Spectator vs. Ex-Player

From the V:EKN official tournament rules: 2.4 Spectator Responsibilities Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not allowed to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any person, other than tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge. Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes me a "bona fide player". So, which is it? How am I treated when I'm ousted, but still have something on the line? Can I tell my old predator that I think he can take the last two on his own (boy I hope), or may I be asked to not observe "their" (my) game? -- Brian

Brian wrote: > Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in > second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the > game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so > that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, > turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak > to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could > have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with > "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then > later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still > had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes > me a "bona fide player". I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a specter. Trotting out the argument about having something at stake could apply to other situations, such as a player on the bubble for making it into the finals watching a game in the last round where one of the players might leapfrog him. He would therefore likewise have something at stake in terms of the tournament, but this doesn't give him the right to interfere with the game. Fred

I wrote: > > Brian wrote: > > Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in > > second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the > > game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so > > that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, > > turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak > > to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could > > have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with > > "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then > > later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still > > had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes > > me a "bona fide player". > > I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a specter. Um, I meant, "Once you're ousted, you're a specTATOR." Though perhaps 'specter' might makes sense, too. I hate it when your misspellings turn out to be correctly spelled substitutes that makes your thought turn out sort of weird. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I would go with this as well. When I run a tourney, the "places" go as follows VPs in Final If tie on VPs for first, then previous results. All on 0VPs, order of ousting. That way, no people in the final who are ousted quickly have any real reason to want to influence the game. I don't know whether this is really right or wrong, but as I don't usually have graded prizes for position, that doesn't tend to make for much deal anyway. Just my way of doing things. May the night be yours. -- Andy "Slytherin" Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge SET awakens, watch out all non-believers

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3D45E3C7...@removethis.com>... > Brian wrote: > > Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in > > second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the > > game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so > > that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, > > turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak > > to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could > > have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with > > "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then > > later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still > > had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes > > me a "bona fide player". I asked LSJ about this quite a while back, and apparently when you're out, you're not allowed to interfere. You're not "in the game" any more. (otherwise, things that work on the number of meths "in the game" would still be counting you, etc...) can't find the email atm, though. sorry. salem.

Andy Brown wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Brian wrote: > > > Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in > > > second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the > > > game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so > > > that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, > > > turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak > > > to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could > > > have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with > > > "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then > > > later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still > > > had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes > > > me a "bona fide player". > > > > I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a [spectater]. Trotting > > out the argument about having something at stake could apply to other > > situations, such as a player on the bubble for making it into the finals > > watching a game in the last round where one of the players might leapfrog > > him. He would therefore likewise have something at stake in terms of the > > tournament, but this doesn't give him the right to interfere with the > > game. > > > > Fred Good call, Fred. > I would go with this as well. When I run a tourney, the "places" go > as follows > > VPs in Final > If tie on VPs for first, then previous results. > All on 0VPs, order of ousting. So long as you're running non-sanctioned events, this is fine. Sanctioned events stop at "previous results". Order of ousting is not used in any way to determine finishing place. See the VEKN rules for finishing placement calculation. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a specter. Trotting >out the argument about having something at stake could apply to other >situations, such as a player on the bubble for making it into the finals >watching a game in the last round where one of the players might leapfrog >him. He would therefore likewise have something at stake in terms of the >tournament, but this doesn't give him the right to interfere with the >game. I agree. When I'm ousted and I decide to stick around, I usually just sit there making occasional funny or cute comments. I don't coach at all or tell people what to do but I do try to be helpful (helping to move cards during a Dramatic Upheaval or counting out the 6 pool for an ousting). I also do point out if they make any errors. I know that technically you're supposed to get a judge and tell them but when the judge is on the other side of the room, you can't really say "STOP!" and expect them to sit around while you fetch the judge to tell them they made little boo-boo. Halcyan 2

