Rise of the Imperator Aftermath

A leader has risen. The Camarilla have appointed a new commander to lead them. The Imperator has been chosen. Get the full story in the Rise of the Imperator Aftermath: http://www.vtesstorylines.com/PDFs/Storyline_Imperator_Aftermath.pdf Learn about past and upcomming V:tes Storyline Events at: http://www.vtesstorylines.com/ -Ben Swainbank V:tes Storyline Coordinator http://www.vtesstorylines.com/

On Jul 21, 12:49 pm, Ben Swainbank <vtesst...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > A leader has risen. The Camarilla have appointed a new commander to > lead them. The Imperator has been chosen. As always, thanks for setting these up. They are always fun. It seems like it was inevitable that Karsh was going to be made Imperator, due to the way that the rules worked. He was the only minion that was named/mentioned in the set up as someone specifically you could vote for as Imperator, so likely end result is a few people vote for Karsh, as is specifically laid out as a special option, and everyone else just votes for some random vampire. Did any other minion get more than, like, 2 votes for Imperator? Not that this is remotely bad (Karsh is as good an Imperator as anyone else, I guess). But I'd suggest that in future Storyline events, where there is going to be a vote for something at the end of each tournament, there be more inherent limits placed on the voting. Like for example, for this event, if instead of "Karsh, or anyone else", you could vote for "Karsh, or a specific named minion based on your clan" (i.e. everyone who won with Ventrue voted automatically for, say Gotsdam) and then in the set up, an Imperator Nominee was listed for each Camarilla clan. Or something like that. To make the voting/ selection a bit more controllable. -Peter

On Jul 21, 12:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Not that this is remotely bad (Karsh is as good an Imperator as anyone > else, I guess). But I'd suggest that in future Storyline events, where > there is going to be a vote for something at the end of each > tournament, there be more inherent limits placed on the voting. Like > for example, for this event, if instead of "Karsh, or anyone else", > you could vote for "Karsh, or a specific named minion based on your > clan" (i.e. everyone who won with Ventrue voted automatically for, say > Gotsdam) and then in the set up, an Imperator Nominee was listed for > each Camarilla clan. Or something like that. To make the voting/ > selection a bit more controllable. > But this wouldn't have really changed the voting. You could vote for a minion of your choice from your clan, but your vote still counted towards your clan. If Brujah had received the most votes, and Count Germaine had the most votes, even if it was only 2 votes, then Germaine would have won. I fail to see how your proposal would have been better in any way, in that it would allow players to decide the clan who won, but would give them 0 input on which vampire, as opposed to the current way which lets you have at least some say in the specific vampire. Personally, I would have preferred it if Gangrel had simply been a playable clan. Perhaps Karsh would have been the only allowed Imperator nominee for Gangrel, but I think I would have liked having 7 clans instead of only 6 to choose from. All in all, though, I liked the way this turned out, and I enjoyed being able to play Malkavians without having to *choose* Malkavians.

What do you think, is this a prelude to the return of Gangrel to the Camarilla? I do agree in a certain way with Peter, the problem is that there are so many valid choices in the 6 camarilla clans that choosing one that had already been choosen was like finding a needle in a haystack. Besides that, i think they should have definned groups (group 2 or 3 or 4) in which the choices could have been limited, so you didn't have a wide spread of choices. I presume that having Karsh as Imperator, we will soon have some kind of promo card regarding this, say Karsh ADV? I did enjoy to see Count Germaine as one of the nominees, if he had won, would we have a Count Germaine Double ADV? :) Ricardo Marta Prince of Lisboa Portugal

Thanks. I really enjoyed the format with the imperator deck. Excellent design.

On Jul 21, 7:04 pm, agzocgud <per_math...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Thanks. I really enjoyed the format with the imperator deck. Excellent > design. Maybe the new Imperator will appear in the Storyline of the EC2009 ;) Once again, great Storyline. Cheers, t.

On Jul 21, 1:46 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > But this wouldn't have really changed the voting. You could vote for > a minion of your choice from your clan, but your vote still counted > towards your clan. If Brujah had received the most votes, and Count > Germaine had the most votes, even if it was only 2 votes, then > Germaine would have won. Ah, good point. In any case, some other plan other than "Karsh, or not Karsh!" would have probably been a better plan that what there was. Again, hardly a significant issue. But something to think about. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It was really the most reasonable solution. You could pick anyone, but there is a suggestion What could be more fair?

[ quoted text not captured ] I enjoyed the storyline. The way the story was written, I expected that Count Germaine was going to be baited into going to the meeting, then executed. Consequences of being the losing candidate? Challenge the Alpha and find out.... Brandon

