The Nature of Collusion

Syllogism for Your Pleasure: 1. If something is punished, that thing is known of. 2. If something is known of, is not secret. 3. If something is not secret, it is not collusion. Therefore 4. If something is punished, it is not collusion. Of course, something known about by only the colluders and, say, one judge is still relatively "secret"...that and people are punished for /having/ colluded, not while colluding. Still, I thought it was cute. Also, this from Dr. Albert Merhabian's "Silent Messages": Communication is 7% words, 53% body language, and 40% tone of voice. If this is true, then approximately 93% of collusion is unstated, but understood. I don't think you can regulate body language or tone of voice at a tournament, and I'd just rather you not try. My friend Aaron and I aren't deal breakers. WE both know it. We may make a deal with the other without fear of it being broken. This may not sound like much, but this gives us an advantage against other players who don't know us. If two players offer me similar deals, I'll go with Aaron over the other, just because I know he'll keep his end--which benefits myself (security) and Aaron at the expense of the others at the table. Recently joining the Seattle playgroup has shown me just HOW MUCH this sort of thing can matter. Being an outsider, I really have no idea who these people are or how they play. I think that knowledge does give them a significant edge over myself--and in a way, it qualifies as collusion. Perhaps what people are talking about on the "collusion" post is not collusion, but spite/lack of interest/frustration/bad decision making. In the finals last night, it was down to myself (pool about 7, controlled 6 Tremere/!Tremere), my prey Fletcher (pool about 8, just Beast) and his prey/my pred Scott (bout 20 pool, 6 pot weenies). Scott used the Succubus Club to give Fletcher pool to Beast all over me...never mind that if I die before Scott, Fletcher can't win (Scott and I had each a VP to Fletcher's 0), or that I was willing to back off to have him work on our common enemy Scott...he took the bait, I was rushed from both sides, and I ran out of cards...not before killing Fletcher, though. (I'm sure neither one of us are happy with that.) Could I accuse Fletcher of collusion? No. I have no idea what cards were in his hand or what he thought my deck capable of (or Scott's, or his own.) I just know that it sucked, is all. It looked to me like he was basically screwed either way and had to decide which way to roll over, but even if my offer was reasonable, reason is not a prerequisite to playing this game. You can't expect everyone who plays to play to win, or to play well, or even to have played before. That's what anti-collusion rules amount to, really, and players are not and never will be that predictable. Though you can increase it with incentives (like enforcing tournament points.) --Brian

