EC: Report and thoughts

Right. Finally back home after the European championship in Paris, somehow recovered from massive drinking on the way back, a lot of conflicting thoughts are still swirling in my head. The report part of this post will be relatively short as i didn't do very well during the qualifier and was absolutely abysmal during the EC proper :) Anyway here goes: Travelling to Paris with the Legbiter family and Barny "Number 1" Baker, we represented the English delegation at the EC. The trip in itself was allright, tiring as can be expected, we managed to get a game going on the ferry and learned how to play Munchkin, great fun :) Arriving in the early hours of Saturday we jumped into the train to Paris after some friendly negociations with the ticket office guy (sarcasm), found our way through the Underground network of the French capital and finally made it to Ostelen. Fast registration, well organised and ready to handle a lot of players. We hanged out, meeting some of the players, catching up with friends and acquaintances then onto the Qualifier. Against my better judgment, i played (again) my Tzimisce deck that i played both at GenCon and the Qualifier in Watford. I wanted to play my Courier deck for comedy value as i was already qualified. But at the last minute, i realised that i had about three Jyhad cards in the deck and no time left to de-sleeve another deck to sleeve this one....so i played the Tzimisce, didn't really mind as i have reached some kind of symbiosis with the deck :) A lot of things happened during the Qualifier, many unrelated to the game itself. An accumulation of little things during the first rounds drastically changed my mood to its darkest levels in years. The constant presence and interference of the judge assigned to the table made for a really stressful game, of everything being to tap my cards to, and i quote "exactly 90 degrees" while i've tapped cards since the early days of MTG to about 45 :) An extra effort of 45 degrees! i don't think he realised what he was asking :) And before any of you say it's nothing, it's just an example among many. Still i complied. With the referees hovering around the tables, checking hands and, i believe, enforcing the rules as they were told to do so, games were considerably lengthened in some cases and, knowing that my deck has a tendency to time out, i felt worried but still pretty good about the whole tournament and being part of such an event. Since i managed to get 3VPs in the first round and seeing the general lack of a serious threat to my Fiends, i quite fancied my chances at reaching the final. Had to do my decklist detween the rounds and as i was doing so, some bloke showed up and told me that i shouldn't be allowed to do without judge supervision, since i could have been cheating....sigh... Ignoring him, and thinking no more of it, i went on to play the second round. Preyed on by a weenie Presence vote deck, i felt pretty confident i could stop him in his tracks which i did, and although i took some early damage, once tooled up with Winthrop and Eternal Vigilance, my friend Meshenka went on slaugthering the precious small vamps of my predator. A lot of votes were attempted, and since all the players had some votes, the table talks were numerous, lengthy and heated, which made for a great game, if a bit frustrating for the French players with a limited ability in English. However during the game, Stephane (prince of Paris) came to me to talk about James "Legbiter" McClellan and his closeness to a game loss due to extreme agitation and attitude toward the judge. Those of you who know James would have been equally surprised to hear that. I could indeed hear some commotion from the other side of the room and thought it was pretty serious stuff. That added to my perception that there was something wrong in the judges' general attitude and way of handling the players. James came to talk shortly after being ousted and voiced his total outrage at everything, coming close to torching the place down in memory of centuries of hostilities between French and English, but being Scottish, he couldn't really do that, could he? Lucky for Ostelen :) Anyway i finished the round with 0 VP, for a total of 3VPs so far. The performance was alright so i do not believe my feelings about the events could have been clouded by my score (as opposed to James maybe). Between the rounds, i recall getting rather angry at anything and everything, seriously considering dropping out of the tournament, and giving up on the game as well. I know more than a few would have happily taken that box of trades of my hands :) Still prompted by Barny, i went outside to get some fresh air and cool off....did me well, and decided not to give the adversity the satisfaction.... Third round was pretty fun, my thanks to my predator for playing a really cool deck (Gangrel daring/slow body/rapid healing) and being a great chap :) Cheers man! you did a lot of damage before dying still Anyway i only managed to scape one extra VP before being sneak/bled for my remaining pool. No final for me :( still a respectable total of 4 VPs. Hearing that Anklebiter played his third round against 4 other French who did not bother talking in English the whole made my blood boil one more time, Michael knew he should have called the judge but according to him, he couldn't prove anything after the facts. Think about it, you call the judge and say that the other players were saying something in French but you didn't know what it was and even if it was relevant to the game; for all he knew they could have been talking about what they had for lunch :) Barny made it into the final and i decided to watch out for a repeat of that and provide the occasional translation. The final proceeded under the watchful eye of some judges. Some suspicious play was the downfall of Barny....so we left to meet up with the Legbiters and our host Reyda....only for me discuss outside with Philippe, Kamel and some others and to get into a real argument about everything that happened so far, how i was disguted with the tournament in general and judges' lack of discernment in particular, the way it felt very much like a MTG tournament, etc...Still when reading this i hope they will remember that i did acknowledge the effort and time they all put in the organisation, the way a lot of players voiced their concerns about enforcing the VEKN rules back in July. Anyway after it appears that i could have stay up and argue all night in front of Ostelen, i was dragged away under the promise of beer and food and a game of Munchkin (deciding argument). Before leaving, Kamel did tell me the points i raised where going to be discussed during a judges meeting the next morning. Some beer and nice food after, at Reyda's flat, cool 6 players Munchkin game which finished James off. Time for some sleep.... Next day, the European Championship! I decided to go with a weenie Potence deck and, thanks to the previous day, already in Jack-booted Thug mode. I suppose i'd be lying if i'd say i just went for the fun. Of course i intended to win but having a great time was the primary objective. I can say right now that