[ quoted text not captured ] Excellent aftermath! I really enjoyed reading the conclusion. Some points: + I liked how the story put a reasonable explanation of how Germaine could be nominated. Dmitra provided an ample explanation which was logical, even if it was clear that not everyone genuinely believed in it. And at the same time, the story was consistent with Germaine's character. No, he was NOT infiltrating the Anarchs on behalf of the Camarilla, he was actually trying to do the exact opposite! + Also nice that they included Madame Guil. Showing her reaction and explaining the situation was critical to making Germaine's appearance (and nomination) plausible. + Liked the nod to how Karsh had been "Absent for so long everyone assumed he was dead." (Potential tongue-in-cheek reference to rumors that Karsh had been staked at the bottom of the ocean). Would have been nice to see Theo Bell's reaction when Karsh showed up (though once again the novels are only pseudo-canon at best). + I also thought that the brief portrayal of Karsh was also fairly consistent with his personality (quiet and calm). + For those who actually believe in the Karsh = Jalan theory (once again, most of the canon source material contradicts the account during that twilight Gehenna-era novel), the story was vague enough, that you could theorize that maybe the Black Hand set up this situation, just so that Karsh/Jalan becomes Imperator. Everyone gets so focused on the obvious strawman threat (Germaine) that they flock to Karsh, who could be the actual danger (if you think he actually is Jalan). So the story is flexible that you can believe whatever you want (such insidious Black Hand schemes! Germaine himself suspects a setup!). + There's also a nice continuity from the previous storylines (Anarchs and Alastors with Germaine and Yazid. Even a mention of Lucinde's previous appearance. And then mixing in the Helena storyline and flowing into the next upcoming storyline event). + For those who missed it, the precession of names following the Inner Circle included most of the Key Minions who had supported Karsh. Originally I was puzzled by the motley list of names (including many Princes). But if you check the standings, Anson, Gilbert Duane, Sir Walter Nash, Gustav BREIDENSTEIN, Santaleous, Rachel Brandywine, Anastasz di Zagreb, Ellison Humboldt, Sergei Voshkov, Jann Berger, and Valerius Maior (along with Hardestadt) were all Key Minions selected by the winning players who supported Karsh. - It's a bit of a shame that the handful of other key minions who supported Karsh didn't get a mention. Astrid Thomas could have been added to the procession. Ohana and Amelia could have been in the crowd. And maybe even some clandestine support from Hunters (Carlton) could have gotten in there. But at least they got most of the mentions. - Nit-picking, but I would have liked it slightly more if the order of clans supporting Karsh was represented of how much they actually supported him in the tournaments. Malkavians did provide the most support (5), but second was Tremere (4), followed by both Brujah (3) and Nosferatu (3). The Ventrue (2) and Toreador (1) actually provided the least amount of support. So it would have been nice if the Tremere and Nosferatu had supported Karsh before the Ventrue and Toreador did. - The major problem I saw was a LOT of spelling, grammar, and editing mistakes. Could have used another read through or two. Hopefully a cleaned up copy can be posted. But I'll give the storyline team the benefit of the doubt and assume they wanted the players to know the results ASAP. ? The Helena portion mentioned Claudia and Rodrigo. Who are they? ? Valerius Maior's appearance could lead to some rather interesting possibilities. (Also, not sure why Germaine was so surprised to see Jann Berger. If anything, Voshkov's appearance would probably have been more surprising, given that he's Baba Yaga's minion). ? If Karsh has been absent so long that people think he's dead, then why did everyone seem to know about him during the Prologue? The Tremere meeting specifically mentions Karsh and considers how the clans might rally behind him. So it seems odd that many in the Camarilla might think he's dead. Then again, the best explanation I can come up with is that *Germaine* believes he's dead and he has very limited information (the Camarilla higher-ups all know Karsh is around, not to mention the Tremere might have extra info due to their mystic resources). But overall, excellent work by Ben and the rest of the storyline team! Looking forward to the next storyline event (though hopefully not *too* soon!).

On Jul 21, 3:37 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > It was really the most reasonable solution. > > You could pick anyone, but there is a suggestion > > What could be more fair? I'm not saying it wasn't fair. I'm saying that given the set up of the event, it seemed *really* unlikely that anyone other than Karsh was going to "win". I mean, maybe the intended result was "make sure Karsh becomes Imperator", but maybe not. And if the intended result was "maybe someone other than Karsh becomes Imperator", I don't think the set up really enabled that. To be clear here--I honestly don't care one way or the other who Imperator is, and Karsh "winning" is just as good of a result in my eyes as anyone else would have been "winning" (i.e. the storyline of the game world isn't something I am remotely invested in, but I like storyline tournaments anyway). But in terms of the mechanics presented, I struck me from day one that the end result was mostly pre- determined (i.e. the "winner" was going to be Karsh). I'd like to see, in the future for an event like this, a less predetermined end result. Not 'cause the end result here was bad, but 'cause it seemed like it was inevitable. -Peter

On Jul 21, 6:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > It seems like it was inevitable that Karsh was going to be made > Imperator, due to the way that the rules worked. He was the only > minion that was named/mentioned in the set up as someone specifically > you could vote for as Imperator, so likely end result is a few people > vote for Karsh, as is specifically laid out as a special option, and > everyone else just votes for some random vampire. Did any other minion > get more than, like, 2 votes for Imperator? > > Not that this is remotely bad (Karsh is as good an Imperator as anyone > else, I guess). But I'd suggest that in future Storyline events, where > there is going to be a vote for something at the end of each > tournament, there be more inherent limits placed on the voting. Like > for example, for this event, if instead of "Karsh, or anyone else", > you could vote for "Karsh, or a specific named minion based on your > clan" (i.e. everyone who won with Ventrue voted automatically for, say > Gotsdam) and then in the set up, an Imperator Nominee was listed for > each Camarilla clan. Or something like that. To make the voting/ > selection a bit more controllable. > > -Peter I, for one, actually liked the system and mechanics used for determining the Imperator. The mechanics showed not only the struggle between clans, but also the political divisions within clans. Peter, I thought it was anything but "inevitable." Up until the very end (especially the last week or two), it was a very tight race between Karsh and the Brujah (who had a dominant lead during most of the time). In fact, the amount of Brujah wins (in particular, supporting Germaine) was quite impressive! As Chris already mentioned, the total clan votes were far more important that the individual votes (which just determined the leading candidate within the clan). And actually, several vampires got more than 2 votes. Germaine got an impressive 6 votes (out of 14 Brujah). Both Roxanne and The Ankou each got 3 votes (of the 7 Malkavian wins) - seems reasonable that they settled their internal conflict by going with Karsh! Gerald Windham got 3 votes (half of the 6 Tremere wins), while Democritus also got 3 (out of 8 Ventrue wins). Having an open-ended nomination process allowed greater flexibility, where players had more say and could influence the storyline. The sheer amount of support for Germaine (and his heavy involvement in the Aftermath) is testament to how the players helped shape the story (along with the actual win for Karsh). I thought the way they handled Karsh, was perfect. Obviously, there are some basic storyline factors (Gangrel have left the Camarilla. Imperator sounds awfully like the Warlord role, so if would be puzzling if Karsh was NOT mentioned). And it gives you an option to play a clan, while not necessarily supporting that clan (sleazy Malks, etc). Having the Gangrel as a playable faction would have been difficult, especially since most of the recent crypt cards are Independent, and the theme of the event was Camarilla-centric, so I can understand that decision. Plus, it would have been too big of an advantage for Karsh. (And I like being able to support Karsh, without playing Gangrel.) Although there have previously been complaints about the slanted odds with both the Nergal and the Anarch wins, at least this one actually makes sense! Sure, there was some king making in the end (especially when it got to Germaine vs Karsh). But as mentioned in the very introduction: "One of the biggest motivations for any clan to put forward an Imperator is to prevent the others from getting too much power. Should Karsh present himself, he may very well get the votes of any clan whose own nominee is eliminated." That's exactly what happened. In the end, the clans who had no chance of winning it for themselves decided to support Karsh rather than letting the Brujah or Ventrue win it. So it mirrors the sort of political machinations that were almost certainly present in the Camarilla's actual (fictional) voting process.