"Brian" <FirstCo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:a84b9185.02042...@posting.google.com... [snip what you call a Syllogism] > Also, this from Dr. Albert Merhabian's "Silent Messages": > > Communication is 7% words, 53% body language, and 40% tone of voice. > > If this is true, then approximately 93% of collusion is unstated, but > understood. No, collusion is 100% stated. Words are spoken, Tone Of Voice are the words that are spoken, and Body Language is there for everyone to see, unless you are using pre-arranged signals, i.e. cheating/colluding. > I don't think you can regulate body language or tone of > voice at a tournament, and I'd just rather you not try. Not necessary, as all of the above are out in the open for everyone to see and hear. > My friend Aaron and I aren't deal breakers. WE both know it. We may > make a deal with the other without fear of it being broken. > > This may not sound like much, but this gives us an advantage against > other players who don't know us. Of course. When a member of a playgroup (A) sees another member of his playgroup (C) sitting at the same 5-player table in a tournament, at the very least they have a *slight* advantage (uh oh, here's that 1% Bergerism theory) as they have information the other players (B, D, E) do not, i.e. they know how the members of their playgroup will play the game. This cannot be helped, and is something players just have to deal with. If you go to enough tournaments, you will know enough information about enough players to have *more* than a slight advantage pretty much all the time. How should these players be treated? > If two players offer me similar > deals, I'll go with Aaron over the other, just because I know he'll > keep his end--which benefits myself (security) and Aaron at the > expense of the others at the table. Actually, you are snubbing your chances to grow as a player, since by definition you will NEVER go with a deal made by another player when your friend Aaron offers a similar deal, so you will never know if others *can* be trusted. Why not give the other players in your group a chance to earn your trust? > Recently joining the Seattle playgroup has shown me just HOW MUCH this > sort of thing can matter. Being an outsider, I really have no idea > who these people are or how they play. I think that knowledge does > give them a significant edge over myself--and in a way, it qualifies > as collusion. YOU are the one who isn't giving them a chance to earn your trust, and you to earn their trust by making deals with them. *If* any collusion exists, I'm sure YOU can be blamed in the same fashion that you are blaming them. > Perhaps what people are talking about on the "collusion" post is not > collusion, but spite/lack of interest/frustration/bad decision making. > In the finals last night, it was down to: > > myself (pool about 7, controlled 6 Tremere/!Tremere), > my prey Fletcher (pool about 8, just Beast) > and his prey/my pred Scott (bout 20 pool, 6 pot weenies). > > Scott used the Succubus Club to give Fletcher pool to Beast all over > me...never mind that if I die before Scott, Fletcher can't win (Scott > and I had each a VP to Fletcher's 0), or that I was willing to back > off to have him work on our common enemy Scott...he took the bait, I > was rushed from both sides, and I ran out of cards...not before > killing Fletcher, though. (I'm sure neither one of us are happy with > that.) I assume this ended up with you getting 2VP and Scott getting 3VP and the table win. > Could I accuse Fletcher of collusion? No. I have no idea what cards > were in his hand or what he thought my deck capable of (or Scott's, or > his own.) I just know that it sucked, is all. It looked to me like > he was basically screwed either way and had to decide which way to > roll over, but even if my offer was reasonable, reason is not a > prerequisite to playing this game. I think Fletcher took the wrong deal, and misplayed badly. If I was Fletcher, and I was in as bad a position as you say Fletcher was in, I would have said "Brian, if you help me kill Scott and give me his VP then I will give you my VP and you'll get the table win with 3VP." That way, Fletcher would have gotten 1VP -- which is 1 more than he was going to get -- and you would have gotten the table win, which is the only reason you offered him a deal at that point, I'm sure. You probably would have said yes right away and the game would have been over in 15 minutes. > You can't expect everyone who plays to play to win, Of course you can! Jeez! This is one of the statements that pops up every so often, and I'll refute it every time I see it: Since, by definition, a game with victory conditions MUST be played to win, you SHOULD expect players to play to win. Why would you ever again play with a player that doesn't play to win? I wouldn't. > or to play well, or even to have played before. THESE are things that you can't expect. > That's what anti-collusion rules amount to, really, and players are > not and never will be that predictable. Disagree. See above. > Though you can increase it with incentives (like enforcing tournament > points.) > > --Brian Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On 25 Apr 2002 15:57:54 -0700, Brian wrote: >Syllogism for Your Pleasure: > >1. If something is punished, that thing is known of. >2. If something is known of, is not secret. >3. If something is not secret, it is not collusion. >Therefore >4. If something is punished, it is not collusion. Secrecy is not an essential ingredient of collusion. Lasombra's dictionary definition is inadequate. Here's one from a bigger dictionary (Chambers): "collude, v.i. to play into each other's hands: to act in concert, esp. in a fraud. ns. colluder; collusion the act of colluding: a secret agreement to deceive, esp. one made bteween the opposing parties in a lawsuit: deceit ... [L. colludere, collusum, from col- and ludere, to play.]" The essential idea is that parties who ought to be playing against each other or independently are instead playing together. Such arrangements tend to be kept secret because they are illicit and so will, as you say, be punished or undone if discovered. But you cannot escape these consequences by being open about it. If two or more VTES players announce at the outset that they are playing as partners or as a team then they would still be guilty of collusion. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<FC6EED2BBC402682.BD2E76C3...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] We had an occurence at a recent tournament. Weenine Pre/Vote (already ousted S&B) bleeding into Arhimane intercept into Bruise and Bleed(already ousted toreador). So, Weenie vote Arhimane Intercept Bruise and Bleed The weenies made deal with arhimanes....don't block me and I will not call any damaging votes against you. Now the strategy was to get a lot of weenines out and kill the big bleed predator who quickly. The Arhimanes agreed, I can only think that they did not want the bleed deck to sweep and pounced on an opportunity for a VP. As it turns out, the weenies did oust the Bruise and bleed for the ahrimanes and then finished the Arhimanes off to take the day. Is this a case of collusion? The weenines made the deal with victory in mind, it may seem a peculiar strategy to some (and not to others), but does the fact that they were not chasing maximum VP's (but still overall victory) have any relevance? The bruise and bleed raised the question of collusion during the course of the game, but it was never really an open accusation and seemed to not be taken all that seriously. I would be interested to hear any comments on this, as well as any other similar occurences. -scrote

