Now that I have my notes... (Tournament rule 1.4)

This question never really came up before, because nobody really took notes. The restrictions on them rendered them fairly pointless. Now that I can take whatever notes I want, however, what are the restrictions about what I DO with those notes? Can I, for instance, gather notes from several of my friends and hand them to the one player from our group who's in the final? If the answer to this is no (because it would be considered outside coaching), then where is that line drawn? Example: In the Milwaukee GLQ, I decided to try taking notes, and I definitely found that it would have helped me somewhat had I been in the final. (For reference, I took notes not only of the things happening at my table, but things I overheard across the room regarding play at other tables.) I had a number of people asking if they could look at my notes, which were open next to me. Was I obligated to hide them? Or perhaps was I obligated to NOT hide them? Or am I free to do with them whatever I choose, showing them to some people but not others? If I am allowed to hand them to a Chicago player in the final, does he have to show them to everyone? If, by the way, I should not be sharing my notes, then how strict should we be about between-round discussions? As far as I can tell, the note-taking rule was relaxed because some people have better short-term recall than others, and memory is not supposed to be a critical factor in V:TES. So it seems to me that any rules that apply to note-taking should apply to conversation as well. -Eric Simon

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > This question never really came up before, because nobody really took > notes. The restrictions on them rendered them fairly pointless. Now > that I can take whatever notes I want, however, what are the > restrictions about what I DO with those notes? None set by V:EKN rules (assuming you otherwise conform to V:EKN rules -- no stalling, etc.) > Can I, for instance, gather notes from several of my friends and hand > them to the one player from our group who's in the final? If the > answer to this is no (because it would be considered outside coaching), > then where is that line drawn? > > Example: In the Milwaukee GLQ, I decided to try taking notes, and I > definitely found that it would have helped me somewhat had I been in > the final. (For reference, I took notes not only of the things > happening at my table, but things I overheard across the room regarding > play at other tables.) I had a number of people asking if they could > look at my notes, which were open next to me. Was I obligated to hide > them? Or perhaps was I obligated to NOT hide them? Or am I free to do > with them whatever I choose, showing them to some people but not > others? If I am allowed to hand them to a Chicago player in the final, > does he have to show them to everyone? You cannot discuss (including by notes) anything with the players of a game you are not involved in. If you must (because you see some illegal play, for instance), the do so through a judge. Or wait until the game is finished. > If, by the way, I should not be sharing my notes, then how strict > should we be about between-round discussions? As far as I can tell, > the note-taking rule was relaxed because some people have better > short-term recall than others, and memory is not supposed to be a > critical factor in V:TES. Memory capability is not a factor to the creation of the tournament rules, and the rule was not relaxed for any sort of "levelling the playing field for memory-impaired" reasons.

Okay, so within my own game, I can show or not show players my notes as I choose. What about during later rounds when those notes pertain to previous games? And was it illegal of me to take notes on things that I overheard across the room during my game? And does this mean that the between-round conversations about the tables that inevitably happen are also illegal (though this has not been strictly enforced)? I ask these questions because written notes offer the possibility of formalizing something illegal that is happening informally anyway. However, I don't think that it's the formal nature of the activity that makes it illegal, it's the fact that some players are getting information from beyond their own games that is the problem. But this happens all the time. My argument is this: if sharing notes beyond my game is illegal, so is conversing about my table between rounds. If we're not going to enforce the latter, why should the former be enforced? Personally, I would rather we enforce both, but that creates a very strict tournament environment that some may not enjoy. -Eric Simon

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > I ask these questions because written notes offer the possibility of > formalizing something illegal that is happening informally anyway. > However, I don't think that it's the formal nature of the activity that > makes it illegal, it's the fact that some players are getting > information from beyond their own games that is the problem. But this > happens all the time. My argument is this: if sharing notes beyond my > game is illegal, so is conversing about my table between rounds. If > we're not going to enforce the latter, why should the former be > enforced? Personally, I would rather we enforce both, but that creates > a very strict tournament environment that some may not enjoy. > > -Eric Simon In the same line, if I'm outsted early from my table, can I go around the place taking notes on other player's decks? Thanks in advance.