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3D45E3C7...@removethis.com>... > Brian wrote: > > Two weeks ago, I was ousted in a finals game, which I went into in > > second place. Since I was ousted first, and my predator went into the > > game in first place, I knew that I wanted him to sweep the table, so > > that I could get second. Was it my duty to step aside once ousted, > > turning me into a spectator? Or did I still have the right to speak > > to the players, since convincing my predator not to table-split could > > have gotten me second place instead of third? At first I was OK with > > "you're ousted, you're done playing, so you're done talking", but then > > later at home I realized that I still had something at stake and still > > had the ability to do something about it, which by game theory makes > > me a "bona fide player". > > I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a spect(ato)r. Trotting > out the argument about having something at stake could apply to other > situations, such as a player on the bubble for making it into the finals > watching a game in the last round where one of the players might leapfrog > him. He would therefore likewise have something at stake in terms of the > tournament, but this doesn't give him the right to interfere with the > game. > > Fred == I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? I hope that the ruling would be that you are one of the players at the table, even after ousting. then, getting up to look at other players' hands would remain forbidden (though allowed to spectators.) as implied above, you could still have an interest in the outcome: e.g. you have 1 vp before ousting, and you think you can convince the dominant deck not to table-split... finishing second (read, maximizing your position in the current game) is an in-game concern. As far as the rulebook goes, i gotta go with: 9.1 Victory Points (snip) At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has been ousted. (snip more) This directly implies that all methuselahs who were in the game at the beginning are still "players" at the end of the game, whether ousted or not. == I wonder what the real answer is... sporemage john "The blood of these whores is killing me." Andy Warhol's Dracula

spinney99 wrote: > I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he > steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if > i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can > ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? I hope that Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > spinney99 wrote: > > I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he > > steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if > > i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can > > ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? > > Yes. Assuming the judge has no discretion about it, that would be kind of ridiculous. Legally, a player could ask always for his property back at any time, regardless of tournament rules of course - as long as he didn't care what tournament penalties he was assessed. But I would think the rules would be better written to waive this particular option for players who were ousted. Presumably, a judge can always ask a spectator (including ousted players) to vacate if they became a problem in his eyes. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 3D46C3A8...@removethis.com... > LSJ wrote: > > > > spinney99 wrote: > > > I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he > > > steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if > > > i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can > > > ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? > > > > Yes. > > Assuming the judge has no discretion about it, that would be kind of > ridiculous. Legally, a player could ask always for his property back > at any time, regardless of tournament rules of course - as long as > he didn't care what tournament penalties he was assessed. The Judge can provide proxies if needed, AFAIK... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Good day to be contrary, eh? If anyone ever experiences a problem with this rule at a sanctioned tournament, please report it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D46C83B...@white-wolf.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > But I would think the rules would be better written to waive this > > particular option for players who were ousted. Presumably, a judge > > can always ask a spectator (including ousted players) to vacate if > > they became a problem in his eyes. > > Good day to be contrary, eh? > > If anyone ever experiences a problem with this rule at a sanctioned > tournament, please report it. You know, not just to be contrary, but if a rule is silly, there doesn't necessarily have to be *evidence* that it's silly (in the form of people actually making use of it) for us to realize that it's silly. Not sure whether this specific rule is or isn't a bad idea, but I think the idea of being able to criticize/alter tournament rules just based on logic may be sound? Josh somehow football seems to do just fine with noisy spectators (of course chess is quite the opposite, i hear)

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D46C83B...@white-wolf.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > But I would think the rules would be better written to waive this > > > particular option for players who were ousted. Presumably, a judge > > > can always ask a spectator (including ousted players) to vacate if > > > they became a problem in his eyes. > > > > Good day to be contrary, eh? > > > > If anyone ever experiences a problem with this rule at a sanctioned > > tournament, please report it. > > You know, not just to be contrary, but if a rule is silly, there > doesn't necessarily have to be *evidence* that it's silly (in > the form of people actually making use of it) for us to realize > that it's silly. > > Not sure whether this specific rule is or isn't a bad idea, but I > think the idea of being able to criticize/alter tournament rules > just based on logic may be sound? OK. Sounds good. [ quoted text not captured ]