scrote wrote: > but does the fact that they were not chasing maximum VP's (but still > overall victory) have any relevance? No. As a refressher (restating the position again - Lasombra, perhaps this is ready for the FAQ?): Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then one is free to choose from among those paths. If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, then one is free to choose. If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is "0 more than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire those 0 more VPs in any manner one wishes. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 26 Apr 2002 06:11:02 -0700, scrote wrote: >The weenies made deal with arhimanes....don't block me and I will not >call any damaging votes against you. Now the strategy was to get a lot >of weenines out and kill the big bleed predator who quickly. The >Arhimanes agreed, I can only think that they did not want the bleed >deck to sweep and pounced on an opportunity for a VP. As it turns out, >the weenies did oust the Bruise and bleed for the ahrimanes and then >finished the Arhimanes off to take the day. What sort of votes were these? The usual Kine Resources Contested damages two players and it's not clear how the weenie deck shares out the damage in this situation. Tactical details aside, you can get a loop in this triangular situation. With both prey and predator combining against him, the bleed deck might offer to better the deal that the Ahrimanes are getting in your scenario - the bleed deck gets 1 VP and the Ahrimanes get 2 VP. The weenie deck might then offer a different split to the bleed deck - the bleed deck gets 2 VP and the weenies get 1 VP. After each deal is proposed, the player who is being cut out of it can offer to improve the position of the player who is getting the 1 VP slice so that he gets 2 VP instead. The players contemplating each new arrangement always improve their position and so are bound by the rules to do so. Assuming that everyone is capable of delivering on any of these 2:1 arrangements, the game then stalemates in an endless round of negotiation. If the situation is symmetrical in this way then a resolution of the impasse is likely to be based on out-of-game factors and so would be collusive. As the time limit approaches, the players will then have to agree on a withdrawal deal that gives them all 1 VP each. My conclusion is that deal-making sucks and the game would be better without it. And, of course, it should be without it as the rules do not permit it. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Constantly arguing over the definition of collusion isn't constructive. For one thing, it's quite possible to do things that produce the same results of collusion without being under V:TES's definition of collusion. Arguing over whether it is or isn't collusion distracts from the fact that it's just as bad to unilaterally decide to help someone else without helping yourself, to throw games out of spite or whimsy, and so forth.

> As a refressher (restating the position again - Lasombra, perhaps this > is ready for the FAQ?): > > Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then > one is free to choose from among those paths. > > If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there > are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, > then one is free to choose. > > If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is "0 more > than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire those 0 > more VPs in any manner one wishes. What if a player is not skilled enough to understand HOW to win? Could a judge rule that they must play differently? For example, if a player thinks they're done for and wants to throw in the towel, but other players see how they can get a VP, is the judge/table required to change their mind? Use the example above if you would, please. Nobody has said Fletcher took the best course of action, but was it illegal? He didn't maximize his VP's, after all.

>Is this a case of collusion? The weenines made the deal with victory >in mind, it may seem a peculiar strategy to some (and not to others), >but does the fact that they were not chasing maximum VP's (but still >overall victory) have any relevance? The bruise and bleed raised the >question of collusion during the course of the game, but it was never >really an open accusation and seemed to not be taken all that >seriously. I would be interested to hear any comments on this, as well >as any other similar occurences. Well, in this particular case, the answer seems straight-forward. The Ahrimanes should definitely have taken the deal since his predator was agreeing to help oust his prey. Although it might have seemed a bit sketchy for the Weenie Vote to have offered such a deal, since they won, they clearly played their hand best. In many of these situations, if a player ends up winning, then that sort of justifies whatever means they used. For example, recently in my playgroup, we had cases of people going cross-table. In one case a vote deck was going cross-table to nail my weenies (but he ended up getting the TW, so he probably did what was best). And the next game, I was giving my predator intercept against his grandpredator (my cross-table ally in a 4-player game). It really annoyed my grandpredator that I was helping my predator, but since I ended up winning the TW, it shows I probably made the best choice. Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CC9585D...@white-wolf.com>... > scrote wrote: > > but does the fact that they were not chasing maximum VP's (but still > > overall victory) have any relevance? > > No. > > As a refressher (restating the position again - Lasombra, perhaps this > is ready for the FAQ?): > > Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then > one is free to choose from among those paths. > > If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there > are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, > then one is free to choose. > > If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is "0 more > than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire those 0 > more VPs in any manner one wishes. What about this scenario then. Different tourney, !Tremere !Brujah Rush Same weenie deck Bloat deck Toreador Before even first turn had elapsed for every player the !Tremere player said to the !Brujah player that he would not do a single thing to him until the weenines was ousted (or at least under control). He even went as far as flicking all his bleeds across the his prey to the weenines (as the game progressed). No collusion call was made, but surely this kind of behaviour counts as collusion? It is a strange example in that it is only really collusion on the behalf of one party. The !Brujah were obviously happy yo have no pressure and continue to try and oust their prey, but as for the !Tremere...was he paying to win, or simply playing to stop a deck that he didn't like? I wonder how your path to victory scheme fits into all this? There existed a *potential* for the weenines to sweep the table without this kind of deal being made, so it could be construed that the !tremere were in fact trying to create a potential for more VP's. However, to so blatantly make a deal before any threat had even been established? It could also be argued that every deck exists with a *potetial* to sweep a table. So is it a judgement call or was it collusion? As it turns out the weenines were ousted with no VP's the !Brujah took the table and funnily enough, the !Tremere also took no VP's and fifth place..the weenies got fourth, poetic justice? -Scrote