i must have had the best time of my VTES life, despite the fact that my deck was 100% untested.... The deck appeared to be a very good metagame choice as many many players relied solely on majesty and/or obedience for combat defence....far from enough to keep my rampaging hordes away from long :) First round went fairly ok, being bled for 12 by my giovanni predator plus some deflected bleeds did hamper my development so i was pushed in the ropes from the start. I had to calm him down or die, rushed, burned Andrea with a topdecked Burning Wrath and disarmed Isabel. He died shortly after and i followed after holding on for a good while....0 VP Second round, four vote decks and myself...not the best as my only hope of influencing the table relied on threatening the other players' vamps with extreme prejudice and loss of limb, and it did work :) After passing a non-agression pact with my predator, i never took a damage from a KRC or ConAg, the voters usually took the extra point themselves :) I had my prey quite low, as was my grand prey...about 4-5 minions, gearing up for the killing blow when my pred called a restructure....him killing my prey, his pred killing my grand prey (to insure his votes), leaving me with squat...I did persuade the remaining players to withdraw as the time limit approached, winning me a VP. Each vote was the subject of lengthy discussions, short- and long-term alliances and grudges....all the table talk was conducted in English and everything was fine until one of the judge decide to meddle. Despite having the poorest English of the lot, the judge kept interfering with the table talks and vote counting. I suppose he thought he was helping but honestly he wasn't so i politely asked him to leave and let us sort things out between adults, which he did :) No threat necessary :) Play went on smoothly and friendly, despite the tension and stake of the game...until another judge decided it was time to pester us again. All hell went loose when i decided to play an Ambush on Prince Tim of my current prey (Guillaume?) when Ruben (the infamous) begged me to rush Sir Walter Nash so that he could Majesty, Untap and bounce some of his pred's bleeds....so i said ok i'll take that back, let me think about it. This prompted an intervention from the judge telling me that i wasn't allowed to show my cards to other players....well duh, i knew that....i was gonna play the card but chose to reconsider the situation with the new info i had...well the Jack-booted Thug mode struck and i proceeded to tell him that if i had really wanted to reveal some or all of my cards, i could have drop my hand "by mistake", etc...and told him to leave us alone to play, he threatened me with a warning, i didn't back down, took my warning for that...honestly didn't even remember that warnings existed in VTES....couldn't care less about it anyway. When all three players remaining decided to withdraw, the judge decided to make us go through the motion of discarding our whole crypt evenso we had about 10-15 minutes left, spiteful move, lack of discernment? Actually at the end of the round i felt pretty happy, one VP and one warning, the Cosmic Balance and all ;) You might think that my decision to get rid off the judge was selfish but i did ask the other players and all of them were sick and tired of the unwanted presence. Third round was again very enjoyable, got the chance to play against Reyda and Francois, made them regret their hospitality ;) As well on the table, Belgian Jeroen and American Ben....another great game, great decks all around, lots of trash talking and fighting talks...mainly backed up by Ben who only lost Ozmo in all my cross-table actions. Reyda tried to kill me at some point (evenso i was holding off him from the start, him being sneak/bled by Ben) and would have done it if Francois hadn't decided to Life Boon me, a move that proved fatal to him in the end...Jeroen's deck would have swept if i hadn't managed to cut his deck so all his progenies and embraces were in the second half of his deck ;) He did keep me alive against Ben's Malks by calling three ConsagBoon on my two Panders :) In the end, we three timed out, bringing my grand total of VP for the EC to a mighty 1.5 :) That will teach me to bring an untested deck to such a major event... The final wasn't for me...would have loved to watch it but i had to sort out travel arrangements for Barny and myself....running around for options and solutions :) Thanks to Francois, everything was sorted out. Barny bit the dust in the final after a more than valiant struggle....again congrats to the winner, i hope you'll defend your title next year...the Thug will be after revenge :)...nah just kidding...or am i? Prizes were pretty cool, we all grabbed our stuff and headed off to a cafe for a well deserved Guiness. Left for Pigalle (Paris red light district) to grab some food and drinks at Denis' flat, oh and some more cards, planting beans is cool :) Crashed at Francois' place for the night before he generously offered to drive us all the way to Le Havre (i hope the return was fine man), for us to take the afternoon ferry to finally head back to English soil....at last :) That concludes our EC experience, the rest is a tad blurry and fragmented as much drinking occured on the way back. Time for the props and slops: Props: -to Reyda and Francois, for their hospitality and generosity, it will not be forgotten or unrewarded when you decide to come over here for some beers and cards -to the organising team of the EC, for a very smooth tournament despite the number of players -to the judges for handling all questions asked with alacrity. -to Ostelen for a great venue -to all the people i met and were polite enough to let ramble on, especially Gines, Ruben (the infamous), Roberto and many other, hope to see you all next time. -to Barny for telling to chill out when i was ready to flip tables and inflict bodily harm :) -to the Jack-booted Thug mode -to the diversity of decks at the EC, some great concept decks and daring metagame choices -to the Spanish delegation for filming all the decks and the final, i hope those CDs will be ready to be shipped soon guys, i can hardly wait :) -to all the people who took pictures during both days, i hope you'll find the time to upload everything on some websites -to the winner of the EC with a very cool Derange deck. Slops: -to Barny for not winning the EC, after all the trouble i went through to find a way for us to travel back :) -to the judges for forgetting to wear the velvet glove over the iron fist, but i appreciated the improvment from Saturday to Sunday, i hope my rant of the evening had something to do with it -to me for bringing an untested deck to the EC -to the amount of S/B decks at the Qualifier, but then again everybody's free to play what they want -to the judges (2) for disqualifying players for tardiness, that was a bit excessive, wasn't it? -to me again for having an obscene trading box, and disappointing many traders after my many War Ghouls, sorry guys ;) That's it for me, i hope i didn't offend too many ppl :) Thanks for reading all the way down to the end :P P. Tzimisce Jack-Booted Thug