One thing that struck me is that Germaine is thinking about how he really wants to destroy the Camarilla in a crowd of elders, many of whom would probably be practicing mind reading through their high- level auspex.

On Jul 21, 11:21 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And the fact that a well placed thermo-nuclear device would destroy the Camarilla. :) Just kiddin' t.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. If Count Germaine had won, would you be saying "Karsh never had a chance because the Gangrel couldn't participate"?

> Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. XZealot- I thought you didn't put stock into "psychobabble." Brum- Yeah, doubtful that the IC would be so visible. I do like Lutz' accent, though. Brandon

On Jul 21, 9:46 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. > > XZealot- I thought you didn't put stock into "psychobabble." Psychobabble? How so?

[ quoted text not captured ] Your comment appears to be insightful, which you seem to frown upon in JOL and here.

On Jul 22, 3:15 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Malkavian Dementation provides insight as often as it does the recipe for Silly String and essays on the colour Yurple (kind of Yellow, kind of Purple).

On Jul 21, 10:08 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. > > If Count Germaine had won, would you be saying "Karsh never had a > chance because the Gangrel couldn't participate"? No, I would be saying "Huh. That was both surprising and unlikely." Again, the way the rules were set up, you had a choice between voting for: A) Karsh B) Not Karsh Votes for "Not Karsh" were going to be split all over the place, by virtue of clan. Votes for "Karsh" were going to be both for Karsh and taking away votes for Not Karsh. Some people were going to abandon their winning clan and voting for Karsh, simply because it was an option (and was cool, or whatever). Which means that the clans that won were going to lose votes. Meaning that, in all likelihood, Karsh was going to win the vote. Which might have been the intended result. And is fine. But again, it struck me as kind of inevitable. -Peter

On Jul 22, 7:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:08 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. > > > If Count Germaine had won, would you be saying "Karsh never had a > > chance because the Gangrel couldn't participate"? > > No, I would be saying "Huh. That was both surprising and unlikely." > > Again, the way the rules were set up, you had a choice between voting > for: > > A) Karsh > B) Not Karsh > Having two choices does not imply a 50/50 probability...

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. But having the choice of "This" or <write-in> leads to "This" getting the plurality of votes. (candidates being otherwise vaguely equal on average in the eyes of the constituents, where vaguely equal just means that "This" is not despised by nearly all and some other candidate is not the obvious only choice for most of the the constituents).

On Jul 22, 7:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:08 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Hignsight is 20/20 and the "present" is always inevitable. > > > If Count Germaine had won, would you be saying "Karsh never had a > > chance because the Gangrel couldn't participate"? > > No, I would be saying "Huh. That was both surprising and unlikely." > > Again, the way the rules were set up, you had a choice between voting > for: > > A) Karsh > B) Not Karsh > > Votes for "Not Karsh" were going to be split all over the place, by > virtue of clan. Votes for "Karsh" were going to be both for Karsh and > taking away votes for Not Karsh. Some people were going to abandon > their winning clan and voting for Karsh, simply because it was an > option (and was cool, or whatever). If that were true, which it isn't, then why didn't Karsh win 50% of all votes? >Which means that the clans that > won were going to lose votes. Meaning that, in all likelihood, Karsh > was going to win the vote. Which might have been the intended result. > And is fine. But again, it struck me as kind of inevitable. Did you say that prior to Karsh winning? If you did you should go down the horsetrack, because you can make some money there. If you didn't say that prior to Karsh winning, then it just sounds like "sour grapes". >Which means that the clans that >won were going to lose votes. Meaning that, in all likelihood, Karsh >was going to win the vote. Which might have been the intended result. >And is fine. But again, it struck me as kind of inevitable. Betting....money....on horses....

On Jul 22, 9:29 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > A) Karsh > > B) Not Karsh > > Having two choices does not imply a 50/50 probability... No, but that is the effective end result. You win. You can pick your clan, or Karsh. A few people pick Karsh simply 'cause they can (or for whatever reason--it seems cool, they are actually invested in the outcome, why not?). Which makes your clan (whatever clan that is) lose votes. Which is exactly what happened--the Brujah won more events than any other clan (17?), but a few votes went to Karsh anyway. So Karsh wins. Which again, isn't a bad result (I'm not really concerned one way or the other), but I simply am indicating that I think the voting system was kind of (intentionally or unintentionally) rigged. -Peter

On Jul 22, 8:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 10:08 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Again, the way the rules were set up, you had a choice between voting > for: > > A) Karsh > B) Not Karsh > > Votes for "Not Karsh" were going to be split all over the place, by > virtue of clan. Votes for "Karsh" were going to be both for Karsh and > taking away votes for Not Karsh. Some people were going to abandon > their winning clan and voting for Karsh, simply because it was an > option (and was cool, or whatever). Which means that the clans that > won were going to lose votes. Early in the event, Karsh wasn't getting much support. Seems like most players were playing for their own clan. Near the end, the Brujah and Germaine had jumped way out in front. At that point, non-Brujah winners could choose their own clan (which would lose) or get behind Karsh and maybe back a winner. Lots of players went for Karsh near the end. If the standings had been closer in the final month, the dynamic might have been different. On the Imperator deck: One rule tweak I would recommend for future use of this mechanic-- Players may use a master phase action or a discard phase action to discard a card from the center deck hand. But you can't do both in the same turn. -Ben Swainbank

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:29 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> A) Karsh >>> B) Not Karsh >> Having two choices does not imply a 50/50 probability... > > No, but that is the effective end result. You win. Where "that" is "win on plurality", not "50/50 probability".