"spinney99" <spore...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f52a52.02073...@posting.google.com... > > I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he > steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if > i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can > ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? I hope that > the ruling would be that you are one of the players at the table, even > after ousting. then, getting up to look at other players' hands would > remain forbidden (though allowed to spectators.) as implied above, > you could still have an interest in the outcome: e.g. you have 1 vp > before ousting, and you think you can convince the dominant deck not > to table-split... finishing second (read, maximizing your position in > the current game) is an in-game concern. The rules as written seem pretty clear in saying that coaching, once you're no longer part of the game, isn't allowable for "former players" any more than for "spectators". It might be possible to rewrite the rules as you suggest, drawing a distinction between "ex-players" and "spectators", but I'm not sure it would be a good thing. Since you have nothing but advice that you can offer people still in the game, once ousted, it seems to me that you'd pretty much just be coaching (or manipulating), and in the interests of time and fairness that should probably be prohibited for ex-players as much as for spectators. On the other parts of the rule, as I read it, this: "Players have the right to request that any person, other than tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge." doesn't necessarily imply that all such requests must be granted, ie it may be up to the judge whether or not any particular request is a reasonable one, and what action to take in response to it. This part: "Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress." I'm not so sure about. I think it's definitely proper to disallow communicating with players, but total silence is more than is generally (I think) asked of spectators of games. I see no problem, generally, with spectators talking among themselves. There is the issue that the players might then overhear something they shouldn't, but not all situations are vulnerable to that problem. (If there's a glass wall between the spectators and the players, for example.) Josh don't stop thinkin' about vtes

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020730095924...@mb-cb.aol.com... > I also do point out if they make any errors. I know that > technically you're supposed to get a judge and tell them but when the > judge is on the other side of the room, you can't really say "STOP!" > and expect them to sit around while you fetch the judge to tell them > they made little boo-boo. Well. Technically, if I'm reading the rules right, you shouldn't even tell them to stop if you think you saw a rules violation. You should just silently go and find the judge and tell him or her. He or she would then go over to the table and investigate, and presumably correct the error if possible. As you say, this is a rather cumbersome process for "minor" errors of the sort that are often made many times in a single game (in my experience). But it's the only one that's described in the tournament rules. I'm not sure just now what ought to be done about that, but my instinct is that just not enforcing the "all rules corrections through a judge" rule isn't the best answer. :-) Josh eighty sheets college ruled

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > spinney99 wrote: > > > > I'm playing caitiff princes, but my predator is Set corruption, so he > > > > steals 4 of my minions while crushing me out. now that i'm ousted, if > > > > i'm a spectator, the methuselah controlling 4 of my crypt cards can > > > > ask that i not even be allowed to observe the game?????? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > ...I would think the rules would be better written to waive this particular > > option for players who were ousted. Presumably, a judge can always ask a > > spectator (including ousted players) to vacate if they became a problem in > > his eyes. > > Good day to be contrary, eh? Any day's good to be contrary. I guess I was just appreciating what the guy was saying. I'd be a tad annoyed if my Powerbase: Montreal was sitting on the table and some fellow was asking me to take a hike for no particularly good reason. No, I've never heard of it actually happening. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, if there's no particular good reason, then the judge is apt to deny the request, I'd guess. If there is a reason, then the judge is apt to consider it. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I guess I was just appreciating what the guy was saying. I'd be a tad annoyed > > if my Powerbase: Montreal was sitting on the table and some fellow was asking > > me to take a hike for no particularly good reason. No, I've never heard of it > > actually happening. > > Well, if there's no particular good reason, then the judge is apt to > deny the request, I'd guess. > > If there is a reason, then the judge is apt to consider it. That what was why I started off my response to spinney99's post with the words, "Assuming the judge has no discretion about it". Neither the rules nor your previous posts made that point clear. If Judges do, then as Emily Lattilla used to (smile sweetly and) say, "Never mind." Fred

> >Technically, if I'm reading the rules right, you shouldn't even >tell them to stop if you think you saw a rules violation. You >should just silently go and find the judge and tell him or her. >He or she would then go over to the table and investigate, and >presumably correct the error if possible. I agree that that is what the rules currently say. But I still think it is extremely short-sighted and overly restrictive. >As you say, this is a rather cumbersome process for "minor" >errors of the sort that are often made many times in a single >game (in my experience). But it's the only one that's described >in the tournament rules. Yeah. And then when you finally bring the judge over, 3 turns have passed and who-knows-what-else has happened. For example, say someone is running around throwing Governed and Conditioned bleeds with Cornelius Ottavio (even though you know he has no Dominate). Instead of simply reminding the players that he can't, are you really supposed to run around and try to find the judge and, by the time you bring the judge to the table, Cornelius has already ousted two players with his Dominate bleeds??? >I'm not sure just now what ought to be done about that, but my >instinct is that just not enforcing the "all rules corrections >through a judge" rule isn't the best answer. :-) I concur. Halcyan 2

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ai6j08$114v4e$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > The rules as written seem pretty clear in saying that coaching, > once you're no longer part of the game, isn't allowable for > "former players" any more than for "spectators". I agree, i just couldn't find it in the floor rules or the rulebook. as i said: As far as the rulebook goes, i gotta go with: 9.1 Victory Points (snip) At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has been ousted. (snip more) This directly implies that all methuselahs who were in the game at the beginning are still "players" at the end of the game, whether ousted or not. so where is it clearly spelled out? certainly not in floor rules 5.1, which you are possibly citing: "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities: * Receiving outside assistance or coaching." The player at the table is not necessarily "outside" coaching, if s/he is still considered a player at that table, which 9.1 considers her. > It might be possible to rewrite the rules as you suggest, > drawing a distinction between "ex-players" and "spectators", > but I'm not sure it would be a good thing. Since you have > nothing but advice that you can offer people still in the game, > once ousted, it seems to me that you'd pretty much just be > coaching (or manipulating), and in the interests of time and > fairness that should probably be prohibited for ex-players as > much as for spectators. agreed. not sugggesting rewrite til i find out where the rule is, and probably not then. as stated above, there obviously is a big difference between ex-player and spectator in rule 9.1. an ousted methuselah is still a player, meaning s/he was assigned to that table at the beginning of the tournament round, and whose vp are considered when determining who won the table, at the end of play. for time considerations, it is probably best that they be given near-spectator status, and pipe down. but i didn't see the floor rule, etc, that shooshes them. Is it a ruling that you aren't a player anymore, that you aren't in the game anymore, or some such, when ousted? i know it seems like semantics-bandying, but what is the exact wording of such ruling, and is it incorporated into the easily-obtainable rules? > > On the other parts of the rule, as I read it, this: > > "Players have the right to request that any person, other than > tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests > must be made through a judge." > > doesn't necessarily imply that all such requests must be > granted, ie it may be up to the judge whether or not any > particular request is a reasonable one, and what action to > take in response to it. true. unless there was some other circumstance, i can't imagine a judge granting this. and whoever thought of the proxy cards as a way to allow an ousted methuselah to leave it they had "permanents" in play (elsewhere in this thread) was thinkin'. > > This part: > > "Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of > a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in > any way while a game is in progress." > > I'm not so sure about. I think it's definitely proper to > disallow communicating with players, but total silence is more > than is generally (I think) asked of spectators of games. I > see no problem, generally, with spectators talking among > themselves. There is the issue that the players might then > overhear something they shouldn't, but not all situations are > vulnerable to that problem. (If there's a glass wall between > the spectators and the players, for example.) > > Josh > i must respond to this, as it is so coolly cornercase. i like it. "glass wall..." never played with walled-off spectators yet. yet... sporemage "i'm called the count, because i love to count."