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 1ba5ca76.01092...@posting.google.com... (snip) > A lot of things happened during the Qualifier, many unrelated to the > game itself. An accumulation of little things during the first rounds > drastically changed my mood to its darkest levels in years. The > constant presence and interference of the judge assigned to the table > made for a really stressful game, of everything being to tap my cards > to, and i quote "exactly 90 degrees" while i've tapped cards since the > early days of MTG to about 45 :) An extra effort of 45 degrees! i > don't think he realised what he was asking :) And before any of you VEKN rules: 4.7. Tapped Cards If a card must be tapped as a part of the game rules, it must be turned approximately 90 degrees from the normal position. If turning the card 90 degrees is too much of a strain, you can file an official complain to the VEKN. (snip) > translation. The final proceeded under the watchful eye of some > judges. Some suspicious play was the downfall of Barny....so we left The play was legal. See other EC-related threads. (snip) > Each vote was the subject of lengthy discussions, short- and long-term > alliances and grudges....all the table talk was conducted in English > and everything was fine until one of the judge decide to meddle. > Despite having the poorest English of the lot, the judge kept > interfering with the table talks and vote counting. That's the cheapest remark I've read. Perhaps you suggest judges should provide a Master's degree or something? I suppose he > thought he was helping but honestly he wasn't so i politely asked him > to leave and let us sort things out between adults, which he did :) No > threat necessary :) > Play went on smoothly and friendly, despite the tension and stake of > the game...until another judge decided it was time to pester us again. that was me. I saw an illegal play and corrected it. > All hell went loose when i decided to play an Ambush on Prince Tim of > my current prey (Guillaume?) when Ruben (the infamous) begged me to > rush Sir Walter Nash so that he could Majesty, Untap and bounce some > of his pred's bleeds....so i said ok i'll take that back, let me think > about it. This prompted an intervention from the judge telling me that > i wasn't allowed to show my cards to other players....well duh, i knew > that....i was gonna play the card but chose to reconsider the > situation with the new info i had... 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not allowed. This rules makes no exception for "reconsidering the situations". well the Jack-booted Thug mode > struck and i proceeded to tell him that if i had really wanted to > reveal some or all of my cards, i could have drop my hand "by > mistake", etc...and told him to leave us alone to play, he threatened > me with a warning, As the name says, the goal of a warning is to warn. I warned you, not threatened you. The hostile way in which you asked me to leave doesn't even fit the definition of manners or courtesy, even less sportsmanlike conduct. i didn't back down, took my warning for > that...honestly didn't even remember that warnings existed in > VTES....couldn't care less about it anyway. Ah. They are part of the VEKN rules. The judges decided to care about the tournament rules. When all three players > remaining decided to withdraw, the judge decided to make us go through > the motion of discarding our whole crypt evenso we had about 10-15 > minutes left, spiteful move, lack of discernment? rules enforcement? I asked LSJ before the EC what was to happen when players agreed to withdraw. I thought it could be done in an automatic way if the players agreed, even if their libraries were not yet exhausted. He told me players had to go through the motions. As a side note, going through the motions could lead to situations where a player would have a "less than 7" hand size, with another Meth having 20 cards in her library, who could get tempted to break the deal. Perhaps such a situation is beyond your discernment. (snip) > Time for the props and slops: > Props: > -to Reyda and Francois, for their hospitality and generosity, it will > not be forgotten or unrewarded when you decide to come over here for > some beers and cards > -to the organising team of the EC, for a very smooth tournament > despite the number of players > -to the judges for handling all questions asked with alacrity. thanks for that. (snip) > Slops: > -to Barny for not winning the EC, after all the trouble i went through > to find a way for us to travel back :) > -to the judges for forgetting to wear the velvet glove over the iron > fist, but i appreciated the improvment from Saturday to Sunday, i hope > my rant of the evening had something to do with it I'm happy to see that so far, the majority of the input on the way the EC was judged is positive. Especially from people who had to suffer from my judgments, for example David, about the VP split who reacted in a very positive way despite being screwed up, which I much appreciated-the positive way i mean, not the screwing up :), or a player from Hungary (sorry, no name available again), who played Brujah with much roleplay, real cool to watch, and who displayed the best fair play I've ever seen. > -to me for bringing an untested deck to the EC > -to the amount of S/B decks at the Qualifier, but then again > everybody's free to play what they want > -to the judges (2) for disqualifying players for tardiness, that was a > bit excessive, wasn't it? Not disqualify AFAIK. But not allowing them to participate in a round, yes. At any rate, it is granted IMHO this is still excessive, but: -on saturday the place players had to leave by 9:30-10PM because of a Magic:tG tourney lasting for the night.so we were tight on schedule. Especially when laptop computers decide to lose their +1 bleed and decide to f*** up instead, just when organizers thought they had their fill of problems. The worst situation in that respect was the final of the 1st day, as one of the finalist wasn't here when we asked for him over the loudspeaker/mic/whatever. After waiting, we had to settle on the 6th player (not here), the 7th (same IIRC) and finally 8th. After the "new" finalists had determined the seating order, shuffled their decks and prepared their counters, the 3rd finalist showed up. We had either to prevent him or the 8th finalist from playing...Real tough decision to make since one player had to suffer from the judgment. We let the 8th player play the final, as we thought that people weren't that interested in that final since it wouldn't change the "qualified" state at all, and so maybe left. It was getting late and we had no way of knowing if the 3rd player was coming at all. -on sunday we were also tight on schedule. don't think there were any problems on sunday, though. Stone