I am somewhat confused that the taking notes issue is apparently handeld so unrestrictivly. Can I for example take notes of what cards my opponent puts under his library via Waste Management Operation so I know the exact order of cards he'll draw towards the end of the game? Can I take notes about the cards I get via WMO myself? (Tournament rules state "opponents cards and activities") I feel that memory is part of a players skill and in a tournament should not be circumvented by allowing players to take notes about certain aspects of the game. Of course it is almost impossible to prevent players from gathering info on other players decks by deck scouting between rounds or chatting with other players but i would be opposed to players writing down for example "Joe X. is playing 8 Deflections and 2 Delaying Tactics".

chromeboy wrote: > I am somewhat confused that the taking notes issue is apparently > handeld so unrestrictivly. Up until recently, you couldn't take notes at all. They recently decided that you could take any notes you want. As there really isn't a way to rule on what notes you can and cannot take, or how you can take them, note taking by defenition is, unrestricted, assuming you can take them at all. > Can I for example take notes of what cards my opponent puts under his > library via Waste Management Operation so I know the exact order of > cards he'll draw towards the end of the game? Can't see why not. > Can I take notes about the cards I get via WMO myself? > (Tournament rules state "opponents cards and activities") You presumably could have always done that. There are tournament rules involving delay of game, and if someone's obsessive note taking is slowing the game down, they can be penalized or ejected. But assuming someone taking notes isn't having any negative impact on the flow of the game, they can presumably take notes on anything they want. > I feel that memory is part of a players skill and in a tournament > should not > be circumvented by allowing players to take notes about certain > aspects of the game. All well and good, but the current tournament rules disagree. Previously, they seemed to agree, but apparently, enough counterargument convinced the tournament authority otherwise. > Of course it is almost impossible to prevent players from gathering > info > on other players decks by deck scouting between rounds or chatting with > other players but i would be opposed to players writing down for > example > "Joe X. is playing 8 Deflections and 2 Delaying Tactics". The rules are currently not opposed to this. But then, if you could write down "Joe is playing 8 deflections and 2 Delaying Tactics", why couldn't you remember this? -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com schrieb: ... > chromeboy wrote: > > > Of course it is almost impossible to prevent players from gathering > > info > > on other players decks by deck scouting between rounds or chatting with > > other players but i would be opposed to players writing down for > > example > > "Joe X. is playing 8 Deflections and 2 Delaying Tactics". > > The rules are currently not opposed to this. But then, if you could > write down "Joe is playing 8 deflections and 2 Delaying Tactics", why > couldn't you remember this? > > -Peter The Point is that as long as i don't interfere with game speed i could take 4 Pieces of paper in every round and write down every card i see from my opponents decks in all 3 rounds, so that if i reach the finals or play against the same player twice i have a more or less complete deck list (depending on how many library cards that player played in the previous round) I know that this is somewhat unlikely and in many games you will only see about 30 cards from a certain players deck but this strikes me as something most other players wouldn't wanna see at a tourney. I admit that this scenario is unlikely and in our play group this problem would either not arise or it would be dealt with by having a short referendum amongst the community, so the point here is somewhat mute but i was surprised to learn that this seems to be perfectly legal rulewise Chromeboy

chromeboy wrote: > The Point is that as long as i don't interfere with game speed i could > take > 4 Pieces of paper in every round and write down every card i see from > my > opponents decks in all 3 rounds, so that if i reach the finals or play > against > the same player twice i have a more or less complete deck list > (depending on how many library cards that player played in the previous > round) Correct. You could, in theory, do this. But what is the difference between this and someone having perfect photographic memory remembering all this stuff? As you can't prevent someone from remembering things, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to prevent people from taking notes about things. Like, I couldn't remember someone's entire deck or anything, but I could easily remember that at the end of the last game, Josh, who I'm now in the finals with, had 8 Deflections in his ash heap and his deck was depleted. > I know that this is somewhat unlikely and in many games you will > only see about 30 cards from a certain players deck but this strikes me > as something most other players wouldn't wanna see at a tourney. Seems likely. But the tournament rules now permit it. > I admit that this scenario is unlikely and in our play group this > problem > would either not arise or it would be dealt with by having a short > referendum amongst the community, so the point here is somewhat mute > but > i was surprised to learn that this seems to be perfectly legal rulewise Yep. It used to be illegal to take notes. Now it is legal. What those notes are depend on what you feel like taking notes on, and as long as it doesn't otherwise impede the game, it is perfectly legal. -Peter

Thanks guys for succinctly catching everyone up to speed on what I see as one of the good reasons for allowing notes without restriction. I'm still, however, not totally clear on what I can do with them, which is really the focus of this question. Are the notes just for me? If the rule had been changed to remove memory as a tournament factor, I would say that this would be clearly the case. However, LSJ has said that was not the reason. And that I cannot share them with someone outside of my game. So...I can share them with people INSIDE my game? How does that work? Let's say someone is in my third round game who may be heading to the finals, while I am not. He asks to see my notes and I say, "Sure, why not?" Can he, for instance, copy everything from my notes to his own notes? By what has been said so far, I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed. -Eric Simon