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D46E90C...@white-wolf.com>... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > > ...I would think the rules would be better written to waive this particular > > > > option for players who were ousted. Presumably, a judge can always ask a > > > > spectator (including ousted players) to vacate if they became a problem in > > > > his eyes. > > > > > > > I guess I was just appreciating what the guy was saying. I'd be a tad annoyed > > if my Powerbase: Montreal was sitting on the table and some fellow was asking > > me to take a hike for no particularly good reason. No, I've never heard of it > > actually happening. > > Well, if there's no particular good reason, then the judge is apt to > deny the request, I'd guess. > > If there is a reason, then the judge is apt to consider it. I've had this problem for years. It's common for a player to remain seated in spite of having been ousted. This is fine if he just sits there, but usually he issues some remark, sometimes related to the game, sometimes not, but always intruding upon the game - which wouldn't happen if he wasn't there anymore. But in spite of this, I think a rule where you asked the ousted player to leave is unfair because it may remove some of the enjoyment that player gets from the torney. There's a fine line between harmless interference and harmful interference but I don't think there's any reason for us to be fascist about it (I tried several times and it didn't work :) ). At least not right away - if that player makes a nuisance of himself he should be dealt with ASAP, of course. The fact that ousted players are treated as spectators isn't clear from the VEKN floor rules, and may cause some commotion when the judge tries to remove that player from the table. At one time I had a player claiming the right to speak in spite of having been ousted. A tough case, but fortunately came to a good conclusion with the help of some other people who invited him to a casual game. It would have helped if that case was explicitly covered in the rules. David Pontes (had to post here)

David Pontes wrote: > But in spite of this, I think a rule where you asked the ousted > player to leave is unfair because it may remove some of the enjoyment > that player gets from the torney. As opposed to removing the enjoyment that the players who are still playing get from the tourney? Which is more fair? > There's a fine line between harmless > interference and harmful interference but I don't think there's any > reason for us to be fascist about it (I tried several times and it > didn't work :) ). At least not right away - if that player makes a I never suggested being fascist about it. > nuisance of himself he should be dealt with ASAP, of course. Right. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > David Pontes wrote: > > There's a fine line between harmless > > interference and harmful interference but I don't think there's any > > reason for us to be fascist about it (I tried several times and it > > didn't work :) ). At least not right away - if that player makes a > > I never suggested being fascist about it. It never fails to amuse me how inappropriately the word "fascist" is often used. Esp. when someone wants to demonize something. Personally, I subscribe to there being no such thing as "harmless interference." There was an individual at Origins, whom I shall decline to name, that kept forcefully pointing out errors that players were making, rather than quietly mentioning them to the judge. Because he was being such a distraction, people were unable to concentrate and were unable to correct their mistakes themselves and were prone to making even more errors. This happened in spite of the judge telling him that if he wanted to watch, he had to keep quiet. Naturally, my lack of tolerance and my participation in the game prompted me to angrily chase him off when he was apparently, physically unable to restrain himself. My point is that kibitzing is often irritating and distracting to people that are attempting to concentrate on the strategic game at hand. If you are not playing in the game, you shouldn't be bothering those who are. It's not being fascist, it's enforcing the rules of most card games. Don't believe me? Go try kibitzing in a poker game for money or a euchre game in Michigan or Canada. If you come out unscathed, it's likely because you can run really fast. Obviously, all of this does not apply to more casual environments. While tournaments can be casual, it's not fair to expect them to be. Regards, Noal

"spinney99" <spore...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f52a52.02073...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ai6j08$114v4e$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > > The rules as written seem pretty clear in saying that coaching, > > once you're no longer part of the game, isn't allowable for > > "former players" any more than for "spectators". > > I agree, i just couldn't find it in the floor rules or the rulebook. > as i said: > > As far as the rulebook goes, i gotta go with: > 9.1 Victory Points > (snip) At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most > victory points, even if she has been ousted. (snip more) > This directly implies that all methuselahs who were in the game at the > beginning are still "players" at the end of the game, whether ousted > or not. > > so where is it clearly spelled out? It's not clearly spelled out, no. It's probably assumed by the current rules to be implicit in the common usage of "player" and "spectator". That is, a "player" is "one that plays" as in "a person who plays a game"; by "plays" meaning "to engage or take part in a game". So, someone whose participation in the game has ended is assumed to no longer be a player in this sense. 9.1 refers to them as a player, yes, and they *were* "one of the players in that game", but that's more of a past-tense sense than an ongoing thing, as I read it. That is, I think what 9.1 is saying is, all those people *were* players in that game; it's not saying that they *remain* players in that game after they've been ousted - by usual definitions of "player" it seems to me nonsensical to consider them to still be "playing" the game after they've explicitly already been removed from the game. There has not been, as far as I know, any ruling to this effect (ie explicitly stating that ex-players are now spectators) but it seems to me like it's pretty obviously the intent of the rules. Regardless, they could certainly be clarified on this point, and maybe they will be. > > not all situations are > > vulnerable to that problem. (If there's a glass wall between > > the spectators and the players, for example.) > > i must respond to this, as it is so coolly cornercase. i like it. > "glass wall..." never played with walled-off spectators yet. > yet... heh, yeah. And we probably won't *actually* see any glass- wall-for-spectators games of VTES anytime soon, given the expense that'd probably be involved. But it's conceivable. :-) Josh 'i don't think that word means what you think it means'