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9or62p$6fo$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > 1ba5ca76.01092...@posting.google.com... > > (snip) > > > A lot of things happened during the Qualifier, many unrelated to the > > game itself. An accumulation of little things during the first rounds > > drastically changed my mood to its darkest levels in years. The > > constant presence and interference of the judge assigned to the table > > made for a really stressful game, of everything being to tap my cards > > to, and i quote "exactly 90 degrees" while i've tapped cards since the > > early days of MTG to about 45 :) An extra effort of 45 degrees! i > > don't think he realised what he was asking :) And before any of you > > VEKN rules: > 4.7. Tapped Cards > > If a card must be tapped as a part of the game rules, it must be turned > approximately 90 degrees from the normal position. See? approximately! i was told exactly, precisely....or else :P > If turning the card 90 degrees is too much of a strain, you can file an > official complain to the VEKN. ....sigh...joke on the extra effort? nevermind..... > > translation. The final proceeded under the watchful eye of some > > judges. Some suspicious play was the downfall of Barny....so we left > > The play was legal. See other EC-related threads. I said suspicious, no matter what you say (or said at the time), it still looked suspicious. Then again, having not proven they really cheated, all i can say is that it was suspicious to me, Barny and many other people who attended the final. So suspicious that it prompted your intervention as the official judge for the final, much talking between you and others (including Kamel iirc) or am i mistaken? maybe it was just a random hand check? > > Each vote was the subject of lengthy discussions, short- and long-term > > alliances and grudges....all the table talk was conducted in English > > and everything was fine until one of the judge decide to meddle. > > Despite having the poorest English of the lot, the judge kept > > interfering with the table talks and vote counting. > > That's the cheapest remark I've read. Perhaps you suggest judges should > provide a Master's degree or something? That would be nice for such international event :) Nah, just kidding, honest. The fact that he slowed down the game even more while trying (and i'd give him credit for that) to speed up things :) I have absolutely no grief with him at all, and i hope he was fine with everything when i asked (politely iirc) him to leave. > I suppose he > > thought he was helping but honestly he wasn't so i politely asked him > > to leave and let us sort things out between adults, which he did :) No > > threat necessary :) > > Play went on smoothly and friendly, despite the tension and stake of > > the game...until another judge decided it was time to pester us again. > > that was me. I saw an illegal play and corrected it. Corrected how? How can you correct that? the card had been seen...so what? did you asked the other players to blank their memory on that? If you can do that, well all the power to you. > > All hell went loose when i decided to play an Ambush on Prince Tim of > > my current prey (Guillaume?) when Ruben (the infamous) begged me to > > rush Sir Walter Nash so that he could Majesty, Untap and bounce some > > of his pred's bleeds....so i said ok i'll take that back, let me think > > about it. This prompted an intervention from the judge telling me that > > i wasn't allowed to show my cards to other players....well duh, i knew > > that....i was gonna play the card but chose to reconsider the > > situation with the new info i had... > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not > allowed. > > This rules makes no exception for "reconsidering the situations". Maybe it should? or does this rule 4.4 seem perfect to everybody else but me? If that's case then fine i'll adapt....or start collecting warning from every single tournament :P I'm willing to put up a prize for whoever gets the highest total of warnings from different judges (extra points if not in the same country) say by the end of the year ;) I'll think of something good, trust me... > well the Jack-booted Thug mode > > struck and i proceeded to tell him that if i had really wanted to > > reveal some or all of my cards, i could have drop my hand "by > > mistake", etc...and told him to leave us alone to play, he threatened > > me with a warning, > > As the name says, the goal of a warning is to warn. I warned you, not > threatened you. The hostile way in which you asked me to leave doesn't even > fit the definition of manners or courtesy, even less sportsmanlike conduct. Iirc it was hostile in the way it was loud right? i do not recall calling you names or throwing heavy objects in your general direction. The discussion was heated with players trying to get their point across, but granted i might have been a bit too much in the spirit of the moment. Still i recall you saying that i was going to get a warning, if that was not an attempt the shut me up then i honestly retract the comment on threat...but none of the rest tho. > i didn't back down, took my warning for > > that...honestly didn't even remember that warnings existed in > > VTES....couldn't care less about it anyway. > > Ah. They are part of the VEKN rules. The judges decided to care about the > tournament rules. Maybe a bit too much, if the aim of enforcing VEKN rules is to have players really hate their game because they feel they are suspected from the start of being cheating conniving deal-breaking ba**ards, well maybe it's time to change game...and no, i'm not the only one thinking that way, i did my own poll after the event and a lot of the players had some kind of grief with the way things where handled (a matter of diplomacy and social graces), none against the people, the organisation, we all agreed on the great job that has been done and respected the amount of time and effort that was invested in the event. > When all three players > > remaining decided to withdraw, the judge decided to make us go through > > the motion of discarding our whole crypt evenso we had about 10-15 > > minutes left, spiteful move, lack of discernment? > > rules enforcement? I asked LSJ before the EC what was to happen when players > agreed to withdraw. I thought it could be done in an automatic way if the > players agreed, even if their libraries were not yet exhausted. He told me > players had to go through the motions. Yes, yes. The rules say this and the rules say that, agreed, i know them. I was mentionning a very common occurence on both days. Strict and unwavering enforcement of all the small prints of the rules, i know that some MTG guy said that the VTES judges were lax compared to MTG ones but the games are on opposite sides of the spectrum. It might be very detrimental to simply apply MTG judging style to VTES...only my opinion anyway. > As a side note, going through the motions could lead to situations where a > player would have a "less than 7" hand size, with another Meth having 20 > cards in her library, who could get tempted to break the deal. Sure, in some kind of rotten environment, however it never occured to some of the players otherwise the potential deal-breaker could have said that it'd be fun to do it and struck when ready. I do seem to recall that Stephane told you to drop it because we had ample time and obviously looked like we were going to keep our word....or was that one of my many alcohol-induced hallucinations of the day? > Perhaps such a situation is beyond your discernment. Yes sure, you must be right, i must be an idiot. What do i know? I can barely play, i love cheating and collusion is my bread and water when it comes down to tournaments. How else could i qualify for the EC at all, or maybe i hacked into some computer. Why else would i play if not to play mind tricks on unsuspecting humans, forcing them to do my bidding? What ever happened to fun, social experience, meeting ppl? ....sigh.... ....After all Judges are the law, aren't they? Thou shall not contest the Judge's Word...For somebody who call himself Player's Nightmare, you sure can live by your standard, and again not solely my own opinion :P > > Time for the props and slops: > > Props: > > -to Reyda and Francois, for their hospitality and generosity, it will > > not be forgotten or unrewarded when you decide to come over here for > > some beers and cards > > -to the organising team of the EC, for a very smooth tournament > > despite the number of players > > -to the judges for handling all questions asked with alacrity. > > thanks for that. Credit where credit is due. I hope that you will admit in return that some of the problems i mention might have been prompted by a far too rigid implementation of the rules.... [ quoted text not captured ] I remember that. I totally agree on the procedure employed to replace the missing player(s) when it was very clear that he wasn't around. No problem there. As a conclusion, and in the hope this will not degenerate, i would like to hear your opinion on the following point: Do you, as a player, think that strict and rigid enforcment of the VEKN rules without considering opinions of the other players at the table (in all intents and purposes, making an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-dancing God of any judge) make for a better game? Do you really enjoy being considered a cheater by default? You do yourself admit that some of the VEKN rules might be excessive (> At any rate, it is granted IMHO this is still excessive, see above) so could they be wrong? Is it possible if at all imaginable that circumstances might entail an adapted application of the rules? You also admit that other things might have influenced judges' decisions, is it really to much to ask that the same might be true for players and that judges are not omniscient creatures hence do not take precedence over the players involved in the game? I realised that a lot of the points raised in this post and during the EC are currently bones of contention and definately agree that simple solutions seem out of range for now. Conflicting playstyles and regional differences did make for even a stronger clash but, don't get me wrong, the EC was a success and i do not regret the expense in retrospect. Having discussed with some of the organisers on Saturday evening, it appears that they experienced rotten play in Paris and in other places, and decided to apply VEKN rules to the letter to prevent that, which i understand. But assuming that a player is fundamentally bad does not appear as really sane for the game we all know and love, doesn't the saying go something like innocent until proven guilty. Besides, and MTG has proved it, the tournament rules, no matter how detailled and complete will never cover all the potential problems; a devious mind will always find holes and ways to abuse the system to its own advantage. I'm not naive enough to believe that every one is good natured and we all live in Happyhappy Land, let's not forget that vigilance remains the price of freedom, too little or too much and freedom disappears to chaos or facism....On this very philosophical ending, i bid you farewell. P. Tzimisce Jack-Booted Thug