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > I'm still, however, not totally clear on what I can do with them, which is > really the focus of this question. Presumably, anything you want, as long as it doesn't impede the event or break any other rules. You could take notes on anything you want, give them to anyone you want, look at them any time you want, or pretty much anything you want to with them. As there isn't any way to restrict such things, realistically. Again, if you are causing a delay of game, or acting in an unsportsmanlike manner, you are breaking rules. But as long as you aren't doing anything like this, what you do with the notes is up to you. > Are the notes just for me? If the rule had been changed to remove > memory as a tournament factor, I would say that this would be clearly > the case. The memory factor is unlikely to be an actual reason for allowing notes. > However, LSJ has said that was not the reason. And that I > cannot share them with someone outside of my game. So...I can share > them with people INSIDE my game? How does that work? How can you be prevented from sharing your notes from someone outside your game? Lemme go re-read LSJ's response... > Let's say someone is in my third round game who may be heading to the > finals, while I am not. He asks to see my notes and I say, "Sure, why > not?" Can he, for instance, copy everything from my notes to his own > notes? By what has been said so far, I don't see why this wouldn't be > allowed. I wouldn't either. Except that it might 'cause a delay of game. -Peter

I wrote: > How can you be prevented from sharing your notes from someone outside > your game? Lemme go re-read LSJ's response... Ahh. Confusion. LSJ was saying you can't share your notes with someone in a game that you are not currently playing in. Which is different than sharing your notes with someone between rounds of a game. You clearly cannot, as an onlooker to a game, say "Hey--guy X only has 6 Deflections in his deck, and they are all in his ash heap..." by refering to your notes any more than you could do that by memory. But *between* rounds of a tournament, there is nothing at all to prevent you from letting anyone you want copy/see your notes. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Woah. Really? Can I get some confirmation on this? So there is no problem with the original idea of having all the Chicago players take notes and then hand them to whichever one of us makes it to the final? Is that really where this is going? -Eric Simon

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > Woah. Really? Can I get some confirmation on this? So there is no > problem with the original idea of having all the Chicago players take > notes and then hand them to whichever one of us makes it to the final? > Is that really where this is going? I'm not seeing how that is any different than everyone getting together between the last round and the final and comparing what they remember about the decks in the finals, assuming there is time to do so (you don't necessarily know who is in the finals till you sit down to play). Like, yeah, ok, you might have some written notes about every deck in the event, but how thorough are they going to be? And is it really going to make that much more difference than knowing that Joe X's deck is a weenie potence IG based deck and Mike Y's deck is a Ventrue Obf Vote deck with Obediance, which is something you could find out quite easily by talking to people? Like, I'm not seeing what kind of difference having actual notes is going to have, unless you can manage to build an exact deck list of everyone's deck, which is highly unlikely (as it is unlikely that everyone is going to exaust their deck every game while you have enough time to transcribe all 4 decks without delaying the game). -Peter

On Sun, 14 May 2006 vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > Woah. Really? Can I get some confirmation on this? So there is no > problem with the original idea of having all the Chicago players take > notes and then hand them to whichever one of us makes it to the final? > Is that really where this is going? I'm willing to guess that that is currently a legal (yet slimy) thing to do simply because nobody has bothered to outlaw it. I see it as the sort of rule we hope we don't need because nobody would do it anyway. I mean, sure, the Chicago gang all contributes intel to its star. Other players start targeting Chicago players in hopes of a Chi-free final, or trying to deliberately feed them bad information in order to make the intel network useless. That's not vtes. The game should be at the table. More importantly, it's not a team game. I should be thinking "beat Eric" when you're at my table, not "beat Chicago" if we're at the same tournament. Finally, the time between rounds at tournaments is for talking crap and Duffin Drafting, not for having your army of nerds organize its notes! Get your priorities straight! If you were to start doing this kind of thing (and I'm guessing you were only talking hypothetically anyway), I hope and expect there'd be a rule against it pretty quickly. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > I'm willing to guess that that is currently a legal (yet slimy) thing to > do simply because nobody has bothered to outlaw it. I see it as the sort > of rule we hope we don't need because nobody would do it anyway. I'm not seeing how you could possibly rule against sharing intel like this. Like, you could say "no transfering notes" or something, but you can't stop people from talking when they go to get a sandwich, and I could just tell you all pertinent information, and you could just take note on what I tell you. This is one of those deeply weird situations that you can't really do anything about, and the best thing to do is just not worry about it. Most people aren't going to bother to take notes, and even if they do, and even if they share, there is nothing saying they'll actually help anyone. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, consider last year's NAC as an example. What if every Boston player (to pick a finalist's hometown that was well-represented at GenCon) had told Ben everything they knew about the finalists' decks: - Peter's playing Arika with obf Ventrue... let's see, he has votes... and Freak Drive... and Ventrue Headquarters... and oh, yeah, that Giant's Blood is nasty... watch out for him. - And Stefan's got celerity and guns and rushes and stuff. Be careful. - And Jared's got Nos princes... and sometimes he puts an Obf skill card on Volker! He votes and stuff like that, and I hear he even runs Parity Shift. - And that Duffin guy, watch out for him, he has presence and the Erciyes Fragments. I don't think it would have made a lot of difference. :) - Pat