On Jul 22, 9:46 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > If that were true, which it isn't, then why didn't Karsh win 50% of > all votes? 'Cause you weren't compelled to vote for Karsh 50% of the time. But Karsh did win more votes than anyone else. Which was inevitable. Specifically because of the way the voting worked. If the Gangrel were just another available clan in the tournament, and Karsh was going to win or lose based on Gangrel victory (as opposed to "any victory that is thrown towards Karsh"), then it would not have been inevitable. > Did you say that prior to Karsh winning? Yes. 'Cause looking at the rules, my initial impression was "Huh. You can vote for Karsh or Not Karsh. Seems like Karsh will win." > If you didn't say that prior to Karsh winning, then it just sounds > like "sour grapes". How is it "sour grapes"? I don't care who won. I'm just providing feedback for the designers. Who might want to adjust how voting works in a similar situation next time. > Betting....money....on horses.... Horses and make believe voting for a vampire card game work *very* differently. -Peter

On Jul 22, 12:15 am, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] "Huh? I think I have been insulted. RAWR!" ...is that better? In JOL, specifically, in game "babble" is just can and is "abused" to the point that it is difficult to follow what's going on with the game. Are we talking about the same thing?

On Jul 21, 12:49 pm, Ben Swainbank <vtesst...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > A leader has risen. The Camarilla have appointed a new commander to > lead them. The Imperator has been chosen. > > Get the full story in the Rise of the Imperator Aftermath:http://www.vtesstorylines.com/PDFs/Storyline_Imperator_Aftermath.pdf > > Learn about past and upcomming V:tes Storyline Events at:http://www.vtesstorylines.com/ > > -Ben Swainbank > V:tes Storyline Coordinatorhttp://www.vtesstorylines.com/ Well it's only because Edward Vignes was too young to win :) I'm look forward to seeing what the imperator will look like!

On Jul 22, 9:08 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:46 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > If that were true, which it isn't, then why didn't Karsh win 50% of > > all votes? > > 'Cause you weren't compelled to vote for Karsh 50% of the time. But > Karsh did win more votes than anyone else. Which was inevitable. > Specifically because of the way the voting worked. If the Gangrel were > just another available clan in the tournament, and Karsh was going to > win or lose based on Gangrel victory (as opposed to "any victory that > is thrown towards Karsh"), then it would not have been inevitable. Yet, Count Germaine almost won. > > Did you say that prior to Karsh winning? > > Yes. 'Cause looking at the rules, my initial impression was "Huh. You > can vote for Karsh or Not Karsh. Seems like Karsh will win." Where did you say that? Was it in your living room or on this newsgroup? :P > > If you didn't say that prior to Karsh winning, then it just sounds > > like "sour grapes". > s > How is it "sour grapes"? I don't care who won. I'm just providing > feedback for the designers. Who might want to adjust how voting works > in a similar situation next time. It just appears to me that you were like "This is a big waste of time because Karsh's win was inevitable and nobody else had a chance to win". Yet, Count Germaine had a strong showing. > > Betting....money....on horses.... > > Horses and make believe voting for a vampire card game work *very* > differently. > What the guys with the crooked noses didn't show up at your house to collect after your vampire didn't win? :) Let me make a phone call...

On Jul 22, 2:44 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Yet, Count Germaine almost won. And then didn't. > Where did you say that? Was it in your living room or on this > newsgroup? :P Probably not on the NG, as I was completely uninvolved with the storyline discussions. As I didn't really care what the outcome was. > It just appears to me that you were like "This is a big waste of time > because Karsh's win was inevitable and nobody else had a chance to > win". Then you are imagining things. Or making them up. Your choice. Really. I was and am *completely* unconcerned with the outcome of the storyline. That Karsh won is completely immaterial to me. It is totally fine. And just as good as any other possible outcome. But in a game design sense, I felt that the voting system was slanted in the direction of Karsh winning, kind of by default. Which, if the storyline designers do this sort of thing again, they might want to change. Or maybe not. Up to them. I just figured I'd provide some feedback. > What the guys with the crooked noses didn't show up at your house to > collect after your vampire didn't win? :) I didn't have a vampire. I didn't care who won. At all. Really. Karsh is as good an end result as anything else would have been as far as I am concerned. Wait, I gotta get the door. Someone just knocked and said "Goons. Hired goons..." -Peter

On Jul 22, 5:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > No, but that is the effective end result. You win. You can pick your > clan, or Karsh. A few people pick Karsh simply 'cause they can (or for > whatever reason--it seems cool, they are actually invested in the > outcome, why not?). Which makes your clan (whatever clan that is) lose > votes. Which is exactly what happened--the Brujah won more events than > any other clan (17?), but a few votes went to Karsh anyway. So Karsh > wins. Which again, isn't a bad result (I'm not really concerned one > way or the other), but I simply am indicating that I think the voting > system was kind of (intentionally or unintentionally) rigged. Agreed. We actually talked about this locally when running the storyline, and quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was rigged massively in favor of Karsh. Not sure if it was intentional or not.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think it was obvious it would have to be riged and I think Ben was right. Taking the Germaine misshap (it would never happen in WoD), the whole Karsh win happened just like it would. Inner Circles nominate someone they want (usually Hardestadt convincing someone else and then that someone else is the proposer of the choice) and once the IC (or the majority of the IC) gets a conclusion, they mask it in democracy and in the end things go their way. Since, for all the reasons discussed, Germaine should never be Imperator (it would make no sense in the WoD) and Karsh would be the only obvious choice, I think that it was riged from the point that someone had the ideia of creating this kind of Imperator. And very rightly so. Its funny that allot of the people that complain about the unfairness of the voting system, also claim they don't care about the story's outcome. I't's a Story-line. The outcome is crucial. That's what everybody is playing for. In that sense, I would have banned Red Lists from nomination altogether. Most of Germaine's nominations were from people how didn't care about the Story, wanted to bother/harm the Camarilla story in a way that was completely impossible in WoD or just because "they can". Nothing constructive there. "Because I can" is never a good reason and messing up something you don't care/like, but other people do, just because you can, is stupid.

[ quoted text not captured ] I swear that there was a different post from LSJ in this thread before that I wanted to reply to, but if so, I guess it was cancelled and replaced with this one (or I was imagining things). But whoever posted it said "When the choice is X versus (write-in), X tends to win." And that would be true if each vote for a vampire counted equally and the vampire with the most votes won. That's not how the voting worked. The way it worked was that you, essentially, had 6 choices. Your choice was based on the clan that you played, so one would think that most of the time, people picked a clan they liked, and possibly even a clan that they want more goodies for. If you won, then you had the choice of defecting from your choice to (X). I think the strongest conjecture that you can make regarding the "fixing" of the results, is that Karsh had a better than 1 in 7 chance of winning (that is, giving him as a choice to each of the other 6 clans gives him a better chance than if Gangrel had simply been one of the 7 playable factions) - perhaps you could say better than 1 in 6, since he would probably be more likely to win than any 1 other clan. Saying that he was inevitable, or even greater than the combined chances of all other clans would demand knowledge of people's decision making processes that you just couldn't have. If you look at it a different way, you are dividing people into 2 groups: A) Those who would vote for their own clan (which would be subdivided into 6 groups), and B) Those who would vote for Karsh. You can't really say much about the size of either of those groups, but if you assume that people are reasonably close to evenly divided between which clan they "like", then you could say that group B is at least as large as A/6. However, say you divide people into 2 different groups: A) Those who want to "mess" with the story and have a silly or stupid result. B) Those who don't fit in group A. From posts on the newsgroup, we know that people existed in group A. I won't necessarily classify a win for Valerius Maior or Count Germaine as a person in group A, but they are someone who *might* be in group A, since those vamps don't really make sense for Imperator without some twisting. But say we have those 2 groups. The people in group A would not vote for Karsh, since voting for the one choice specifically given to you by the storyline coordinator could hardly be "messing" with the results. So everyone in group A would not vote for Karsh, and group B would be split between people voting for Karsh and people voting for the clan they decided to play. From this, since A = Not Karsh, and B = some Karsh mixed in among votes for the other 6 clans, you can conclude that Karsh could never have won. It was fixed from the beginning. Of course, you see the fallacy in that argument, in that we have no idea of the size of group A, and could easily conjecture that it is small in relation to group B...

On Jul 23, 8:21 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:06 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 9:29 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > >>> A) Karsh > > >>> B) Not Karsh > > >> Having two choices does not imply a 50/50 probability... > > > > No, but that is the effective end result. You win. > > > Where "that" is "win on plurality", not "50/50 probability". > > I swear that there was a different post from LSJ in this thread before > that I wanted to reply to, but if so, I guess it was cancelled and > replaced with this one (or I was imagining things). > Not that it matters, but I found the post I was trying to reply to... oh well. Either Google Groups was messing with me, or I was a little bleary-eyed after just waking up...

On Jul 23, 5:34 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it was obvious it would have to be riged and I think Ben was > right. Taking the Germaine misshap (it would never happen in WoD)... It would have if the Brujah had won the storyline, and they almost did. > Since, for all the reasons discussed, Germaine should never be > Imperator (it would make no sense in the WoD) and Karsh would be the > only obvious choice, I think that it was riged from the point that > someone had the ideia of creating this kind of Imperator. I'm pretty sure that were wasn't any rigging. > Most of Germaine's nominations were from people how didn't care about > the Story, wanted to bother/harm the Camarilla story in a way that was > completely impossible in WoD or just because "they can". Oh, please. John Eno

On Jul 23, 3:47 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 5:34 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think it was obvious it would have to be riged and I think Ben was > > right. Taking the Germaine misshap (it would never happen in WoD)... > > It would have if the Brujah had won the storyline, and they almost > did. > > > Since, for all the reasons discussed, Germaine should never be > > Imperator (it would make no sense in the WoD) and Karsh would be the > > only obvious choice, I think that it was riged from the point that > > someone had the ideia of creating this kind of Imperator. > > I'm pretty sure that were wasn't any rigging. By rigged, I mean "to give Karsh a better probability of winning". Maybe not the best expression. I'm sorry. > > Most of Germaine's nominations were from people how didn't care about > > the Story, wanted to bother/harm the Camarilla story in a way that was > > completely impossible in WoD or just because "they can". > > Oh, please. Lots of Germaine voters stated so. Here and in other forums. > John Eno

On Jul 23, 10:47 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure that were wasn't any rigging. To be fair, I also used the word "rigged" in relation to the voting, but didn't mean it in the sense of "there was cheating". I meant it in the sense that the voting system presented seemed, at least to me, to be certainly slanted in the direction of Karsh winning. Not that if, say, the Brujah won and Germaine became Imperator anyone would have changed that (i.e. "rigged the vote"), but it seemed likely that Karsh had a specific advantage that made it likely he would win the vote. -Peter

Looking at the system, it was designed so that Karsh would split every clan's vote. "I could vote for Vamp A from Clan X, or Karsh..." is the decision from each clan. So when you then have that there is a potentially LARGE pool of "Vamp As" there is an impression that there would be a small chance for your "Chosen Vamp A" to be the front-runner of Clan X. So you vote for an unknown quantity (by backing Clan X and seeing which Vamp A comes out on top from Clan X)... or back the very well known quantity, Karsh. Consequently, those who instinctively dislike the "punting for my Vamp A from Clan X to win" would nominate Karsh. Also, after some results and nominations came in those people who disliked the vampires coming out for their favourite Clan X... they would also "sabotage" Clan X and vote Karsh. Think of it a bit like this... There is "The Conservative Party", "The Moderate Party", "The Environmental Loonies Party" and "Barack Obama" in an election. If you choose one of the parties, they will choose the next President. If you choose Barack Obama, he becomes President. If you don't trust the parties to choose a good president (even if you agree with the ideals of that party) you would consider choosing Barack Obama because you KNOW who the President would be. Consequently the "Obama Vote" splits each of the parties and if the media talked about some really "rogue crazies" being likely nominations for each party, people will abandon the parties to vote "Obama" so they get a known quantity. Consequently (using the example scenario) Karsh won. It was always a likely event, not a dominatingly likely event... but a likely one.

On Jul 23, 2:08 pm, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lots of Germaine voters stated so. Here and in other forums. I remain confident that you have no way of knowing why most of the people who nominated Germaine did so. John Eno

On Jul 23, 2:58 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > To be fair, I also used the word "rigged" in relation to the voting, > but didn't mean it in the sense of "there was cheating". Sure. The context of your post was very different than the context of Brum's. Yours was about the VTES process of concluding the storyline, and his was about the V:TM implications of Germaine winning the storyline. John Eno

On Jul 24, 12:37 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. The context of your post was very different than the context of > Brum's. Yours was about the VTES process of concluding the storyline, > and his was about the V:TM implications of Germaine winning the > storyline. Ah, yes, good point. Yeah, I don't care even remotely about what the V:TM implications of anyone winning anything are. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] <nit> There isn't a V:TM anymore. The storylines only advance VTES stories. </nit> I only care to the extent that we get some new card because of it. Oh yeah, and I like finding flavor text from the storylines. But I'm with you, I don't really care about the backstory at all. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] But many of us do. And White Wolf seems to think like that too. This is a better game because of it. You know, we don't really need pictures in the cards to play. White Wolf could save allot of R&D if no pictures were used. Some of you might not care about it, but some of us do. This is a better game because of it. I made a Story 100% inside VtM core, in one of the most deteiled timelines and still managed to create something new and fun for the players. My point is you don't need to go out of VtM core to keep making new and fun things. There is allot to explore, still. t.

On Jul 25, 8:24 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > But many of us do. And White Wolf seems to think like that too. > This is a better game because of it. Neither Chris (presumably) or I are saying you shouldn't care about the backstory. If you are invested in the backstory, more power to you. I don't think the backstory should be removed. Or ignored. I'm just not, personally, particularly invested in it. That is in no way a statement that means that *you* should not be, or are in some way a bad person, for being so invested. > My point is you don't need to go out of VtM core to keep making new > and fun things. There is allot to explore, still. Where has anyone gone out of the VtM core? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] VTM was after all a "storyteller" game. But I'm not into vampires at all. The supreme irony is that I have been playing this game for 15 years, and I hate vampires. Or at least I did when I started, I can stand them now. I still say this would be a more interesting game if the "backstory" was actual Global Geopolitics. You could have storyline tournaments where influencing the actual results of your local elections had repercussions in card design... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] An Anathema almost becoming Lord of the Camarilla. Specially with so many wanting him dead (starting with Jarolav Pascek).

On Jul 25, 9:53 pm, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > An Anathema almost becoming Lord of the Camarilla. > Specially with so many wanting him dead (starting with Jarolav > Pascek). Well, ya know, it's fiction. They can write whatever they need to to have it make sense. -Peter

On Jul 22, 10:02 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 9:29 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > > A)Karsh > > > B) NotKarsh > > > Having two choices does not imply a 50/50 probability... > > No, but that is the effective end result. You win. You can pick your > clan, orKarsh. A few people pickKarshsimply 'cause they can (or for > whatever reason--it seems cool, they are actually invested in the > outcome, why not?). Which makes your clan (whatever clan that is) lose > votes. Which is exactly what happened--the Brujah won more events than > any other clan (17?), but a few votes went toKarshanyway. SoKarsh > wins. Which again, isn't a bad result (I'm not really concerned one > way or the other), but I simply am indicating that I think the voting > system was kind of (intentionally or unintentionally) rigged. > > -Peter I tend to agree with Peter on this. We were able to get an Imperator event in just under the deadline. By this time there were only two frontrunners being Karsh and Brujah(?). I would have preferred to give my winning Nossies the vote, but it would have been wasted had we done so. Had there been other predetermined candidates from each clan, Karsh would have had to work harder to win IMHO.

[ quoted text not captured ] > have had to work harder to win IMHO.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I guess the lesson learned is to have your event earlier that way your preferred choice can be the one influencing the later events and not vice versa.

On Aug 10, 10:29 am, Bernie <berniet...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It's democracy at work. You have the incumbent, Karsh, and you have the challenger from an open field. As the race gets closer to the end, a front runner will emerge. So then you get a choice you can either vote for the incumbent of vote for the front runner.

On Aug 10, 11:29 am, Bernie <berniet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Had there been other predetermined candidates from each clan, Karsh > would have had to work harder to win IMHO. What? That doesn't make sense to me. Let's say the storyline had been set up like you suggest here, and further that Dmitra Ilyanova had been the predetermined Brujah choice. Do you think that this means that the people who won with Brujah and chose Germaine in the actual event would've instead not played Brujah at all, given that they couldn't pick Germaine? I ask because everyone whom I talked to about what they were playing/ had played discussed their choice of clan. Choice of individual imperator wasn't even mentioned in most cases, and when it was, it was definitely second in importance to clan. And if that was true more or less universally, Karsh wouldn't have had any better or worse a chance of winning than he already did. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] It's not matter of predeterminated choices of the other clans. I see it this way: -people tend to worry about 'meaningless vote', so they rather vote on clan that have chance of winning (gangrel) than on clan without such change (any other than brujah) -when they play as brujah, they tend to vote on their winning cln mostly. There would be no issue, if Gangrels would be viable storyline clan. Probably people responsible for storyline rules want Karsh win, so he won. It's in-line with fiction anyway. Of course IF they want fair outcome (each clan have similiar chance for the win), they learned that this system lead to warped results (or not, we had the same situation with Nergal ... ).

On Aug 10, 7:55 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course IF they want fair outcome (each clan have similiar chance > for the win), they learned that this system lead to warped results (or > not, we had the same situation with Nergal ... ). I still don't understand the argument that there wasn't a fair outcome, as the storyline rules were structured. And this situation was very different than the Nergal one. For this storyline to have been analogous to that one, there would have had to be a guarantee of seeing a Gangrel deck in every finals. There wasn't. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] There was guarantee that winner may win for gangrels. Yeah, not exactly as in Nergal - in Nergal storyline there was 6 time as much clans and 1 Nergal in the finals. In Imperator storyline only 6 clans were playing, and 5/5 decks in final were possibly Gangrel decks. It's not exactly fair outcome, as one clan have higher chances of winning than rest of them.