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<FC1307C86DDAD6FC.5270F218...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 26 Apr 2002 06:11:02 -0700, scrote wrote: > > >The weenies made deal with arhimanes....don't block me and I will not > >call any damaging votes against you. Now the strategy was to get a lot > >of weenines out and kill the big bleed predator who quickly. The > >Arhimanes agreed, I can only think that they did not want the bleed > >deck to sweep and pounced on an opportunity for a VP. As it turns out, > >the weenies did oust the Bruise and bleed for the ahrimanes and then > >finished the Arhimanes off to take the day. > > What sort of votes were these? The usual Kine Resources Contested > damages two players and it's not clear how the weenie deck shares out > the damage in this situation. How the deal was fufilled is irrelevant, it is more important that the involved parties were satisfied that the terms were being met. The weenines were a Pre/vote, hostile deck. I give you lots of pool for Anson then parity shift it back. Oh look, gain one for evry minion..I gain twelve, kind thing. Plenty of KRC's and some reinforcements to have that late game (from the weenines perspective) kill...very small deck. > > Tactical details aside, you can get a loop in this triangular > situation. With both prey and predator combining against him, the > bleed deck might offer to better the deal that the Ahrimanes are > getting in your scenario - the bleed deck gets 1 VP and the Ahrimanes > get 2 VP. The weenie deck might then offer a different split to the > bleed deck - the bleed deck gets 2 VP and the weenies get 1 VP. After > each deal is proposed, the player who is being cut out of it can offer > to improve the position of the player who is getting the 1 VP slice so > that he gets 2 VP instead. The players contemplating each new > arrangement always improve their position and so are bound by the > rules to do so. Assuming that everyone is capable of delivering on > any of these 2:1 arrangements, the game then stalemates in an endless > round of negotiation. I disagree, this situatation is never going to occur. Player decisions have other factors influencing their decisions besides the very two dimensional ones you propose of "in my deal you will get two VP's and in his only one". How much do you trust the Methesulah offering the deal? How much potential do you see in his ability to uphold his end of the bargain? How do do you feel about your ability to uphold the various bargains on offer? Does a *possible* (potentially zero if things go awry) two VP's outweigh the one VP that *you beleive* you are guaranteed to get of you accept a different offer? \ I am sure that others could list many more that have influence on their decision-making process. It is not possible to set aside tactical details in a discussion such as this as the are at he core of the issue. The central discussion is intimately involved with whether or not players are basing decision on in-game tactis (of their own development) or if instead they are considering other factors, such as I don't like that style of deck, or that player, or I am going to help Jim win. > If the situation is symmetrical in this way Yes, but it _never_ is, so your discussion is pointless. then a resolution of the > impasse is likely to be based on out-of-game factors and so would be > collusive. As the time limit approaches, the players will then have > to agree on a withdrawal deal that gives them all 1 VP each As above. > > My conclusion is that deal-making sucks and the game would be better > without it. I do not understand this outlook, to me a good deal of the attraction of the game is the diplomatic aspects of which deal making is in integral element. >And, of course, it should be without it as the rules do > not permit it. Please quote the relevant rules that illustrate this point. > > Andrew -Scrote

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20020426150032...@mb-cl.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree, in fact you have have just given my opinion better than I could have myself. In a tournament situation however, players raise concerns and judges have to repsond (at least that is why I am in this thread). -Scrote

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020426150032...@mb-cl.aol.com... > > Constantly arguing over the definition of collusion isn't constructive. For > one thing, it's quite possible to do things that produce the same results of > collusion without being under V:TES's definition of collusion. Arguing over > whether it is or isn't collusion distracts from the fact that it's just as bad > to unilaterally decide to help someone else without helping yourself, to throw > games out of spite or whimsy, and so forth. > I hate "me, too" posts, but, well... yeah, I agree 100%. The only reason I brought up collusion in the first place (bringing on theLasombra's dictionary rant) was that the effects of such a situation are the same as the effects of collusion, and so it should be treated likewise.