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<aibv93$137msc$1@ID- > > i must respond to this, as it is so coolly cornercase. i like it. > > "glass wall..." never played with walled-off spectators yet. > > yet... > > heh, yeah. And we probably won't *actually* see any glass- > wall-for-spectators games of VTES anytime soon, given the > expense that'd probably be involved. But it's conceivable. > :-) Excellent. That's a cool idea though you would have to use toughened glass in the UK, possibly even a layer of special 'VTES' chicken wire to fend of the animals that we have over here :o) <ping> Realises that he is one of said animals..... Rob

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02080...@posting.google.com>... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > David Pontes wrote: > > > There's a fine line between harmless > > > interference and harmful interference but I don't think there's any > > > reason for us to be fascist about it (I tried several times and it > > > didn't work :) ). At least not right away - if that player makes a > > > > I never suggested being fascist about it. > > It never fails to amuse me how inappropriately the word "fascist" > is often used. Esp. when someone wants to demonize something. > I apologise if my use of the term fascist isn't the best. What I meant was to act opressively regardless of opinions on the matter by the parties involved. If we enforced a rule where ousted players and spectators were required to keep out of sight and sound of the table, that would IMO be fascist(ic?) because it didn't take into consideration the fact that maybe the people at the table didn't mind them being there. > Personally, I subscribe to there being no such thing as "harmless > interference." There was an individual at Origins, whom I shall That's one way of seeing it, yes. You may even look at it in a perspective of "would the future be the same if that person wasn't standing there?". But that's taking things too far, IMO. > decline to name, that kept forcefully pointing out errors that > players were making, rather than quietly mentioning them to > the judge. Because he was being such a distraction, people were > unable to concentrate and were unable to correct their mistakes > themselves and were prone to making even more errors. This > happened in spite of the judge telling him that if he wanted to > watch, he had to keep quiet. Naturally, my lack of tolerance > and my participation in the game prompted me to angrily chase > him off when he was apparently, physically unable to restrain > himself. > That person was a nuisance, and the fact that the judge didn't act accordingly was probably because he wasn't feeling like bothering himself because of this. It's the "I'm not being paid to irritate myself" syndrome, very common in VtES judges unfortunately, although arguably legitimate. > My point is that kibitzing is often irritating and distracting to > people that are attempting to concentrate on the strategic > game at hand. If you are not playing in the game, you shouldn't > be bothering those who are. It's not being fascist, it's enforcing To ask this nuisance to stop isn't fascist. To have a judge ask one silent Joe to back out regardless of him being a nuisance or not is, IMO. David Pontes (I should have known I had to post again to explain my first post...)

