in a major > tournament to be unworthy of note! (Perhaps this is simply because > I've only won a few major tournaments, unlike some of the more > illustrious players here :) ). > Can you tell me (without a usenet or google search) who came in second at the NAC this year? For anyone not in attendance, I think that they'd be hard-pressed to come up with the right answer without checking somewhere first. That aside, players' non-winning accomplishments, though, would certainly still be documented. Look at the extensive tournament reports for proof of that. Good players would hardly lose their "VTES street cred" if tournaments awarded results that reflected a tournament's stated goal, which is to declare a tournament winner. I think you probably would see a bit more stratification of the VEKN player standings, though... haven't given much thouhgt as to whether thats good or bad, yet. DZ

On Oct 10, 10:04 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Kevin M. wrote: > >> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> This is based on faulty premises. > > >> The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly allow you > >> to obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when you have a *significant* > >> chance of getting >0vp are allowed. > > > They are not allowed, as they are not PTW. > > Self-ousting, in the finals, with 20 seconds remaining, instead of 0.5vp? > Now, I know what you're going to say. :) You're going to say that, well, > assuming the guy was in Xth place (let's say 5th place) and couldn't > achieve any more than 5th place, then yes, he can self-oust, generally act > kooky, and do what he feels is the best use of the last 20 seconds to try > to prove a lesson to everyone and teach them how it is ALL THEIR FAULT > that the guy who is in first place shouldn't be allowed to do nothing and > win, so HAHAAROFLROFL!!I SELF OUST THEREBY CHOOSING WHO WINS, AND ROFLROFL > IT WASN'T THE GUY IN 1ST PLACE!!! In the last year, I was in a finals where I thought the guy in 1st was playing too conservatively (slowly) to allow anything to happen other than [he wins on time out]. Which, incidentally, I hate. Another player, who was in 5th place, told me to calm down, and that he would transfer out if time was going to run out, just to stop the player in 1st place from having the incentive to time the table out. Which I thought was beautiful, cause he wouldn't lose anything, and had much to gain. > These kind of things have happened. Do happen. Will continue to happen. And if these things keep players from "dragging their feet into victory lane", then I hope they increase in frequency. In fact, I will go this far: ATTENTION PLAYERS: If you're the 5th place finalist, and the player in 1st place has been playing too slowly, TRANSFER YOURSELF OUT at 2 minutes. Don't let stalling be a part of anyone's strategy. > And with play-to-win assumed in the finals and some level of confusion (at > least on my part) as to what level of losing-in-the-way-you-wish is > allowed will continue to be "allowed". > > I am glad that we are having a serious discussion of possible > modifications to the V:TES finals in order to ensure these kind of > disgusting things are disallowed by the rules, since no one in these > playgroups and/or tournaments has any courage to stand-up to their > playmates and STOP this rotten behavior. Slow play in the finals by whoever's in the lead is pretty rotten behavior, which somehow hasn't been addressed by the rules yet. I would endorse the previous rotten behavior, in order to curb this one. ---------- Now, I think almost all players AND judges, LSJ included, want the game's final standings to be decided primarily by card play. Not by talk, not by the timer, and not by random play. But I think mature players will choose not to play very randomly anyway, so I think that's not as big a concern as the other two are. I think table- splitting for the win and time outs are two methods players use to affect the finals standings, regularly, and that previous efforts to rein them in have been largely unsuccessful. I believe that going to 1st place, 4 also-rans would likely affect these behaviors significantly while the game gives up nothing. Also, Kevin, I noticed that you said you wanted finals and prelims to have the same time limit, for consistency. I think everyone wants consistency, but your ideal final + prelim match in their real-time length, while my ideal rounds match in number of turns taken. In theory, there should be no difference between the length of a player's turn between rounds, but in practice, somehow there seems to be a huge difference. And so long as that's the case, finals should be extended to afford all players the opportunity to play a game of the same "length" as they would have played in any preliminary round. Which should, IMO, be determined by asking, "When do 80% of tables time out, for this group of players?" and setting the time limit to be 2hrs or that number, whichever is more. -- Brian