> Tactical details aside, you can get a loop in this triangular > situation. With both prey and predator combining against him, the > bleed deck might offer to better the deal that the Ahrimanes are > getting in your scenario - the bleed deck gets 1 VP and the Ahrimanes > get 2 VP. The weenie deck might then offer a different split to the > bleed deck - the bleed deck gets 2 VP and the weenies get 1 VP. After > each deal is proposed, the player who is being cut out of it can offer > to improve the position of the player who is getting the 1 VP slice so > that he gets 2 VP instead. The players contemplating each new > arrangement always improve their position and so are bound by the > rules to do so. Assuming that everyone is capable of delivering on > any of these 2:1 arrangements, the game then stalemates in an endless > round of negotiation. The tactical details cannot be set aside, as Scrote suggests. However, even if they could, think of the deal like this: My predator is offering to help oust my prey. If I accept this offer I am nearly guaranteed 1 VP, with the possibility of three if I then proceed to oust my predator. My prey can offer me a potential 3 VP ONLY by taking himself out of the game before my predator leaves. This does not mean that I must accept my predator's deal, since I MUST take tactical considerations into effect, but the game CANNOT stalemate in negotiations if only the number of VP offered is taken into account. Once the tactical details are brought back into it, things change. The Ahrimanes player could have decided to try to weaken both his predator and prey, by blocking votes and bleeding simultaneously, but a look at the board and the hand can give him a rough estimate of the feasibility of that move. The Ahrimanes probably had either little to damage his prey with or little intercept left in his hand, possibly both. Or possibly he simply preferred his options in one-on-one vs a weenie vote. Either way, he gained one VP, but ultimately lost. > My conclusion is that deal-making sucks and the game would be better > without it. And, of course, it should be without it as the rules do > not permit it. The rules do not enforce it. There is no rule prohibiting it, either. There is also no rule allowing me to speak to my opponents, keep my eyes open during the game, scratch my head, or scratch my butt. This doesn't mean I want to go through a game without them. It is a dimension to the game which has few boundaries. A deal, by its nature, means an exchange, and so it nearly always entails a risk - much like the rest of the risk. Personally, I rarely accept deals offered by other players unless I have no clear alternative, but others are not so careful. It doesn't really matter, since no one is allowed to make a deal which will keep them from winning unless they have no chance of winning anyway, which sort of limits the kinds of deals they could make. Lactamaeon

"lactamaeon" <newq...@rose-hulman.edu> wrote in message news:786c1f73.02042...@posting.google.com... > > The rules do not enforce it. There is no rule prohibiting it, either. > There is also no rule allowing me to speak to my opponents, keep my > eyes open during the game, scratch my head, or scratch my butt. This > doesn't mean I want to go through a game without them. > There is also no rule that says you can't eat your opponent's cards. Or your own.

On 26 Apr 2002 21:42:57 -0700, scrote wrote: >>And, of course, it should be without it as the rules do >>not permit it. > >Please quote the relevant rules that illustrate this point. There are no such rules - that's my point. There are also no rules about mulligans, flying tackles, huffing, honour, shirt-pulling, sideboards, wild cards, melds, clothing forfeits, burning, declaring, etc. These things are not part of the game because they are not in the rulebook. Going back to the subject, there's a good article here: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Poker/Collusion This contains the interesting point that, "...there are laws in some states saying that a husband and wife cannot play poker at the same table." When running multi-player CCG events, I usually seed family members apart. But I don't recall seeing any such considerations in the recent discussions of seating algorithms here. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:DF38D63CA1312DB1.9929303E...@lp.airnews.net... [snip Andrew vs scrote] > When running multi-player CCG events, I usually seed family > members apart. But I don't recall seeing any such considerations in > the recent discussions of seating algorithms here. I hope you don't do this at sanctioned VTES tournaments where you are the judge, since this would be against the rules, i.e. illegal. Besides, it's fun to see Robyn gang up on her husband! ;) > > Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

> If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there > are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, > then one is free to choose. Q: If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, and one does not recognize any of those paths, what happens? 1. Must a judge intervene? 2. May a judge intervene? Confused, --Brian

"Brian" asked: > > If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there > > are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, > > then one is free to choose. > Q: If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If > there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can > get, and one does not recognize any of those paths, what happens? Then the player does not have the skill to take the VPs, and they are not truly available to him. You cannot legislate against poor play / stupid play. > 1. Must a judge intervene? A judge must not intervene. > 2. May a judge intervene? No. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG