V:EKN Tournament rules Q's [LSJ]

Got some Q's about the tourney rules. ----- 1.4. Taking Notes Players are not allowed to take written notes of their opponents' decks or activities, with the exception of the following items: Their opponents' names (and other relevant personal information) Their opponents' V:EKN numbers Which player played first. Status of the game (such as counters in pool, Master: Out-of-Turn cards played, transfers taken, diableries made, resources, and so on) The number of turns that have elapsed. ----- Can you take notes about your own play? ----- 3.6. Conceding Games Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, with the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. ----- This makes it sound like you must have exactly one dissenter. If it is unanimous, then the player's can't concede. I know you mean that all but one of the players concedes, and all players must agree to it, but it does not exactly read that way. Perhaps change "provided all but one of the players agree to concede" to "provided all players agree on which player does not concede" or something. I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, at least form section 3 - reasoning? I have been in tournaments wherein the blood tie-breaker was not enough and a die had to be rolled... ----- 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not allowed. ----- Even when trying to make a deal? Can you reveal a card to everyone in that situation? Thanks, Chris -- Tammy Shorb 5'7" Alexander Shorb 2'10" Chris Shorb 5'11" Shameless plug: <http://www.graphicnovels.com/>

shr...@alumni.williams.edu wrote: > Got some Q's about the tourney rules. > > ----- > 1.4. Taking Notes > Players are not allowed to take written notes of their opponents' > decks or activities > > Can you take notes about your own play? Sure. > ----- > 3.6. Conceding Games > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > players agree to concede, with the result that game is recorded as if > the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in > sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or > otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject > to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. > ----- > > This makes it sound like you must have exactly one dissenter. If it > is unanimous, then the player's can't concede. I know you mean that > all but one of the players concedes, and all players must agree to it, > but it does not exactly read that way. Perhaps change "provided all > but one of the players agree to concede" to "provided all players > agree on which player does not concede" or something. The one who doesn't concede wins. Conceding implies losing. You can concede even if the player to whom you concede the win doesn't agree. > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, at > least form section 3 - reasoning? I have been in tournaments wherein > the blood tie-breaker was not enough and a die had to be rolled... Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, and unduly increases the recordkeeping duties. > ----- > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is > not allowed. > ----- > > Even when trying to make a deal? Can you reveal a card to everyone in Yes. > that situation? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8f2enr$u2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > shr...@alumni.williams.edu wrote: > > Got some Q's about the tourney rules. > > > ----- > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is > > not allowed. > > ----- > > > > Even when trying to make a deal? Can you reveal a card to everyone in > > Yes. > > > that situation? > > No. Can you reveal your cards to a judge who then verifies that you do indeed have a certain card (e.g., deflection)? Assuming, of course, that you give the judge permission to do so... Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing > > > surface. > > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is > > > not allowed. > Can you reveal your cards to a judge who then verifies that you do > indeed have a certain card (e.g., deflection)? Assuming, of course, > that you give the judge permission to do so... The Judge and the player are charged with following the spirit of the rules. [VEKN Intro] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > shr...@alumni.williams.edu wrote: > > Got some Q's about the tourney rules. > [snip] > > > ----- > > 3.6. Conceding Games > > Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the > > players agree to concede, with the result that game is recorded as if > > the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in > > sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or > > otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject > > to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. > > ----- > > > > This makes it sound like you must have exactly one dissenter. If it > > is unanimous, then the player's can't concede. I know you mean that > > all but one of the players concedes, and all players must agree to it, > > but it does not exactly read that way. Perhaps change "provided all > > but one of the players agree to concede" to "provided all players > > agree on which player does not concede" or something. > > The one who doesn't concede wins. Conceding implies losing. > You can concede even if the player to whom you concede the > win doesn't agree. > I agree with you there. However, it sounds like you *must* have one dissenter, when in fact *all* parties could agree to have one player be the winner, in which case, those who chose to concede couldn't. I am not arguing with the intent/meaning of the rule, but with the way it is worded. How about "provided all players or all players but one agree on which player does not concede"? Also, if more than one player in a game agree to concede, thereby giving the win to another player, doesn't that go against the collusion rule (which I didn't find in this version, although I haven't yet read the penalties and infractions page yet)? > > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, at > > least form section 3 - reasoning? I have been in tournaments wherein > > the blood tie-breaker was not enough and a die had to be rolled... > > Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, and > unduly increases the recordkeeping duties. So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? Rolling a die seems even less a meaningful measurement of performance... Also, I agree that tracking blood at the V:EKN level is too much recordkeeping, but during a tournament, it is merely one more field on the index card, or on the Archon, which is already geared to handle that I think... > [snip] chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8f2enr$u2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is > > not allowed. > > ----- > > > > Even when trying to make a deal? Can you reveal a card to everyone in > > Yes. > > > that situation? > > No. Exactly what are we trying to do with this rule? Make a game like magic which has no meta-game then leave it in. One of the strengths of VTES is the dealing, eg"if you get in combat with me I'll go to long range throw a lid at you" shows 2 Flash's and 2 lids so the player goes and attacks someone else (arn't IG decks one minded). The reason you would do this is to attack you prey with the lids and not the other deck (which will not get you a VP until you get around to them). -- O churl! drunk all, Michael F. Tomkins and left no friendly drop m.to...@student.canberra.edu.au To help me after? University of Canberra, Australia. I will kiss thy lips; http://student.canberra.edu.au/~u964617/

"Michael F. Tomkins" <m.to...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent > > > is not allowed. > > > ----- > Exactly what are we trying to do with this rule? Make a game like > magic > which has no meta-game then leave it in. One of the strengths of VTES > is > the dealing, eg"if you get in combat with me I'll go to long range > throw > a lid at you" shows 2 Flash's and 2 lids so the player goes and > attacks > someone else (arn't IG decks one minded). The reason you would do this > is to attack you prey with the lids and not the other deck (which will > not get you a VP until you get around to them). So *tell* them you have two flashes and 2 lids. Removing the ability to 'prove' it increases the deal-making oppotunities, since you are free to exaggerate your hand now. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tammy, Chris, and Alex Shorb" wrote: > I agree with you there. However, it sounds like you *must* have one > dissenter, when in fact *all* parties could agree to have one player > be the winner, in which case, those who chose to concede couldn't. I > am not arguing with the intent/meaning of the rule, but with the way > it is worded. How about "provided all players or all players but one > agree on which player does not concede"? ? Maybe it'll get reworded in the next release. > Also, if more than one player in a game agree to concede, thereby > giving the win to another player, doesn't that go against the > collusion rule (which I didn't find in this version, although I > haven't yet read the penalties and infractions page yet)? I don't see how. If you've lost (as all but the winner have agreed that they have), how can you collude? > > > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, at > > > least form section 3 - reasoning? I have been in tournaments wherein > > > the blood tie-breaker was not enough and a die had to be rolled... > > > > Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, and > > unduly increases the recordkeeping duties. > > So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? Rolling a die Yes, rolling a die (or flipping a coin or whatever). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>>>> I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been >>>> removed, at least form section 3 - reasoning? I have >>>> been in tournaments wherein the blood tie-breaker was >>>> not enough and a die had to be rolled... >>> >>> Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, and >>> unduly increases the recordkeeping duties. >> >> So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? >> Rolling a die > > Yes, rolling a die (or flipping a coin or whatever). > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Hrm. I don't like random tie-breakers. At the Origins 98, they used the number of table sweeps as a tie breaker. Seems reasonable to me. OTOH, I don't see a problem with having ties. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Hrm. I don't like random tie-breakers. At the Origins 98, they used > the number of table sweeps as a tie breaker. Seems reasonable to me. Seems just as random to me. Is one table sweep better or worse than no sweeps when players wind up with the same number of VPs otherwise? Seems that the better deck would have VPs at many tables rather than "getting lucky" at one table to sweep while being shut down completely at another. Or maybe not - it depends on the tables. > OTOH, I don't see a problem with having ties. Since only the top five players go to the finals, and those five are ranked in order to see who chooses seating positions, ties must be broken somehow (at least for the top five positions). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > "Tammy, Chris, and Alex Shorb" wrote: > > [snip] > > > Also, if more than one player in a game agree to concede, thereby > > giving the win to another player, doesn't that go against the > > collusion rule (which I didn't find in this version, although I > > haven't yet read the penalties and infractions page yet)? > > I don't see how. > If you've lost (as all but the winner have agreed that they have), > how can you collude? > As I understood the V:TES collusion rule, you could not enter into a deal with another player so as to make yourself not gain a victory point. You can make deals that give others a (short-term) advantage, but you can't make a deal that would lead to your ousting. I.e., I cannot make a deal with another player (who might be my buddy who I am going to split the prizes with later) to give her all my pool via Succubus Club. The consession rule as you have it here makes it sound like you can do exactly that, and without even having to use an in-game mechanic. > > > > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, at > > > > least form section 3 - reasoning? I have been in tournaments wherein > > > > the blood tie-breaker was not enough and a die had to be rolled... > > > > > > Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, and > > > unduly increases the recordkeeping duties. > > > > So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? Rolling a die > > Yes, rolling a die (or flipping a coin or whatever). > I don't really get this - please explain how rolling a die is more or equally a measure of performance compared to blood. Your total blood count on your vamps and in your pool I think relates directly to your power during a game. Was there cheating involved with people overcounting their blood? Or perhaps forgetting to count their blood? Are there concerns about folks pumping up their blood count when their prey is totally helpless, in order to gain a competetive advantage? The final one here still sounds like a true measure of performance... Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tammy, Chris, and Alex Shorb" wrote: > As I understood the V:TES collusion rule, you could not enter into a > deal with another player so as to make yourself not gain a victory > point. [...] > > The consession rule as you have it here makes it sound like you can do > exactly that, and without even having to use an in-game mechanic. Admitting defeat (as a group) is not colluding - since everyone agrees who's won, there's nothing to be gained (except time that would otherwise be wasted "proving" that the winner has indeed won). > > > > > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, > > > > Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, > > > So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? Rolling a die > > Yes, rolling a die (or flipping a coin or whatever). > > I don't really get this - please explain how rolling a die is more or > equally a measure of performance compared to blood. Your total blood > count on your vamps and in your pool I think relates directly to your > power during a game. But not to how good your deck is at ousting prey. There are any number of measurements that can be applied, but none are suitably related to the victory conditions to warrant being used before the inevitable coin toss. > Was there cheating involved with people overcounting their blood? Or No, it just wasn't useful. > perhaps forgetting to count their blood? Are there concerns about > folks pumping up their blood count when their prey is totally > helpless, in order to gain a competetive advantage? The final one > here still sounds like a true measure of performance... A measure of some performance, but not of winning. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Hrm. I don't like random tie-breakers. At the Origins 98, they >> used the number of table sweeps as a tie breaker. Seems reasonable >> to me. > > Seems just as random to me. > Is one table sweep better or worse than no sweeps when players > wind up with the same number of VPs otherwise? > > Seems that the better deck would have VPs at many tables > rather than "getting lucky" at one table to sweep while > being shut down completely at another. Or maybe not - it > depends on the tables. I would say that table sweeps is a better judge of performance than tossing dice is. If a tie breaker is needed, it should be based on a relatively performance based occurrence, rather than a completely random, unrelated one. >> OTOH, I don't see a problem with having ties. > > Since only the top five players go to the finals, and > those five are ranked in order to see who chooses seating > positions, ties must be broken somehow (at least for the > top five positions). Well, if the best you can come up with is dice, perhaps the Origins' 98 judge (the guy that Enzo was modeled after) did the right thing and had the two people that tied for 5th (Peter and I), each with the same VPs and one table sweep, play in the final round for a total of 6 seats. In my opinion, it was by far a better solution than the one you suggest. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I would say that table sweeps is a better judge of performance than > tossing dice is. If a tie breaker is needed, it should be based on a > relatively performance based occurrence, rather than a completely > random, unrelated one. Well, I think perhaps you're right in that it should be based on performance, but I agree with LSJ that table sweeps isn't necessarily what we're looking for. Perhaps in the first round you face 4 players new to VTES and they have poor decks and strategies. You sweep the table without difficulty. At another table, someone beats 3 very strong players/decks but loses the sweep. Your sweep would have you winning the tie-breaker, should a tie occur, but I don't know if you could say it was performance-based. Perhaps moreso than a coin/die toss, yes, but I think something else is needed. *sigh* I have no idea what though. p. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > "Tammy, Chris, and Alex Shorb" wrote: > > [snip concession discussion - I concede...] > > > > > > I notice that the blood counting tie-breaker has been removed, > > > > > Blood is not a meaningful measurement of performance, > > > > So what do we do about breaking ties of VP and TP then? Rolling a die > > > Yes, rolling a die (or flipping a coin or whatever). > > > > I don't really get this - please explain how rolling a die is more or > > equally a measure of performance compared to blood. Your total blood > > count on your vamps and in your pool I think relates directly to your > > power during a game. > > But not to how good your deck is at ousting prey. > > There are any number of measurements that can be applied, but none > are suitably related to the victory conditions to warrant being used > before the inevitable coin toss. The "inevitable coin toss" is not as inevitable if you use a tertiary tie-breaker. > > > Was there cheating involved with people overcounting their blood? Or > > No, it just wasn't useful. > > > perhaps forgetting to count their blood? Are there concerns about > > folks pumping up their blood count when their prey is totally > > helpless, in order to gain a competetive advantage? The final one > > here still sounds like a true measure of performance... > > A measure of some performance, but not of winning. > > Aha. You win a single game with Victory points, and that is the only way you win. If the VP are tied, then the game is a tie game (although we play a house rule that whoever is standing at the end, in the case of tie is the winner). To determine a series of games, you total VP. Since in tournament play you can't have a tie, the table point system was created. VP also determines your table points. The gradation of table points is arbitrary (they could have used 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 1,2,pi, 4, 5), but it still is directly tied to VP. There are really no other meaningful measures of how victorious you were than VP, and directly tied to VP, TP. But tournaments (and competition in general) are also about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. It seems to go against that tenet that after 2-3 preliminary rounds of grueling play, who gets into the finals is decided by a coin toss. I like Noal's suggestion that a final can be a 6 player game. I wonder though how that would effect ratings. I would also suggest that if the final winner is also tied (2VP each, w/ equal VP & TP from earlier rounds), they have a duel to determine a winner. At least the tournament is decided "on the field" and not by coin flip. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Hrm. I don't like random tie-breakers. At the Origins 98, they > >> used the number of table sweeps as a tie breaker. Seems reasonable > >> to me. > > > > Seems just as random to me. > > Is one table sweep better or worse than no sweeps when players > > wind up with the same number of VPs otherwise? > > > > Seems that the better deck would have VPs at many tables > > rather than "getting lucky" at one table to sweep while > > being shut down completely at another. Or maybe not - it > > depends on the tables. > > I would say that table sweeps is a better judge of performance than I'll ask again: In which way - more sweeps (and therefore more poor showings as well) indicates a better player, or vice-versa? Tournament Points already gear things towards rewarding consistency over feast-or-famine sweeps. > tossing dice is. If a tie breaker is needed, it should be based on a > relatively performance based occurrence, rather than a completely > random, unrelated one. > >> OTOH, I don't see a problem with having ties. > > > > Since only the top five players go to the finals, and > > those five are ranked in order to see who chooses seating > > positions, ties must be broken somehow (at least for the > > top five positions). > > Well, if the best you can come up with is dice, perhaps the Origins' 98 > judge (the guy that Enzo was modeled after) did the right thing and had > the two people that tied for 5th (Peter and I), each with the same VPs > and one table sweep, play in the final round for a total of 6 seats. In If you were tied for VPs and TPs, it is not surprising that you were tied for sweeps as well. Sweeps don't add much to that equation, since they already contribute to one's TP score. We've had fifth-sixth place ties settled by coin toss before, to everyone's satisfaction. > my opinion, it was by far a better solution than the one you suggest. It's not my suggestion - it's part of the V:EKN rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

myrm...@my-deja.com wrote: > Perhaps in the first round you face 4 players new to VTES and they > have poor decks and strategies. You sweep the table without > difficulty. At another table, someone beats 3 very strong > players/decks but loses the sweep. Your sweep would have you winning > the tie-breaker, should a tie occur, but I don't know if you could say > it was performance-based. Perhaps moreso than a coin/die toss, yes, > but I think something else is needed. Although I'm loathe to suggest it, play ratings might be an adequate measurement of this. In the case of a tie, add up the player ratings of the people they ousted. The highest total wins. An alternate possibility, albeit a much poorer one, IMO, would be that the player with the highest rating wins ties. It would be the best incentive to increase your rating that I've heard to date. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 8 May 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > I would say that table sweeps is a better judge of performance than > tossing dice is. If a tie breaker is needed, it should be based on a > relatively performance based occurrence, rather than a completely > random, unrelated one. Actually, couldn't not sweeping tables be better? you sweep 1 table, and get 5 points. A fluke, perhaps? I don't sweep any tables, but manage to amass 5 victory points - a more consistent deck. Food for thought, at least. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "But I don't have the right to be with you tonight, so please leave me alone with no saviour in sight. I will sleep safe and sound with nobody around me."

> > Aha. You win a single game with Victory points, and that is the only > way you win. If the VP are tied, then the game is a tie game > (although we play a house rule that whoever is standing at the end, in > the case of tie is the winner). To determine a series of games, you > total VP. Since in tournament play you can't have a tie, the table > point system was created. VP also determines your table points. The > gradation of table points is arbitrary (they could have used 10, 20, > 30, 40, 50 or 1,2,pi, 4, 5), but it still is directly tied to VP. > There are really no other meaningful measures of how victorious you > were than VP, and directly tied to VP, TP. > > But tournaments (and competition in general) are also about the thrill > of victory and the agony of defeat. It seems to go against that tenet > that after 2-3 preliminary rounds of grueling play, who gets into the > finals is decided by a coin toss. I like Noal's suggestion that a > final can be a 6 player game. I wonder though how that would effect > ratings. I would also suggest that if the final winner is also tied > (2VP each, w/ equal VP & TP from earlier rounds), they have a duel to > determine a winner. At least the tournament is decided "on the field" > and not by coin flip. I don't think that there should be 6-player finals. It just takes too long. However, I have an alternate suggestion for resolving ties when there are more then 5 players qualified for the final round: Play a quick VTES *duel* between the two tied players! Both players start with 15 pool, and no pool can be gained during that "mini-game". I don't think a tie can be resolved any directer. :) Well, it's a bit weird, but it just sprang to my mind. :) Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

You know, the more that I think about it this topic, the more certain I am that there is no *real* way we can solve this problem. What I mean is, to a large degree, there is no "fairer" way. We've heard about the possibility of using sweeps, and how it might be unfair since one might simply get "lucky" or be at a table with unskilled players. We've heard about why we should (or shouldn't) use pool to determine the winner. Someone has also suggested playing a mini-game, which in itself has its own problems since one on one games are drastically different from multi-player games. In the end, maybe we should just go with the coin toss. Everything has its pros and cons, so why NOT just leave it to chance. The other solutions are biased towards certain decks (decks that have an all or nothing mentality, massive pool gain decks, and combat or other decks that do well one on one). At least the coin toss is unbiased (more or less). I was originally very opposed to leaving the victory to chance, but I'm beginning to not care so much anymore.... Halcyan 2

i don't normally read the newsgroup, but anthony, who is notorious for getting others to do stuff for him, has asked me to mention a method that those of us who play in canberra seem to agree is a fair method of breaking ties. we call them Ousting Points. they're like the 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 of tournament points, but they are allocated when you are ousted. if you are the first player ousted, you get 12. 2nd player ousted gets 24. etc. last player standing gets 60. if more than one player is ousted simultaneously, the points are split (like TPs). if more than one player survives the round (due to time lapse), the remaining points are split. it's worked well, and is tied to performance. although the performance it is related to isn't directly how well you oust people, there is a tendancy for those that oust people well to be less likely to be ousted themselves before others (due to their deck ousting others' faster, and/or gaining 6 pool when they do out someone). i think it's at least well worth considering as an option. in my mind it is FAR superior to a random event. In article <8f79pd$2l0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > Although I'm loathe to suggest it, play ratings might be an adequate > measurement of this. In the case of a tie, add up the player ratings of > the people they ousted. The highest total wins. > > An alternate possibility, albeit a much poorer one, IMO, would be that > the player with the highest rating wins ties. It would be the best > incentive to increase your rating that I've heard to date. it looks to me that this method would just accelerate the ratings growth of those with high ratings. probably unfairly. -- _*__salem _*__http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5848/ ***__salem_...@my-dejanews.com _*__and the rains came hammering down [ quoted text not captured ]