On Aug 11, 3:56 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > There was guarantee that winner may win for gangrels. Yeah, not > exactly as in Nergal - in Nergal storyline there was 6 time as much > clans and 1 Nergal in the finals. The number of clans overall doesn't matter, just that Nergal was always going to be at the final table. > In Imperator storyline only 6 clans > were playing, and 5/5 decks in final were possibly Gangrel decks. Yes. 5/5 decks in the final were possibly any of the clans, though, so I'm not sure what that indicates. > It's not exactly fair outcome, as one clan have higher chances of > winning than rest of them. I still don't see how that's so. John Eno

On 12 Sie, 00:12, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:56 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There was guarantee that winner may win for gangrels. Yeah, not > > exactly as in Nergal - in Nergal storyline there was 6 time as much > > clans and 1 Nergal in the finals. > > The number of clans overall doesn't matter, just that Nergal was > always going to be at the final table. Imo it matter. It's easier for clan deck to win where only 6 clans play, than in event where 30+ clan play. > > In Imperator storyline only 6 clans > > were playing, and 5/5 decks in final were possibly Gangrel decks. > > Yes. 5/5 decks in the final were possibly any of the clans, though, so > I'm not sure what that indicates. > > > It's not exactly fair outcome, as one clan have higher chances of > > winning than rest of them. > > I still don't see how that's so. > > John Eno But no clan could be sure, that it will play the final round, where gangrel always have the option. Whats more funny, no matter who win, gangrel clan was able to score. Let me put it straight - do you think that every clan had equal chance, or gangrel were favoured ?

On Aug 11, 6:43 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let me put it straight - do you think that every clan had equal > chance, or gangrel were favoured ? As I've said, I think every clan had just as much chance of winning as every other clan. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] That would be a pretty unlikely coincidence, considering that the number of Gangrel wins was determined by the number of people choosing Gangrel while the number of wins for each NotGangrel clan was determined by the number of people choosing to *play* that NotGangrel clan minus the number of those people choosing Gangrel. I'd be very surprised if this didn't create a bias for or against Gangrel.

On Aug 12, 12:12 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:56 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In Imperator storyline only 6 clans > > were playing, and 5/5 decks in final were possibly Gangrel decks. > > Yes. 5/5 decks in the final were possibly any of the clans, though, so > I'm not sure what that indicates. in the final, any of the 5 decks could definitely vote for Gangrel, no matter what. in the final, any of the decks could potentially vote for any of 6 clans. This means the chance of any Non-Gangrel deck to win is directly related to not only how many people choose to play withat clan and win, but also how many of those winners then do NOT choose Gangrel. This gives the Gangrel a much higher chance of winning than anyone else.

On Aug 11, 8:28 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > That would be a pretty unlikely coincidence, considering that the > number of Gangrel wins was determined by the number of people choosing > Gangrel while the number of wins for each NotGangrel clan was > determined by the number of people choosing to *play* that NotGangrel > clan minus the number of those people choosing Gangrel. I'd be very > surprised if this didn't create a bias for or against Gangrel. On Aug 12, 4:17 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > This means the chance of any Non-Gangrel deck to win is directly > related to not only how many people choose to play withat clan and > win, but also how many of those winners then do NOT choose Gangrel. > > This gives the Gangrel a much higher chance of winning than anyone > else. Okay. I can see the reasoning here. John Eno

On Aug 12, 5:12 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Wooooooooooooooot!!! charm character roll natural 20! wooohooo!

On Aug 12, 11:12 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay. I can see the reasoning here. Actually, thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure that I do. BS and suoli, does your chain of logic assume that people were deciding to "play" Gangrel only after winning their tournaments? Otherwise, it doesn't take a win away from the clan that actually won any more than it would have if the Gangrel had been playable and won the tournaments that they won. John Eno

On Aug 12, 8:17 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> [ quoted text not captured ] It comes down to this. If you are (and I paraphrase here) playing clan X, which is in third or fourth place, with insignificant chance to win, and clan Y, which you REAAAAALLY hope does not win, is in first. You vote Gangrel out of spite. So Karsh gets the spite vote.

[ quoted text not captured ] How's that? Some players will play a deck that happens to consist of a specific clan while wanting some other clan to win the storyline and reap the benefits. Mind you, I'm not saying that Gangrel necessarily had an advantage because of this, just that there is a bias one way or another.

On Aug 12, 6:25 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It comes down to this. If you are (and I paraphrase here) playing clan > X, which is in third or fourth place, with insignificant chance to > win, and clan Y, which you REAAAAALLY hope does not win, is in first. > > You vote Gangrel out of spite. > So Karsh gets the spite vote. You're saying that people played clans that they don't care about, in order to try to get another clan which they don't care about to win, just because they don't like the Brujah? I know we can never get a solid answer to whether or not that happened, but it strikes me as a pretty far-fetched scenario. John Eno

On Aug 12, 10:52 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > How's that? Some players will play a deck that happens to consist of a > specific clan while wanting some other clan to win the storyline and > reap the benefits. Sure, but that's not different result-wise than if the Gangrel had just been playable. In other words, if I played Toreador in this storyline with the intention of voting for Gangrel, and won, that's not taking a win away from the Toreador any more than if I had played Gangrel and won. It's only taking a win away from the Toreador if I had played Toreador with the intetion of voting for Toreador, and then decided at the last minute to instead give the win to the Gangrel for some reason. I doubt that the latter happened much, though obviously I have no way to prove that. > Mind you, I'm not saying that Gangrel necessarily > had an advantage because of this, just that there is a bias one way or > another. I don't understand what you mean here. If you agree that people who voted for Gangrel to win would most likely have played Gangrel if that clan had been playable, what is the basis for the bias you perceive? John Eno