Pierre wrote: > "Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote: > > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: > > > made for a really stressful game, of everything being to tap my cards > > > to, and i quote "exactly 90 degrees" while i've tapped cards since the > > > early days of MTG to about 45 :) An extra effort of 45 degrees! i > > > don't think he realised what he was asking :) And before any of you > > > > VEKN rules: > > 4.7. Tapped Cards > > > > If a card must be tapped as a part of the game rules, it must be turned > > approximately 90 degrees from the normal position. > > See? approximately! i was told exactly, precisely....or else :P Well, 45 is nowhere near 90 degrees, making it difficult for players across the table to tell what's tapped and what's not, as well as making it easier to accidentally or surreptitiously put a card in the "untapped" (30 degree?) position when it should be in the tapped position. Care to relate the entire conversation between you and the judge regarding the method of tapping cards? It may illuminate the judge's choice of words regarding "exactly". [...] > > Ah. They are part of the VEKN rules. The judges decided to care about the > > tournament rules. > > Maybe a bit too much, if the aim of enforcing VEKN rules is to have > players really hate their game because they feel they are suspected > from the start of being cheating conniving deal-breaking ba**ards, > well maybe it's time to change game...and no, i'm not the only one > thinking that way, i did my own poll after the event and a lot of the > players had some kind of grief with the way things where handled (a The judges were publicly roasted prior to the tournament over the perception that they would not enforce the V:EKN rules (esp. with respect to deal-making and deal-breaking). Much moaning was posted here about "the rules should be enforced at V:EKN events". Now, after the fact, roasting the judges for enforcing the VEKN rules is not logical. They can't be criticized for following the rules they are supposed to follow in any event, but even more so after the people on this forum made such a stink about having the rules adhered to. > > When all three players > > > remaining decided to withdraw, the judge decided to make us go through > > > the motion of discarding our whole crypt evenso we had about 10-15 > > > minutes left, spiteful move, lack of discernment? > > > > rules enforcement? I asked LSJ before the EC what was to happen when players > > agreed to withdraw. I thought it could be done in an automatic way if the > > players agreed, even if their libraries were not yet exhausted. He told me > > players had to go through the motions. > > Yes, yes. The rules say this and the rules say that, agreed, i know > them. I was mentionning a very common occurence on both days. Strict > and unwavering enforcement of all the small prints of the rules, i If you want to change the rules, then they should be changed prior to the event so that the playing field remains level. Changing them in the course of the event is not the way to go. > Credit where credit is due. I hope that you will admit in return that > some of the problems i mention might have been prompted by a far too > rigid implementation of the rules.... Enforcing rules rigidly is never a problem. Enforcing rules haphazardly or with preference to certain players could easily be. [large snip] Enforcing the rules is not the same as assuming the players will cheat if given the chance. You shouldn't take rules enforcement personally. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 1ba5ca76.01092...@posting.google.com... > > If turning the card 90 degrees is too much of a strain, you can file an > > official complain to the VEKN. > > ....sigh...joke on the extra effort? nevermind..... It is simply a sarcastic sentence. You should not be surprised to see some after prompting a thread containing sarcastic comments. It does not imply constructive arguments cannot be made in the same post, of course. See below. (snip) > > > Play went on smoothly and friendly, despite the tension and stake of > > > the game...until another judge decided it was time to pester us again. > > > > that was me. I saw an illegal play and corrected it. > > Corrected how? How can you correct that? the card had been seen...so > what? did you asked the other players to blank their memory on that? > If you can do that, well all the power to you. Blanking memories is not possible. Applying VEKN penalties is possible and is the only legal resource. That's the duty of a judge, take it or leave it. Or make the tourney rules change. (snip) > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not > > allowed. > > > > This rules makes no exception for "reconsidering the situations". > > Maybe it should? The question is moot DURING a tourney. The duty of the Judges is not to criticise the rules, but to enforce them, whatever the rules may be. We were already tight on schedule, so could hardly afford the time to make up a poll among the players, report the results to the VEKN and getting legal feedback on a would-be change of the tournament rules. Back in july or august, I said on behalf of Stéphane the EC was a VEKN sanctioned tournament. This means the VEKN rules would be used and enforced. I am in no way related to the VEKN. If you think there is a problem with the tournament rules, tell them. or does this rule 4.4 seem perfect to everybody else > but me? AFAIK you're the only one who made such a fuss about it. And you're certainly not the only one who suffered from it. (snip) > > As the name says, the goal of a warning is to warn. I warned you, not > > threatened you. The hostile way in which you asked me to leave doesn't even > > fit the definition of manners or courtesy, even less sportsmanlike conduct. > > Iirc it was hostile in the way it was loud right? i do not recall > calling you names or throwing heavy objects in your general direction. You did not. If it had happened, a warning would not have been the only penalty. (snip) > > i didn't back down, took my warning for > > > that...honestly didn't even remember that warnings existed in > > > VTES....couldn't care less about it anyway. > > > > Ah. They are part of the VEKN rules. The judges decided to care about the > > tournament rules. > > Maybe a bit too much, if the aim of enforcing VEKN rules is to have > players really hate their game because they feel they are suspected > from the start of being cheating conniving deal-breaking ba**ards, > well maybe it's time to change game... AFAIK no Judge called "cheating conniving deal-breaking ba**ards". Yeah I know what you mean, but the problem is I think some players must have mistaken suspicion with potential suspicion. You see, judges cannot be immersed in a game as the players are, since they're wandering from table to table. So they need to take some time and ask questions in order to assess a situation. If players mistake that for some kind of fascist behaviour with "guilty-before-innocent" attitude, well they misunderstand and should try to give it a thought in a broader perspective, trying to think about the task and duty of a judge. (snip) > > As a side note, going through the motions could lead to situations where a > > player would have a "less than 7" hand size, with another Meth having 20 > > cards in her library, who could get tempted to break the deal. > > Sure, in some kind of rotten environment, however it never occured to > some of the players otherwise the potential deal-breaker could have > said that it'd be fun to do it and struck when ready. This would have led to awkward situations, counting the cards that could/should have been discarded. And deal-breaking has occured during the EC. I do seem to > recall that Stephane told you to drop it because we had ample time and > obviously looked like we were going to keep our word....or was that > one of my many alcohol-induced hallucinations of the day? Stéphane took his decision as the Head Judge, which I do not contest. I had a private discussion with him on this issue afterwards, and he did not consider the deal-breaking possibility. > > > Perhaps such a situation is beyond your discernment. > Yes sure, you must be right, i must be an idiot. What do i know? I can > barely play, i love cheating and collusion is my bread and water when > it comes down to tournaments. Deal breaking is not cheating or collusion. (snip) > > Credit where credit is due. I hope that you will admit in return that > some of the problems i mention might have been prompted by a far too > rigid implementation of the rules.... A less rigid implementation of the rules would have been called by others a laxist implementation of the rules, leading to other problems and other complaints. (snip) > As a conclusion, and in the hope this will not degenerate, It will not degenerate if you avoid the sarcastic tone used in the first post. I haven't adressed each and every of them as this kind of schoolyard crap is not exactly constructive. Actually, it won't degenerate anyway since I won't reply to other sarcarstic comments. i would > like to hear your opinion on the following point: > Do you, as a player, think that strict and rigid enforcment of the > VEKN rules without considering opinions of the other players at the > table (in all intents and purposes, making an all-knowing, all-seeing, > all-dancing God of any judge) make for a better game? Do you really > enjoy being considered a cheater by default? I'm not sure I'm following you. When asked a question, I considered the opinions of every player. Typically the question began by a loud noise (everyone talking at the same time), then I asked player 1 to say what was the problem, then asked player 2 if he had something to add etc. This was true also for table VP split. Second, considering the opinions of the other players has sometimes been hindered by players pissed off at the "judge's interference", in our own case. Third, you're wrong on the "considered cheater by default" thing. Perhaps you're too susceptible. I couldn't blame you on that, though :) Other points : strict and rigid enforcement of the rules allow more homogeneous judgments between all the judges. As a player, yes of course I don't like the MtG-lawyer style of tournament play. But there are many different people out there in the tourney world : nice players, unsportsmanlike players, and cheaters. Rules are needed to protect the players. Rules have 2 edges however, and their rigid enforcement screw up players who lost their concentration for a second. But as a player, I've also already been more than pissed off by people abusing more flexible interpretation of the rules. There are countless situations in which a player would give a significant advantage when allowed to take back his card into hand, not re-shuffling the deck after having put back a card drawn during a referendum, discarding when the prey has played his mater card, etc. It's not all black and white. You can think of it as a lesser evil, if you want. If everyone was sportsmanlike, fair play, and willing to have fun on top priority, rigid enforcement of the rules is not needed. This is not the case. Either filter players or be strict with the rules, and you have the lesser evil. I think every organizer/judge must have been quite cool on his first tourney. Then you get to meet cheaters/unsportsmanlike jerks/lawyers taking advantage of flexibility in mistakes, you see cool and fair players getting screwed legally, and get pissed off with it. > You do yourself admit that some of the VEKN rules might be excessive > (> At any rate, it is granted IMHO this is still excessive, see above) > so could they be wrong? Is it possible if at all imaginable that > circumstances might entail an adapted application of the rules? Well I've asked something similar before and the answer is : it's a judgment call. I admitted the VEKN game loss was excessive but we had no other choice because we don't own Ostelen and cannot manipulate time as True Brujah. And we used circumstances, despite what you think. You > also admit that other things might have influenced judges' decisions, ??? where? what? > is it really to much to ask that the same might be true for players > and that judges are not omniscient creatures hence do not take > precedence over the players involved in the game? Judges are not omniscient and this holds true for the people who made the rules of VtES, as well of the tournament rules. Nobody's perfect, but still rules are needed and judges are needed, even if they're not perfect. (snip) But assuming that a player is fundamentally > bad does not appear as really sane for the game we all know and love, > doesn't the saying go something like innocent until proven guilty. > Besides, and MTG has proved it, the tournament rules, no matter how > detailled and complete will never cover all the potential problems; a > devious mind will always find holes and ways to abuse the system to > its own advantage. There will be always pros and cons to each style of judging. A devious player will have a much, much harder time to get away with abuses, if the rules are enforced in an unambiguous way. Players having different playstyle and different cultures can acknowledge a uniform way of handling situations. These are the pros. The cons are more pressure since players must avoid the little mistakes allowed during friendly games, a possibly less cheerful atmosphere. I've seen people smiling during games, when collecting prizes (and everyone had at least 3 boosters), when saying goodbye. I haven't seen burned cars outside Ostelen, but you already said the EC was a success so I stop straying into rambling. My point is that IMO people can adapt themselves and cope with the pressure of tournament play, while at the same time still having a good time. Stone

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 08:04:37 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Enforcing the rules is not the same as assuming the players will cheat if >given the chance. You shouldn't take rules enforcement personally. Hear, hear! T

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB1C455...@white-wolf.com>... > Well, 45 is nowhere near 90 degrees, making it difficult for players across To illustrate for those fixed-pitch font readers: 45: * * *______ 90: * * *______ ;-)

>> Well, 45 is nowhere near 90 degrees, making it difficult for players across > While I agree that technically things should be rotated 90 degrees, I think there should be some leeway. For example: if there is a limited degree of physical space, I've found that 45 (or even 60) degrees is a lot easier than 90. In addition, if you have a lot of attached cards (lots of equipment, retainers, etc.) or you have a lot of untap (Rutor's Hand, Freak Drive, etc.) it might be much more efficient to rotate less than 90 degrees. Ever try rotating an 8-card stack only to have to rotate it back (untap due to Rutor's Hand) and then rotate it again. It can get messy! =) Halcyan 2

>>> Well, 45 is nowhere near 90 degrees, making it difficult for players across >> > > While I agree that technically things should be rotated 90 degrees, I think > there should be some leeway. It is very easy to draw the line at "90 degrees." Everything else leads to arguments. Non-tournament play nonwithstanding, of course. > For example: if there is a limited degree of physical space, I've found that > 45 > (or even 60) degrees is a lot easier than 90. I find that this means you need a larger table. When space is available, this habit annoys me. > In addition, if you have a lot of attached cards (lots of equipment, > retainers, > etc.) or you have a lot of untap (Rutor's Hand, Freak Drive, etc.) it might be > much more efficient to rotate less than 90 degrees. Ever try rotating an > 8-card > stack only to have to rotate it back (untap due to Rutor's Hand) and then > rotate it again. It can get messy! =) I'd recommend rotating only the main card, and leaving everything else attached, as they have no tap or untap status in the game. Leave the "tower" of Blood Doll, Thaumaturgy, Rutor's Hand, IR Goggles, Hawg, and Jackie Therman as is, and just tap Heinrich. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yajoo.fr> wrote in message news:9osih7$sut$1...@io.uvsq.fr... > > "Pierre" <fo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > 1ba5ca76.01092...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Pierre isn't the only one who talked about this. A judge at my table made me shuffle a WWEF back into my deck after I *accidently* dropped it. This way of going about the problem of showing cards is open to all kinds of munchkin-like abuse. I had a judge who butted in when not needed in round 2 of the EC. I played an embrace, went trough my deck, joking about forgetting to put a skill card in. I shufled, presented it to anyone on the table for shuffling, wich nobody wanted to do. Suddenly, a judge takes my deck and starts to shuffle it. Why would he do that if nobody on the table didn't want it to be shuffled more? Jeroen

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010926165514...@mb-mq.aol.com... > >> Well, 45 is nowhere near 90 degrees, making it difficult for players across > > > While I agree that technically things should be rotated 90 degrees, I think > there should be some leeway. > > For example: if there is a limited degree of physical space, I've found that 45 > (or even 60) degrees is a lot easier than 90. Have you ever noticed that with a 45 degree tap at a round table, the only way to determine whether the cards are all tapped or all untapped is based on the disposition of the player's torso? Just tap everything counterclockwise 45 degrees then, after you are tapped-out, just turn your body toward your prey and you look untapped. :) But seriously, I've seen players make a mistake based on someone who doesn't clearly tap their cards. Robert

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> a écrit dans le message de news: %ets7.73486$6x5.16...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > > AFAIK you're the only one who made such a fuss about it. And you're > > certainly not the only one who suffered from it. > > > Pierre isn't the only one who talked about this. "who made such a fuss about this"....different from "talking". A judge at my table made > me shuffle a WWEF back into my deck after I *accidently* dropped it. The fact that the procedural error is unintentional does not imply no penalty is given. Actually, all the penalties provided in the VEKN guidelines assume the infraction is unintentional (exception 160). This > way of going about the problem of showing cards is open to all kinds of > munchkin-like abuse. Absolutely not. A player repeatedly showing cards, deliberately seeking penalties in order to cycle his hand would be given penalties for intentional infractions, which definitely do not allow munchkin-like abuse. > > I had a judge who butted in when not needed in round 2 of the EC. I played > an embrace, went trough my deck, joking about forgetting to put a skill card > in. I shufled, presented it to anyone on the table for shuffling, wich > nobody wanted to do. Suddenly, a judge takes my deck and starts to shuffle > it. Why would he do that if nobody on the table didn't want it to be > shuffled more? He would do that in order to make sure the deck was sufficiently randomized. Stone

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yajoo.fr> wrote in message news:9oulsn$2693$1...@io.uvsq.fr... > > "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> a écrit dans le message de > news: %ets7.73486$6x5.16...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > > I had a judge who butted in when not needed in round 2 of the EC. I > played > > an embrace, went trough my deck, joking about forgetting to put a skill > card > > in. I shufled, presented it to anyone on the table for shuffling, wich > > nobody wanted to do. Suddenly, a judge takes my deck and starts to > shuffle > > it. Why would he do that if nobody on the table didn't want it to be > > shuffled more? > > He would do that in order to make sure the deck was sufficiently randomized. > It was and nobody asked him to do this. Of course a judge can shuffle my deck WHEN ASKED by someone on the table. I had already asked everyone on the table and they didn't feel the need to shuffle my deck why would a judge suddenly feel compelled to do it anyway? Jeroen

>===== Original Message From "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] Indeed, i always thought that a judge should me a part of a game when a ruling was required or a situation arose where a judge was needed. Shuffling ones deck by other players is optional. So when the players declined the deckshuffle the judge should have kept it at that IMO. As i read it there was no need for any ruling, no situation occurred where a judge was needed. Tim > ----- Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! ----- Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! -----

fo...@hotmail.com (Pierre) wrote in message news:<1ba5ca76.01092...@posting.google.com>... > > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not > > allowed. > > This rules makes no exception for "reconsidering the situations". > > Maybe it should? or does this rule 4.4 seem perfect to everybody else > but me? You cannot give other players a peak at your hand. Helps deal with collusion, among other things. > Maybe a bit too much, if the aim of enforcing VEKN rules is to have > players really hate their game because they feel they are suspected > from the start of being cheating conniving deal-breaking ba**ards, Table-talk deals should not be enforced by the rules. I hope you can see why the rules have to allow for deal-breakers. As for being guilty until proven innocent, I fail to see it. > > rules enforcement? I asked LSJ before the EC what was to happen when players > > agreed to withdraw. I thought it could be done in an automatic way if the > > players agreed, even if their libraries were not yet exhausted. He told me > > players had to go through the motions. > Yes, yes. The rules say this and the rules say that, agreed, i know > them. I was mentionning a very common occurence on both days. > > As a side note, going through the motions could lead to situations where a > > player would have a "less than 7" hand size, with another Meth having 20 > > cards in her library, who could get tempted to break the deal. > Sure, in some kind of rotten environment, however it never occured to > some of the players otherwise the potential deal-breaker could have > said that it'd be fun to do it and struck when ready. When playing at a high level tournament, there is no reason to expect that everyone is your friend, or that they're all there for casual/fun games. I would expect at least one broken deal at national level event (or higher), and you should too.

[ quoted text not captured ] I simply tab the card required. In most cases only the vampire is tapped, I leave the rest of the stack alone. Raille

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:56:50 +0200, "Stone" <mc_judg...@yajoo.fr> wrote: >> in. I shufled, presented it to anyone on the table for shuffling, wich >> nobody wanted to do. Suddenly, a judge takes my deck and starts to >shuffle >> it. Why would he do that if nobody on the table didn't want it to be >> shuffled more? > >He would do that in order to make sure the deck was sufficiently randomized. > >Stone I thought only your predator could do that. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:56:50 +0200, "Stone" <mc_judg...@yajoo.fr> > wrote: > >"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> a écrit dans le message de > >news: %ets7.73486$6x5.16...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > > >> in. I shufled, presented it to anyone on the table for shuffling, wich > >> nobody wanted to do. Suddenly, a judge takes my deck and starts to > >> shuffle it. Why would he do that if nobody on the table didn't want it to be > >> shuffled more? > > > >He would do that in order to make sure the deck was sufficiently randomized. > > I thought only your predator could do that. Specifically, the rules state that you must present your deck to your predator for additional randomizing. However, they also allow for any opponent to request the judge to randomize the deck further, though it's his decision whether he thinks it should be done or not. As for the judge taking it upon himself to grab a player's deck and shuffle it, the rules clearly provide for that in a different section (2.5) which requires the judge to "take action to resolve any rules infraction (whether a violation of the V:EKN Tournament Rules or the game rules) they notice or that is brought to their attention." Since insufficient randomization of a deck is against tournament rules, the judge is clearly within his prerogative to do this if he felt a player hadn't adequately shuffled. By the way, why should it even matter? If the deck was randomized before, it just gets randomized some more. That's harmless enough. As long as this judge isn't constantly wasting everyone's time with unnecessary play stoppages for this kind of thing. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes: > By the way, why should it even matter? If the deck was randomized before, it just > gets randomized some more. That's harmless enough. As long as this judge isn't > constantly wasting everyone's time with unnecessary play stoppages for this kind of > thing. From what other people have said, they don't like the tone that this sets. "Hi player, I've just randomised your deck because I don't think it is. Ergo, I think you were cheating." Whether true or not, this is the tone it sets for many players where Jyhad has been a game that is played based on trust, much of the time. If it was randomised already, there was no need for it to be done, which could in a number of situations significantly slow the game down - because the player cannot draw cards and continue their turn if it was from, say, searching with Al's Army Apparatus (or whatever, there are many examples). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes: > > > By the way, why should it even matter? If the deck was randomized before, it just > > gets randomized some more. That's harmless enough. As long as this judge isn't > > constantly wasting everyone's time with unnecessary play stoppages for this kind of > > thing. > > From what other people have said, they don't like the tone that this sets. > > "Hi player, I've just randomised your deck because I don't think it > is. Ergo, I think you were cheating." > > Whether true or not, this is the tone it sets for many players where > Jyhad has been a game that is played based on trust, much of the time. All right, I can see your point. I guess it all depends on what the player in question did which caused the judge to do what he did. If the player really did a decent job of shuffling and no one can figure out what the judge is thinking (or the judge seems to be carrying some sort of grudge for the player), then you're right. I've just seen a lot of players who do half-assed things when shuffling their decks: deliberately prearranging cards before shuffling, pulling out decks they want us to assume are already shuffled and just cutting them a couple of times (I'm sure the vast majority of the time they _were_ preshuffled and nothing is going on but I don't like being expected to trust them on that point), or just plain doing a lousy job of shuffling. So I find it easy to imagine someone doesn't want to accept the feedback that they need to do a better job. If the judge was off the wall one time, who cares? Just make sure you look like you're _really_ shuffling in the future. Fred

>> By the way, why should it even matter? If the deck was randomized before, >it just >> gets randomized some more. That's harmless enough. As long as this judge >isn't >> constantly wasting everyone's time with unnecessary play stoppages for this >kind of >> thing. > >From what other people have said, they don't like the tone that this sets. > >"Hi player, I've just randomised your deck because I don't think it >is. Ergo, I think you were cheating." > >Whether true or not, this is the tone it sets for many players where >Jyhad has been a game that is played based on trust, much of the time. > >If it was randomised already, there was no need for it to be done, >which could in a number of situations significantly slow the game down >- because the player cannot draw cards and continue their turn if it >was from, say, searching with Al's Army Apparatus (or whatever, there >are many examples). > BTW, this is my argument against cutting someone's deck. If the person isn't cheating, what possible benefit is there to cutting a deck? The disadvantage is clearly one of wasting time. If I go first in V:TES, I have to sit and wait for the last player to shuffle and be cut rather than just start. Yet, for some reason, people cut decks all the time. Mindless tradition, I guess.

James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes: > >> By the way, why should it even matter? If the deck was randomized before, it just >> gets randomized some more. That's harmless enough. As long as this judge isn't >> constantly wasting everyone's time with unnecessary play stoppages for this kind of >> thing. >From what other people have said, they don't like the tone that this sets. I recall a store MtG tourney where one player was caught with two sideboards. He said it was an accident and protested loudly. The reality was that he was a cheater as he showed in incidents after that. He sounded innocent until you looked further. >"Hi player, I've just randomised your deck because I don't think it >is. Ergo, I think you were cheating." The "Ergo . . ." doesn't automatically follow. >Whether true or not, this is the tone it sets for many players where >Jyhad has been a game that is played based on trust, much of the time. Can we not trust people to shuffle adequately? Sometimes, it appears that answer is no. >If it was randomised already, there was no need for it to be done, >which could in a number of situations significantly slow the game down >- because the player cannot draw cards and continue their turn if it >was from, say, searching with Al's Army Apparatus (or whatever, there >are many examples). If the deck is exposed, then it is no longer sufficiently randomized. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.