[ quoted text not captured ] As long as 5th-seed isn't 1st-seed's prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Name.Luc...@gmail.com wrote: > ATTENTION PLAYERS: > If you're the 5th place finalist, and the player in 1st place has been > playing too slowly, TRANSFER YOURSELF OUT at 2 minutes. Don't let > stalling be a part of anyone's strategy. This doesn't make any sense at all. Instead of chosing to lose, take that one in a zillion shot at winning. Fling yourself at your prey and do whatever you can to oust him. Completely ignore defense and transfer down to 1 pool if that might give you a better shot at killing your prey. You will either achieve the same result as above or you will win the tournament. Remember winning? Matt Morgan

On Oct 11, 6:05 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] good one Matt :)

On Oct 11, 11:05 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Good point Matt, but I would add, that with 30 seconds to go, after flinging yourself at your prey, knowing you will not get another turn, and still wanting to spike the 1st place seed's proverbial wheel, then transfer out. John P.

[ quoted text not captured ] Why wait until 30 seconds? Go all-forward at ~10 minutes and spike yourself down to a low pool total. See just how able and willing first- seed is to stop you from being ousted - if he can manage it (sending you parity shift pool, eagle's sight blocking your predator's bleeds, playing DI on your behalf...) then you get another shot at going all- forward. Repeat until anybody other than first seed wins. witness1

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, John P. wrote: > Good point Matt, but I would add, that with 30 seconds to go, after > flinging yourself at your prey, knowing you will not get another turn, > and still wanting to spike the 1st place seed's proverbial wheel, then > transfer out. Why is the 5th seed player waiting until 1:59:30 to try this tactic? At 1:15, the 5th seed guy should say to himself "this is going nowhere, I need to make things happen." If you can't kill or get yourself killed in 45 minutes...well, nothing. You can. This should spark a chain reaction of events that will ultimately lead to the game ending one way or the other. If it's clear that your lunge isn't going to get anywhere and you're just going to get yourself killed, the top seed guy will realize he has to actually oust someone to win. Or maybe he'll start calling Con Boons for you. Wow, 10 pool? Thanks. Now I can buy two more Assault Rifles! Yeah, just spend it and keep going. When a game goes to time with nobody ousted, it's because everybody waited until the last 30 seconds to try to oust. That may be cunning play when you're 1st seed, but it's stupid when you're 5th. In other words, there's really no reason to ever do as you suggest. If you sat there for an hour and 59 minutes doing nothing, then you might as well let the top seed guy win. At least he worked for it in the preliminary rounds. You and the other finalists chose to just sit for two hours. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] That does beg the question then Antonio - why wasn't this a course of action you took?