On Aug 13, 2:11 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 10:52 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How's that? Some players will play a deck that happens to consist of a > > specific clan while wanting some other clan to win the storyline and > > reap the benefits. > > Sure, but that's not different result-wise than if the Gangrel had > just been playable. > > In other words, if I played Toreador in this storyline with the > intention of voting for Gangrel, and won, that's not taking a win away > from the Toreador any more than if I had played Gangrel and won. It's > only taking a win away from the Toreador if I had played Toreador > with the intetion of voting for Toreador, and then decided at the last > minute to instead give the win to the Gangrel for some reason. I doubt > that the latter happened much, though obviously I have no way to prove > that. I'd expect, actually, that the reason we had a significant late-cycle surge in Gangrel wins (which we did, to some extent) was because, near the end of the cycle, it was clearly between Gangrel and Brujah starring Germaine. That means that whatever deck you wanted to play, those were your only reasonable choices at that point - support Gangrel, or let the Brujah win (assuming a non-Brujah player). Think of it sort of like the difference in the presidential primary season between living in New Hampshire, and living in Massachusetts. Up there, where it's early, it's an open field; your vote gets to help narrow it down to a much smaller field. Down here, well, the last two election cycles the candidate I most supported wasn't even still in the race by MA's primary time. So I was like a Toreador player. I could play it anyway, and write in the vote for Toreador that'd be meaningless; I could switch and play Brujah if I wanted Germaine to win; or I could play the Toreador I wanted to play and, if I didn't like Germaine for whatever reason, I could vote Gangrel. - D.J.

On 13 elo, 21:11, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 10:52 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How's that? Some players will play a deck that happens to consist of a > > specific clan while wanting some other clan to win the storyline and > > reap the benefits. > > Sure, but that's not different result-wise than if the Gangrel had > just been playable. > > In other words, if I played Toreador in this storyline with the > intention of voting for Gangrel, and won, that's not taking a win away > from the Toreador any more than if I had played Gangrel and won. It's > only taking a win away from the Toreador if I had played Toreador > with the intetion of voting for Toreador, and then decided at the last > minute to instead give the win to the Gangrel for some reason. I doubt > that the latter happened much, though obviously I have no way to prove > that. I don't understand why it would matter whether the choice of clan nominated is made before or after winning. > > Mind you, I'm not saying that Gangrel necessarily > > had an advantage because of this, just that there is a bias one way or > > another. > > I don't understand what you mean here. If you agree that people who > voted for Gangrel to win would most likely have played Gangrel if that > clan had been playable, I don't agree with that. > what is the basis for the bias you perceive? > > John Eno The number of wins for Gangrel was determined by different factors than the number of wins for other clans. Wins for Gangrel were determined by the number of players that wanted Gangrel to win the storyline, wins for other clans were determined by the number of players that didn't favor Gangrel over the clan they happened to play.

On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > I'd expect, actually, that the reason we had a significant late-cycle > surge in Gangrel wins (which we did, to some extent) was because, near > the end of the cycle, it was clearly between Gangrel and Brujah > starring Germaine. That means that whatever deck you wanted to play, > those were your only reasonable choices at that point - support > Gangrel, or let the Brujah win (assuming a non-Brujah player). Right. But that's no different than if the Gangrel had been a playable clan and were the only other possible winner, other than Brujah, as the storyline neared its end. John Eno

On Aug 13, 3:56 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't understand why it would matter whether the choice of clan > nominated is made before or after winning. Because my argument is that the Gangrel wouldn't have had any less of a chance of winning the storyline if they had been a playable clan, rather than an option to be chosen by the tournament winners. > > I don't understand what you mean here. If you agree that people who > > voted for Gangrel to win would most likely have played Gangrel if that > > clan had been playable, > > I don't agree with that. Okay. In the event that the Gangrel had been playable, and near the end of the storyline the results were about the same (Brujah in the lead, and only Gangrel having a realistic chance to beat the Brujah), what else would the people who did vote for Gangrel have played? Would they instead have thrown their vote away on a third party that had no chance of winning? John Eno

On Aug 13, 6:07 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If the Gangrel had been a playable clan rather than an alternate vote, to vote Gangrel you'd have needed to play Gangrel, and folks who wanted to play, say, Toreador but were unhappy with the idea of Germaine getting the title wouldn't have had another option than to vote what they played. - D.J.

On 14 elo, 01:17, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 3:56 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't understand why it would matter whether the choice of clan > > nominated is made before or after winning. > > Because my argument is that the Gangrel wouldn't have had any less of > a chance of winning the storyline if they had been a playable clan, > rather than an option to be chosen by the tournament winners. And why is the point at which the clan to be nominated is chosen important? > > > I don't understand what you mean here. If you agree that people who > > > voted for Gangrel to win would most likely have played Gangrel if that > > > clan had been playable, > > > I don't agree with that. > > Okay. In the event that the Gangrel had been playable, and near the > end of the storyline the results were about the same (Brujah in the > lead, and only Gangrel having a realistic chance to beat the Brujah), > what else would the people who did vote for Gangrel have played? One of the six other clans that the deck they want to play happens to belong to.

On Aug 13, 6:34 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > If the Gangrel had been a playable clan rather than an alternate vote, > to vote Gangrel you'd have needed to play Gangrel, and folks who > wanted to play, say, Toreador but were unhappy with the idea of > Germaine getting the title wouldn't have had another option than to > vote what they played. Okay. John Eno

On Aug 13, 7:32 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > And why is the point at which the clan to be nominated is chosen > important? Because I think people played the clan that they wanted to see win. > One of the six other clans that the deck they want to play happens to > belong to. And thus throw away their vote? John Eno

On 14 elo, 17:45, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 7:32 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And why is the point at which the clan to be nominated is chosen > > important? > > Because I think people played the clan that they wanted to see win. I think there was a significant portion of people playing a deck without having any strong feelings for the clan they were playing. > > One of the six other clans that the deck they want to play happens to > > belong to. > > And thus throw away their vote? > > John Eno Are you talking about the effect the current standings might have on an individual winner's decision? I'm just talking about the theoretical model and it's inherent bias in the absence of factors like different clans being stronger, influence of current standings on voting etc.

On Aug 14, 11:23 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you talking about the effect the current standings might have on > an individual winner's decision? I was. > I'm just talking about the > theoretical model and it's inherent bias in the absence of factors > like different clans being stronger, influence of current standings on > voting etc. Okay. John Eno