Pat wrote: > Yeah, consider last year's NAC as an example. > > What if every Boston player (to pick a finalist's hometown that was > well-represented at GenCon) had told Ben everything they knew about the > finalists' decks: > We even had t-shirts. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Sun, 14 May 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: >> I'm willing to guess that that is currently a legal (yet slimy) thing to >> do simply because nobody has bothered to outlaw it. I see it as the sort >> of rule we hope we don't need because nobody would do it anyway. > > I'm not seeing how you could possibly rule against sharing intel like > this. Like, you could say "no transfering notes" or something, but you > can't stop people from talking when they go to get a sandwich, and I > could just tell you all pertinent information, and you could just take > note on what I tell you. If notes became some kind of problem, they could just be outlawed entirely. We know that can happen. Yeah, you're right that people can and do talk and exchange information that may or may not be useful. As far as I know, there aren't any groups who have an organized plan to get intel on "enemy" decks. I see a pretty big difference between the two things. The second one would be easier to spot and could be ruled against. > This is one of those deeply weird situations that you can't really do > anything about, and the best thing to do is just not worry about it. > Most people aren't going to bother to take notes, and even if they do, > and even if they share, there is nothing saying they'll actually help > anyone. There could be some sort of rule against feeding people info outside games. Yes, there would be lots of grey areas and it could be messy. It would certainly require judges to use judgment. It would be worth it in my opinion if we started having this secondary game or city rivalries or something dumb like that. Well, honestly, if that kind of thing became prominent, I'd probably lose interest entirely. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > If notes became some kind of problem, they could just be outlawed > entirely. We know that can happen. Sure. But really, outlawing notes is mostly pointless, as you can likely remember anything important ("Huh. Bill is playing with Archon Investigation"; "Frank has a lot of Deflections") that notes would actually pay off for anyway, and you can always share this information ("Hey--you are in the finals and Frank is in the finals. He has a lot of Deflections...") > Yeah, you're right that people can and do talk and exchange information > that may or may not be useful. As far as I know, there aren't any groups > who have an organized plan to get intel on "enemy" decks. I see a pretty > big difference between the two things. The second one would be easier to > spot and could be ruled against. Oh, sure--but I don't really know how easy it would be to spot and rule against--what is the difference, really, bewteen organized note sharing among a given play group and me going out to lunch with Sackett between rounds and saying "Ooh--Matt had this cool deck with this kinda tech, and Josh had this cool deck with this kinda tech that killed me..." and so on? > There could be some sort of rule against feeding people info outside > games. I'm not seeing how it could be even remotely enforcable. There was a discussion among the Babylon 5 CCG community years ago when the designers decided to make any sort of scouting at all illegal (as had a weird system similar to VTES in terms of rounds of multi player games, but also you could modify your deck between games to an extent, so if you had information on your opponent's decks at the start of a game, you had an advantage, as you could modify your deck accordingly), inventing all sorts of completely absurd rules like how big the play space had to be (so as to limit how much of the game next to you you could see) and how when your game was over, you had to essentially put a bag over your head and stumble out of the play area saying "yayayayayayay" with your hands over your ears. There was a lot of discussion over this as it was, understandably, deemed insane. And eventually, it all just went away (just like the game itself...). So you *could* try and make rules that limit discussion between people petween rounds. It just is unlikely to have positive results. > Yes, there would be lots of grey areas and it could be messy. It > would certainly require judges to use judgment. It would be worth it in > my opinion if we started having this secondary game or city rivalries or > something dumb like that. Like, I'm not so much seeing how it would make much of a difference (the share of intel) in any case--you only very rarely see someone's whole deck. You could very well see a misrepresentation of someone's deck based on their vampire draw (someone is playing an Arika deck. They don't draw Arika. They get ousted not to long into the game. They do well in the other games which no one in your group sees. They are in the finals, and pull out Arika after you have played a few locations. You feel dumb.). The difference between painstaking and complicated note taking and sharing and me discussing the cool decks that ousted me with Sackett over lunch is a very slim one. And not really worth worrying about, for my money. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > I'm not seeing how it could be even remotely enforcable. There was a > discussion among the Babylon 5 CCG community years ago when the > designers decided to make any sort of scouting at all illegal (as had a > weird system similar to VTES in terms of rounds of multi player games, > but also you could modify your deck between games to an extent, so if > you had information on your opponent's decks at the start of a game, > you had an advantage, as you could modify your deck accordingly), > inventing all sorts of completely absurd rules like how big the play > space had to be (so as to limit how much of the game next to you you > could see) and how when your game was over, you had to essentially put > a bag over your head and stumble out of the play area saying > "yayayayayayay" with your hands over your ears. There was a lot of > discussion over this as it was, understandably, deemed insane. And > eventually, it all just went away (just like the game itself...). > And yet you could show other players the cards in your hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 15 May 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Sure. But really, outlawing notes is mostly pointless, as you can > likely remember anything important ("Huh. Bill is playing with Archon > Investigation"; "Frank has a lot of Deflections") that notes would > actually pay off for anyway, and you can always share this information > ("Hey--you are in the finals and Frank is in the finals. He has a lot > of Deflections...") I see a difference between "Frank has lots of Deflections" and "here is a composite sketch the five of us did in attempt to reconstruct Frank's decklist." The former isn't really a big deal. The latter could well be. > Oh, sure--but I don't really know how easy it would be to spot and rule > against--what is the difference, really, bewteen organized note sharing > among a given play group and me going out to lunch with Sackett between > rounds and saying "Ooh--Matt had this cool deck with this kinda tech, > and Josh had this cool deck with this kinda tech that killed me..." and > so on? That's just talking crap though. There's a world of difference and anyone can see it. I see it like this - Championship games gather a crowd. It's pretty much the only time vtes becomes any kind of spectator sport. Observers are supposed to be quiet. Shouting "No, he's got Archon Investigation!!!" at a critical point of the game would be seriously bad. Obviously, clearly bad (of course the observer can't really be penalized in the tournament at that point, but he'll probably be beaten with sticks). On the other hand, sometimes a player will do something pretty cool and get some applause, which technically shouldn't happen. However, everyone understands the audience isn't attempting to communicate anything critical about the game to that player. They're just showing appreciation. Same thing. You sit at a final table with a ream of notes taken by all your friends. It's clear that you and your friends have gotten together to try to give you an advantage. You sit at a final table after Sackett told you that Josh had some really cool tech. No big deal. We can be sensible and use judgment to tell that one case is problematic and the other is not. >> There could be some sort of rule against feeding people info outside >> games. > > I'm not seeing how it could be even remotely enforcable. There was a > discussion among the Babylon 5 CCG community years ago when the > designers decided to make any sort of scouting at all illegal (as had a > weird system similar to VTES in terms of rounds of multi player games, > but also you could modify your deck between games to an extent, so if > you had information on your opponent's decks at the start of a game, > you had an advantage, as you could modify your deck accordingly), > inventing all sorts of completely absurd rules like how big the play > space had to be (so as to limit how much of the game next to you you > could see) and how when your game was over, you had to essentially put > a bag over your head and stumble out of the play area saying > "yayayayayayay" with your hands over your ears. There was a lot of > discussion over this as it was, understandably, deemed insane. And > eventually, it all just went away (just like the game itself...). > > So you *could* try and make rules that limit discussion between people > petween rounds. It just is unlikely to have positive results. Yeah, sure. I'm just saying I see a difference between people chatting about who is playing what and a group of friends making a master list of notes. I'm not saying that it would be good to try to stop any sort of scouting. I'm saying that when it gets to absurd levels, it should be curbed. >> Yes, there would be lots of grey areas and it could be messy. It >> would certainly require judges to use judgment. It would be worth it in >> my opinion if we started having this secondary game or city rivalries or >> something dumb like that. > > Like, I'm not so much seeing how it would make much of a difference > (the share of intel) in any case--you only very rarely see someone's > whole deck. You could very well see a misrepresentation of someone's > deck based on their vampire draw (someone is playing an Arika deck. > They don't draw Arika. They get ousted not to long into the game. They > do well in the other games which no one in your group sees. They are in > the finals, and pull out Arika after you have played a few locations. > You feel dumb.). The difference between painstaking and complicated > note taking and sharing and me discussing the cool decks that ousted me > with Sackett over lunch is a very slim one. And not really worth > worrying about, for my money. Yeah, I do agree it's pretty hypothetical. My original point was that it's not against the rules to do all the note sharing and stuff because them's that make the rules don't think people will bother to do that anyway. Hopefully they won't. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > We can be sensible and use judgment to tell that one case is problematic > and the other is not. Sure--I agree that there is certainly a point at which "sensible note taking" becomes "absurd abuse of the system". But I don't think there is a way to make the rules reflect this, other than instituting a system where the judge can judge someone is breaking the rules arbitrarily. Which is a possibility. But probably more likely to cause trouble than the actual note taking rule. > Yeah, I do agree it's pretty hypothetical. My original point was that > it's not against the rules to do all the note sharing and stuff because > them's that make the rules don't think people will bother to do that > anyway. Hopefully they won't. Seems likely that they won't. But even if they do, I can't see it making that much of a difference. I mean, again, the information you can get from (even 5 people) taking notes on a given deck is not that significant. It is perfectly likely that you'll be in the finals at some point, say, with a friend whose deck you helped him put together before the event and have played against multiple times (i.e. you know that deck inside and out *without* notes). The difference between this occurance and shared intel strikes me as pretty small. I mean, like, I understand the questionable intent that you are discussing as opposed to the actual note taking, as problematic (i.e. groups conspiring to work together outside the game to give each other an advantage which intel sharing is a symptom of, rather than the cause of). But in terms of the actual note taking rule, it strikes is as unlikely to come up that much, unlikely to make much of a difference, and incredibly difficult to legislate against. So all in all, best just not to worry about it. -Peter

On Mon, 15 May 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: >> We can be sensible and use judgment to tell that one case is problematic >> and the other is not. > > Sure--I agree that there is certainly a point at which "sensible note > taking" becomes "absurd abuse of the system". But I don't think there > is a way to make the rules reflect this, other than instituting a > system where the judge can judge someone is breaking the rules > arbitrarily. Which is a possibility. But probably more likely to cause > trouble than the actual note taking rule. We already have countless examples of the same. Have a look at this v:ekn rule: 5.3. Slow Play Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking a reasonable amount of time to think through game strategy is acceptable, playing excessively slowly or stalling for time is not. If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. An insane judge could force players to practically slap cards down one after another at a terrific rate or a judge could be fine with a glacial pace that would cause a timeout during the first player's untap phase. There's no definition of "timely fashion." Instead we use sense and judgment. It would be the same thing. >> Yeah, I do agree it's pretty hypothetical. My original point was that >> it's not against the rules to do all the note sharing and stuff because >> them's that make the rules don't think people will bother to do that >> anyway. Hopefully they won't. > > Seems likely that they won't. But even if they do, I can't see it > making that much of a difference. I mean, again, the information you > can get from (even 5 people) taking notes on a given deck is not that > significant. It is perfectly likely that you'll be in the finals at > some point, say, with a friend whose deck you helped him put together > before the event and have played against multiple times (i.e. you know > that deck inside and out *without* notes). The difference between this > occurance and shared intel strikes me as pretty small. Sure. But what if you have a tournament in town X where 8 of the players are locals and 8 of the players are from various parts. The 8 locals could all contribute intel to make sure one of them wins. That's the point where it starts becoming a real problem, especially if the locals start getting good at sharing notes or develop some common code. Like we keep saying, it's unlikely anyone will bother and if they did, people would probably stop going to their crappy tournaments anyway. I'm just saying there is a point where this kind of behavior actually could start giving some players an advantage. > I mean, like, I understand the questionable intent that you are > discussing as opposed to the actual note taking, as problematic (i.e. > groups conspiring to work together outside the game to give each other > an advantage which intel sharing is a symptom of, rather than the cause > of). But in terms of the actual note taking rule, it strikes is as > unlikely to come up that much, unlikely to make much of a difference, > and incredibly difficult to legislate against. So all in all, best just > not to worry about it. I'm not worried about it. I'm talking crap. What are you doing? Worrying about me worrying? You're talking crap too. :) Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > We already have countless examples of the same. Ture, true. > An insane judge could force players to practically slap cards down one > after another at a terrific rate or a judge could be fine with a glacial > pace that would cause a timeout during the first player's untap phase. > There's no definition of "timely fashion." Instead we use sense and > judgment. It would be the same thing. I think, though, that the difference here is that the timeliness rule is in direct reference to playing the game. The hypothetical "sharing notes" rule is in reference to what people do when they are out of the building getting pizza. But yea, I see where you are coming from. > I'm not worried about it. I'm talking crap. What are you doing? > Worrying about me worrying? You're talking crap too. :) Oh, totally. That wasn't a "Matt, *you* shouldn't worry about it..." kind of "don't worry about it". It was a "Eh, we probably just shouldn't worry about it." kind of "don't worry about it" :-)

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > Yeah, I do agree it's pretty hypothetical. My original point was that > > it's not against the rules to do all the note sharing and stuff because > > them's that make the rules don't think people will bother to do that > > anyway. Hopefully they won't. > > Seems likely that they won't. But even if they do, I can't see it > making that much of a difference. I mean, again, the information you > can get from (even 5 people) taking notes on a given deck is not that > significant. It is perfectly likely that you'll be in the finals at > some point, say, with a friend whose deck you helped him put together > before the event and have played against multiple times (i.e. you know > that deck inside and out *without* notes). The difference between this > occurance and shared intel strikes me as pretty small. I appreciate the discussion that people are getting into over this. There's one aspect of tournament play that hasn't been addressed, however, and I think this is one area where it's extremely important: Finals Round seating. If I am first or second seat going into the finals, quality knowledge of the other decks could very well spell the difference between winning and losing the entire tournament, because this is the only time that players actually get to choose where they sit. The larger the tournament, the less likely it is that I will have played against the other decks coming into the final, and therefore the MORE effective a coordinated intel effort could be. This would be mostly irrelevant if finals seating were randomized, but I'm not sure anyone wants to go there. (I would, but I'm not sure anyone else agrees with me.) -Eric Simon

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > I appreciate the discussion that people are getting into over this. > There's one aspect of tournament play that hasn't been addressed, > however, and I think this is one area where it's extremely important: > Finals Round seating. > > If I am first or second seat going into the finals, quality knowledge > of the other decks could very well spell the difference between winning > and losing the entire tournament, because this is the only time that > players actually get to choose where they sit. The larger the > tournament, the less likely it is that I will have played against the > other decks coming into the final, and therefore the MORE effective a > coordinated intel effort could be. This would be mostly irrelevant if > finals seating were randomized, but I'm not sure anyone wants to go > there. (I would, but I'm not sure anyone else agrees with me.) Specifying the order in which finalists choose their seats sort of implies that knowledge going into the decision is expected -- selecting "blind" would be the equivalent of random (barring some metaknowledge, like never sit next to Tatu or something :-). If coordinated intel amplifies that, then that's a good thing -- it reinforces "play to win" by making 1st place that more attractive than 2nd.

vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > If I am first or second seat going into the finals, quality knowledge > of the other decks could very well spell the difference between winning > and losing the entire tournament, because this is the only time that > players actually get to choose where they sit. This is a situation where, all things being equal, absolute intel is preferable in all cases to limited intel, in terms of making the game work better. As you have no control over what decks you do or do not get to see in the preliminary rounds, and the judges have no control over whether or not people see a given deck in action by watching a game after they are ousted or find out about a deck through discussion over lunch, it would be very significant, as you note, if one player knew what all the decks in the finals did where another player didn't. As you have to assume that everyone knows what *some* of the decks in the finals do (as it is likely in three rounds of a reasonably sized tournament that you'll play with at least a couple of them), it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone knows what *all* decks in the finals do, and then assume that everyone is going to go out of their way to find out ahead of time. Trying to restrict this knowledge (by limiting sharing of information or trying to limit information gathering--see my story about the B5 CCG up above) is futile. So it seems reasonable to assume that everyone is going to try to get all of this knowledge, and then not do anything to try and stop them. > The larger the > tournament, the less likely it is that I will have played against the > other decks coming into the final, and therefore the MORE effective a > coordinated intel effort could be. Sure. But it also isn't fair if, by complete chance, one player played against all 4 other decks in the final, while another player, by complete chance, played against none of them. The first player would have a huge advantage in picking a seat, where the second would be at a significant disadvantage. Granted, this only applies to players seeded 1/2/3 (as 4/5 have no seat choice). So it seems best for everyone to simply assume everyone has all the information they need, as they could get it if they tried anyway. > This would be mostly irrelevant if finals seating were randomized, but I'm not sure >anyone wants to go there. The final round seating is specifically *not* random to give an advantage to the top seed going in--if you are first seed, you get to pick the seat you feel is most advantageous. By design. This assumes you know what the other decks do. It is likely, in any given tournament, they you have seen at least a few of the decks in the final. It is in your best interest to have knowledge of *all* the decks in the final, and it is really easy to get this information through checking out other games and talking to firends between rounds. As the effort needed to prevent this is absurd, it makes perfect sense to set up a situation where players are assumed to be "scouting" or sharing intel. As they are going to be doing it anyway. -Peter

On Tue, 16 May 2006 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Sure. But it also isn't fair if, by complete chance, one player played > against all 4 other decks in the final, while another player, by > complete chance, played against none of them. Ha, ha, ha, ha. So player 1 played against player 2, but player 2 didn't play against player 1? Bummer. Matt Morgan