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess I operate on the assumption that the 5th seed player might gain a VP anyways between the time you would begin to "throw myself with wild abandon at my prey" and the game time out, perhaps enabling me to get 2 VP should I first manage to get one. I guess it depends what that first place player is doing wether its cross table Folderols or what. I would probably leave the wild abandon for the last 5-10 minutes depending on how the turns are going. But I will stipulate to your greater experience than mine at final tables and consider this. To me if I have failed to get a VP in the final round without an all out assault, I would rather not give the first seed the time to get off his ass and collect that VP he would now need. I would rather do it suddenly at the end of the game so that he's screwed over for taking a long time earlier, and will not even get another turn to try and oust his prey. But I'm a bitter, bitter man. :). I do see that your proposed course of action has a better chance of resolving the table as it gets people moving earlier, but mine has a move spiteful flavour of revenge. John P.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, John P. wrote: > I guess I operate on the assumption that the 5th seed > player might gain a VP anyways between the time you > would begin to "throw myself with wild abandon at my prey" > and the game time out, perhaps enabling me to get 2 VP > should I first manage to get one. I guess it depends what that > first place player is doing wether its cross table Folderols > or what. If you can get a VP, go do it. Forget about who's got what seed, just make your VP. > I would probably leave the wild abandon for the last 5-10 > minutes depending on how the turns are going. But I will > stipulate to your greater experience than mine at final > tables and consider this. Alas, observing finals is probably a better way to formulate opinions about these kinds of things than playing in them is. But my vast experience makes me wince at the idea of embarking on a radical plan in the last 5-10 minutes of the game. All you need is one guy to take a really long turn and the opportunity is lost. > To me if I have failed to get a VP in the final round without an > all out assault, I would rather not give the first seed the time to > get off his ass and collect that VP he would now need. I > would rather do it suddenly at the end of the game so that > he's screwed over for taking a long time earlier, and will > not even get another turn to try and oust his prey. But I'm > a bitter, bitter man. :). I do see that your proposed course of > action has a better chance of resolving the table as it gets > people moving earlier, but mine has a move spiteful > flavour of revenge. I guess I haven't seen very many examples of the top seed guy doing nothing all game and winning on time so I don't feel so strongly about revenge. I do feel that when the game times out with nobody ousted, you've got four players who totally enabled that to happen. What I'm advocating is a more proactive approach. I mean, say I'm 3rd seed in the final and you're 5th. I'm preying on you. The game goes nowhere. I do nothing. Suddenly, I win! Yay!!! How's that any better? You're going to reward the guy who actually had some ground to make up but didn't? Matt Morgan

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in news:2007101111...@fnord.io.com: [ quoted text not captured ] I think his point was, at two minutes, within a game where the 1st seed has actively been working the whole time to stall out on time, and the table hasn't been able to do anything about it, and won't, then such a lunge is not going to improve your chances at winning. I wouldn't use this strategy at the two minute mark though... The actual transfer for self-oust shouldn't ever actually need to occur, the threat alone should be enough to break stasis. If the threat of this decision its offered earlier in the game, and believed, it should be sufficient to shove a table into motion (like was said, so long as 5th seed isn't the prey of 1st seed). I guess that's part of the power of 5th seed; nothing to lose, right? :-) DZ

Name.Luc...@gmail.com wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > Kevin M. wrote: >> >> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> This is based on faulty premises. >> >> >> The only faulty premise IMO is that actions which directly >> >> allow you to obtain a 100% chance of getting 0vp when >> >> you have a *significant* chance of getting >0vp are allowed. >> >> > They are not allowed, as they are not PTW. >> >> Self-ousting, in the finals, with 20 seconds remaining, >> instead of 0.5vp? > >> Now, I know what you're going to say. :) You're going to say that, >> well, assuming the guy was in Xth place (let's say 5th place) and >> couldn't achieve any more than 5th place, then yes, he can >> self-oust, generally act kooky, and do what he feels is the best use >> of the last 20 seconds to try to prove a lesson to everyone and >> teach them how it is ALL THEIR FAULT that the guy who is in first >> place shouldn't be allowed to do nothing and win, so >> HAHAAROFLROFL!!I SELF OUST THEREBY CHOOSING WHO WINS, >> AND ROFLROFL IT WASN'T THE GUY IN 1ST PLACE!!! > > In the last year, I was in a finals where I thought the guy in 1st was > playing too conservatively (slowly) to allow anything to happen other > than [he wins on time out]. Which, incidentally, I hate. Then get a judge to examine the situation. If the player is found to be stalling, the judge can add time to the clock or whatever is a good solution. > Another player, who was in 5th place, told me to calm down, and that > he would transfer out if time was going to run out, just to stop the > player in 1st place from having the incentive to time the table out. > Which I thought was beautiful, cause he wouldn't lose anything, and > had much to gain. > >> These kind of things have happened. Do happen. >> Will continue to happen. > > And if these things keep players from "dragging their feet into > victory lane", then I hope they increase in frequency. In fact, I > will go this far: > > ATTENTION PLAYERS: > If you're the 5th place finalist, and the player in 1st place has been > playing too slowly, TRANSFER YOURSELF OUT at 2 minutes. > Don't let stalling be a part of anyone's strategy. I suggest we put that in the rulebook, just to let potential new-players know what theyare getting themselves into. No, don't call a judge to examine the situation! Act like a poor sport! Excellent. >> And with play-to-win assumed in the finals and some level of >> confusion (at least on my part) as to what level of >> losing-in-the-way-you-wish is allowed will continue to be "allowed". >> >> I am glad that we are having a serious discussion of possible >> modifications to the V:TES finals in order to ensure these kind of >> disgusting things are disallowed by the rules, since no one in these >> playgroups and/or tournaments has any courage to stand-up to their >> playmates and STOP this rotten behavior. > > Slow play in the finals by whoever's in the lead is pretty rotten > behavior, which somehow hasn't been addressed by the rules > yet. I would endorse the previous rotten behavior, in order > to curb this one. Why not endorse calling a judge? HINT: Creating bad behavior to stop other bad behavior DOES NOT WORK. > Also, Kevin, I noticed that you said you wanted finals and prelims to > have the same time limit, for consistency. I think everyone wants > consistency, but your ideal final + prelim match in their real-time > length, while my ideal rounds match in number of turns taken. In > theory, there should be no difference between the length of a player's > turn between rounds, but in practice, somehow there seems to be a huge > difference. And so long as that's the case, finals should be extended > to afford all players the opportunity to play a game of the same > "length" as they would have played in any preliminary round. I'm not sure that would work, but I would be willing to try it and see what happens. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