LSJ wrote: > vol...@yahoo.com wrote: > Specifying the order in which finalists choose their seats sort of > implies that knowledge going into the decision is expected -- selecting > "blind" would be the equivalent of random (barring some metaknowledge, > like never sit next to Tatu or something :-). > > If coordinated intel amplifies that, then that's a good thing -- it > reinforces "play to win" by making 1st place that more attractive than > 2nd. Thanks. That's really the conclusive answer I think I was looking for. It basically takes care of all the other questions as well. -Eric Simon

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Ha, ha, ha, ha. So player 1 played against player 2, but player 2 didn't > play against player 1? Bummer. Heh. Uh, see, player 1 got ousted by player 2 *really* quick ("Aha! I bleed you for 27 before you get a single card in play!"), and then player 1 watched the rest of the game, 'cause he didn't have anything else to do? -Peter

LSJ wrote: > Specifying the order in which finalists choose their seats sort of > implies that knowledge going into the decision is expected -- selecting > "blind" would be the equivalent of random (barring some metaknowledge, > like never sit next to Tatu or something :-). > > If coordinated intel amplifies that, then that's a good thing -- it > reinforces "play to win" by making 1st place that more attractive than > 2nd. This thread reminded me of our Prophecies League. Going into our last night, I had a 2-GW lead. Only two players could possibly have beaten me, each had to win both of the final games, IIRC. Is it playing to win if I try to get these players ousted as quickly as possible (and neither is my prey)? I mean, I win the League, but I will probably lose the game. Now, the Prophecies League wasn't Sanctioned, so its results didn't matter, but similar situations could arise in other multi-day events. The results of Day 1 of a Continental Championship don't matter beyond Qualifying for the next Day, but the impression I get is that the US Championships will involve some kind of averaging of the results of the two days, which means that if you get a significant lead, it may be beneficial to your standing to sabotage someone else's. [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg wrote: > This thread reminded me of our Prophecies League. Going into our last > night, I had a 2-GW lead. Only two players could possibly have beaten > me, each had to win both of the final games, IIRC. Is it playing to win > if I try to get these players ousted as quickly as possible (and > neither is my prey)? I mean, I win the League, but I will probably lose > the game. Of course it is not "play to win" to play to lose the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] But it wins you the League. [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Of course it is not "play to win" to play to lose the game. > But it wins you the League. As you like. The league isn't sanctioned, as you note, so you're free to violate play to win for a given game inasfar as the league coordinator allows.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's the problem. Play-to-Win has always meant "win this game" because, 99% of the time, winning the game helps you win the tournament. But in certain multi-day formats, playing to win the game is not always playing to win the tournament. And one would think that playing to win the tournament would be paramount. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 May 2006, Greg wrote: > That's the problem. Play-to-Win has always meant "win this game" > because, 99% of the time, winning the game helps you win the > tournament. But in certain multi-day formats, playing to win the game > is not always playing to win the tournament. And one would think that > playing to win the tournament would be paramount. We already have that "problem." Let's say you and I attend a tournament. I sweep my first two tables and am bound for the final. You have 0 VPs. We sit down together at the third table. For some reason, I have it in my head that a Greg-free final will mean certain victory for me. I throw the game and make sure your prey sweeps. Illegal. As it should be. Matt Morgan

On 16 May 2006 08:42:03 -0700, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > >vol...@yahoo.com wrote: >> If I am first or second seat going into the finals, quality knowledge >> of the other decks could very well spell the difference between winning >> and losing the entire tournament, because this is the only time that >> players actually get to choose where they sit. > >This is a situation where, all things being equal, absolute intel is >preferable in all cases to limited intel, in terms of making the game >work better. As you have no control over what decks you do or do not >get to see in the preliminary rounds, and the judges have no control >over whether or not people see a given deck in action by watching a >game after they are ousted or find out about a deck through discussion >over lunch, it would be very significant, as you note, if one player >knew what all the decks in the finals did where another player didn't. >As you have to assume that everyone knows what *some* of the decks in >the finals do (as it is likely in three rounds of a reasonably sized >tournament that you'll play with at least a couple of them), it seems >perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone knows what *all* decks in >the finals do, and then assume that everyone is going to go out of >their way to find out ahead of time. Recent Magic major (draft), all in the final group were given decklists of everyone else's decks specifically to eliminate the advantage of scouting. I despise scouting as, even ignoring the unfairness that often arises out of unequal levels of intel, it punishes decks that run normally suboptimal plays for their surprise benefits, in turn, leading to decks being more boring. But, as should be obvious, there's nothing reasonable that can be done to eliminate scouting. >-Peter