John P. <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: > Good point Matt, but I would add, that with 30 seconds to go, after > flinging yourself at your prey, knowing you will not get another turn, > and still wanting to spike the 1st place seed's proverbial wheel, then > transfer out. Why? Why corrupt the game just because you are a bad-sport loser? Is this what we want to be introducing our new players to? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So, basically, if there's not a limit, the tournament organizer could change the head judge in the middle of a ruling call, could he ?

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> Meej wrote: >>>>>> On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Kevin M. wrote: >>>>>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Nor 0.5 to all 5 at time out with top seed winning it's "playing to >> win" - again, i'm >> referring to the meaning of words. > > If a player can do better than 5th, why does xe play for 5th? By doing a wise risk analisys ? > Same for 4th. and 4rd. and 2nd. > Same: risk analisys. > Meaning of words I've already given. > Other than not seeing that aiming for maximizing placement to not place first is not playing to "win", yes, you gave meanings. >>>> All the others have just the incentive to score 1 vp and then to >>>> stall the game, securing a finish for time out. >>> And again, 1VP is not 0VP, so these are also not examples of the >>> topic at hand. >> >> Seems like you can't see that the stalling for time as soon >> as one players get 1 vp (or first seeds manages effctively a table >> balance so that no-one get a vp in two hours) it's hardly to be >> taken as "playing to win" - question again: do you ackowledge >> *there's* a problem in how the finals are ruled now or you're perfectly >> right >> in how they're now ? > > Stalling is illegal. Call it risk analisys, then - that's not illegal, i think. > Other than that, coming in first is hard to surpass, so playing to > come in first is exactly PTW. Yes, of course, that was not in discussion indeed (aiming to place first it's playing to win). But we were speaking of maximizing a "lost" position - that's not playing to "win", it's play to maximize a lost game (tournament, in this case). If the use of language brings to confused meanings, then it's good to clear the terms. > >> Clearing this point would help in clutting all the discussion here, >> after all you're the rulemonger (as other have pointed out on this >> 3d). > > I've cleared it many times already. > > This post makes +1. So far, i didn't read any clarification about that, maybe you've done in some previous discussions, i don't know this. > >>>> That's not definitively "play to win", above all in the standard >>>> sense we're used to in all the others preliminary rounds. >>> Um, yes it is. >>> >>> PTW = play to maximize your expected outcome. Yes - may we distinguish, then ? Playing to win = play to get first place Playing to maximize = lost position, you play to maximize your expected outcome that can be 2,3,4 or 5 in a final (but not first place). >>> >>> Can't do any better than winning the final in a final. >>> >> >> Under the current scoring system and with prizes allowed as part of >> deals, sure. you can't pretend any better. >> With little change, however, finals could be made to be played >> really for "win", >> and not as the lenghty stall battles we see most of the time now. > > Fine, then you're free to discuss new changes too the system. > But the topic at hand is the current system. I already made my proposal, i will refine it with a scoring system for final, ok. > >>>>> The premise is faulty, so isn't very instructive. >>>> Given the context , the premise that all the finalist are supposed >>>> to PTW even when they're no longer (playing to win but just to >>>> maximize a lost position >>>> with a, say, prize split deal) it's pretty arbitrary and >>>> questionable, tough >>> Doing the thing that maximizes your expected outcome is playing to >>> win, by definition. >> >> Playing to win is playing to get first place, this by standard >> definition. Maximizing the outcome is a thing that you do when >> you're no longer in the condition of winning. >> Again, you don't need to "maximize" your position if you aim for >> first place and you're top seed - you need just to stale the game > > And that is aiming for first. > > Actually stalling, however, is illegal in its own right, unrelated to > PTW. Here, too, let's change "stalling" with "risk-wise-analisys", result will be the same. E

On Oct 11, 2:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Its being taken out of context a bit. If I feel someone is playing slowly a judge may or may not agree. I would of course first call a judge and ask. But I think we all know as players that this game can be played relatively slowly without being obvious about it. If as the game grinds towards time, I feel that a certain player has held up the game in order to win on a time-out, and a judge when consulted either disagrees or has added an insignificant amount of time, and I have not opted to agressively lunge 40 minutes ago as Matt suggests for whatever reason, and I entered the final in fifth place (thus having nothing to lose), and on what I feel will be my last turn I have lunged forward in all out agression and failed to oust my prey, and I don't think that even if I got another turn I still would not be able to oust my prey, and I'm in a bad mood cause I did not sleep well the night before (or cause the game's like really gone to hell and back), I reserve the right to be spiteful and oust myself in the permitted fasion, assuming I feel my predator deserves it more than the first place player (cause they were not aiming for time). It is not something I would do if the game is moving along. It is not something I would do if somebody had already picked up a VP. Its not corrupting the game, its King making. Which is an accepted part of the game at this point. Its not great kingmaking cause I can only make my predator king. Will it teach them a lesson? Probably not, maybe if I explain it, but still probably not. Might make me feel better though. Which do you think a new player would find more distasteful? Being able to affect the outcome of the game to the very end, or a game going to time through the actions of one player? Neither is very attractive but I would rather have an effect on the game. I suppose to be sporting I could warn the table with a few rounds to go that I might oust myself if no one else has managed a VP before time. As someone mentioned above this should get the table moving, but a threat is only good if everyone believes you will follow through, and that might not happen until the second time the above conditions are met. I've seen some deplorable tactics employed in this game. Not often, but there have been some. All permitted by the rules. I find this less distasteful than the alternative of doing nothing. I am fortunate enough that I don't get to finals tables very often. And when I do there is rarely a table going to time, perhaps because I do not run into a lot of assholes playing VTES. Or because I manage to be ousted before the table goes to time. But I think this is what I would do if given more opportunity. John P.

In message <VwvPi.6352$ga5....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>>> Meej wrote: >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Kevin M. wrote: >>>>>>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> Nor 0.5 to all 5 at time out with top seed winning it's "playing to >>> win" - again, i'm >>> referring to the meaning of words. >> >> If a player can do better than 5th, why does xe play for 5th? > >By doing a wise risk analisys ? Mmm? Your risk analysis seems faulty here. - If I take the risk and it pays off, I end up in 4th or better. - If I take the risk and it doesn't pay off, I end up in 5th. - If I play for 5th, I end up in 5th. I don't see a situation here in which your risk analysis is wise. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <VwvPi.6352$ga5....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nos...@none.com> writes: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>>>> Meej wrote: >>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Kevin M. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>>> Nor 0.5 to all 5 at time out with top seed winning it's "playing to >>>> win" - again, i'm >>>> referring to the meaning of words. >>> >>> If a player can do better than 5th, why does xe play for 5th? >> >> By doing a wise risk analisys ? > > Mmm? Your risk analysis seems faulty here. > > - If I take the risk and it pays off, I end up in 4th or better. > - If I take the risk and it doesn't pay off, I end up in 5th. > - If I play for 5th, I end up in 5th. > > I don't see a situation here in which your risk analysis is wise. Not really, because you can maximize prizes - you play for 5th because i don't want to rush forward fearing to be ousted in the process,so you can deal for prizes (after a risk-wise-analisys), maximizing them instead of take the risk to maxime a lost position. E

On Oct 11, 9:24 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > illarion <darkd...@googlemail.com> wrote innews:1192111584....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > > > >> Correct. Obviously if the rules are changed to flatten the final > >> rewards to just two tiers ("winner" and "other finalist"), then the > >> rule on splitting prizes would be changed as well. > > > With all due respect to those suggesting final standing be changed to > > "1st vs runners up", I think this is a terrible idea. It simply > > doesn't reflect fairly the accomplishments of the runners up - > > especially the potential poor sap who got 2vp. Surely he has played > > better, done better in achieving his goals, than the three players who > > got 0vp? > > Personally, I find this "If you don't win, you lose" attitude > > baffling. Sure, I play for first, and many times I've traded a safe > > 2nd for a shot at first - but I don't consider 2nd place in a major > > tournament to be unworthy of note! (Perhaps this is simply because > > I've only won a few major tournaments, unlike some of the more > > illustrious players here :) ). > > Can you tell me (without a usenet or google search) who came in second at > the NAC this year? For anyone not in attendance, I think that they'd be > hard-pressed to come up with the right answer without checking somewhere > first. Matt Wedge with Una Freakishness, who was almost handed the finals on a similar deal. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Kevin M. wrote: > John P. <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: >> Good point Matt, but I would add, that with 30 seconds to go, after >> flinging yourself at your prey, knowing you will not get another turn, >> and still wanting to spike the 1st place seed's proverbial wheel, then >> transfer out. > > Why? Why corrupt the game just because you are a bad-sport loser? > > Is this what we want to be introducing our new players to? ideally it would never come to that. just make it well known to all players that you're likely to do something spikey towards time, and just maybe they'll all be playing to get VPs well before time to make sure they're not screwed by it. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] because he got 2nd and not 5th from the way he did play? [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver escribió: > "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in > news:1191940708.6...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > >> Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant >> here. They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. > > There was a third judge, who disagreed with the other two (but was not > consulted in the judging). IMO, that third judge was not aware of how the Play-to-Win rules really work. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:fentv3$ivs$1 @registered.motzarella.org: > atomweaver escribió: >> "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in >> news:1191940708.6...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >>> Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant >>> here. They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. >> >> There was a third judge, who disagreed with the other two (but was not >> consulted in the judging). > > > IMO, that third judge was not aware of how the Play-to-Win rules really > work. > > [...] > Clearly, your opinion is yet more evidence that a training program for judges is needed. DZ AW

> Can you tell me (without a usenet or google search) who came in second at > the NAC this year? For anyone not in attendance, I think that they'd be > hard-pressed to come up with the right answer without checking somewhere > first. Not a chance - but not being in the US, having never played in a US tournament, and knowing no US players personally - it's not really an issue of great significance to me ;) I have a pretty firm grasp of the UK nationals though ;) (and most of our tournaments actually).

On 12 Oct, 14:49, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > atomweaver escribió: > > > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote in > >news:1191940708.6...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > > >> Certified judges would not have helped either - irrelevant > >> here. They ruled in accordance with the current VEKN rules. > > > There was a third judge, who disagreed with the other two (but was not > > consulted in the judging). > > IMO, that third judge was not aware of how the Play-to-Win rules really > work. Yeah, thanks for that Gines, when you get off your moral high horse why don't you let me know ? Oh no I forgot, you don't aknowledge people do you.