(David Pontes) wrote: > I apologise if my use of the term fascist isn't the best. What I meant > was to act opressively regardless of opinions on the matter by the > parties involved. If we enforced a rule where ousted players and > spectators were required to keep out of sight and sound of the table, > that would IMO be fascist(ic?) because it didn't take into > consideration the fact that maybe the people at the table didn't mind > them being there. Being a fascist is forcing others to accept your philosophy. What you describe is called "draconian," which generally refers to harsh and zealous enforcement of rules to an extreme. It can often be summed up as, "Dura lex. Sed lex." >> Personally, I subscribe to there being no such thing as "harmless >> interference." There was an individual at Origins, whom I shall > > That's one way of seeing it, yes. You may even look at it in a > perspective of "would the future be the same if that person wasn't > standing there?". But that's taking things too far, IMO. It doesn't matter what the future holds. If the person interferes or communicates in any manner with the current participants of a game, any of the players still involved with the game may ask the judge to make him leave. Quite reasonable, I should think. What is not reasonable is the belief that just because you used to be a player in the game, you are somehow entitled to attempt to influence its outcome. As I mentioned, feel free to try these theories out at a poker tournament. > That person was a nuisance, and the fact that the judge didn't act > accordingly was probably because he wasn't feeling like bothering > himself because of this. It's the "I'm not being paid to irritate > myself" syndrome, very common in VtES judges unfortunately, although > arguably legitimate. That was not the case at all. The judge in question was just as irritated with him as I was. He just didn't posess my reknown lack of tolerance, patience and empathy for those that piss me off. > To ask this nuisance to stop isn't fascist. To have a judge ask one > silent Joe to back out regardless of him being a nuisance or not is, > IMO. Again, draconian, not fascist, would be the word you're looking for. I also agree that this isn't generally called for. If someone is silently observing and not making a nuisance of himself, there is no basis for a player to ask that he be removed. After all, the VEKN tournament rules have no prohibition of scouting, so a case could not be made on that merit. On the other hand, despite your stated position above, if a spectator, quiet or otherwise, is being a nusiance, then he absolutely should be removed. > (I should have known I had to post again to explain my first post...) Heh. Did you expect otherwise. :-) Regards, Noal

> > > The rules as written seem pretty clear in saying that coaching, > > > once you're no longer part of the game, isn't allowable for > > > "former players" any more than for "spectators". > > > > I agree, i just couldn't find it in the floor rules or the rulebook. > > as i said: > > > > As far as the rulebook goes, i gotta go with: > > 9.1 Victory Points > > (snip) At the end of the game, the winner is the player with the most > > victory points, even if she has been ousted. (snip more) > > This directly implies that all methuselahs who were in the game at the > > beginning are still "players" at the end of the game, whether ousted > > or not. > > > > so where is it clearly spelled out? > > It's not clearly spelled out, no. Nor does it need to be. If being a player requires not having been ousted, then someone who is ousted is not a player. There can be no "player, even an ousted one" any more than there can be a "reader, even an illiterate one". We need not know exactly what makes a player for the purposes of this argument; just that you can be ousted and remain one is sufficient. On the contrary, LSJ has previously stated that the rulebook is not to be taken as seriously as other more formal documents, as its main purpose is teaching new players the game as opposed to chiseling out the finer points of the rules (like definitions of "player" and "spectator", I assume). I shall have to look up this "coaching" thing. Right now I think they're talking about when a player makes all of his or her non-obvious decisions based on what another person tells them to. I doubt table talk about strategy is considered "coaching" because it is abstract, not concrete. "Oust that guy if you can" = table talk "Play the Dreams of the Sphinx to contest, bleed with Ozmo with a Govern and Bonding if he blocks" = coaching I do not see the harm in a player coaching another player, only when a spectator plays for someone do I see a problem, because telling another player what to do exactly could be part of a trade. > It's probably assumed by the current rules to be implicit in > the common usage of "player" and "spectator". That is, a > "player" is "one that plays" as in "a person who plays a game"; > by "plays" meaning "to engage or take part in a game". > > So, someone whose participation in the game has ended is > assumed to no longer be a player in this sense. If one's behavior affects the game, and he stands to gain a table win or some tournament points from it, then his participation has not ended. A Methuselah can get tournament points and even a game win after they are ousted because the assignment of these can change through subsequent play. And even when they cannot play cards or effects, table talk is not illegal for normal players and might indeed improve their position. Thus, with both stakes in the game (directly) and a way to influence the outcome of the game (table talk), they are a player, even by your definition above (someone whose participation has not ended). Contrast with a spectator, who is unable to get VPs, tournament points, or a table win from such interference. They have no direct stakes in the game and should remain uninvolved. (Betting on the outcome of a game = indirect stakes) (Winning or losing in the game = direct stakes) It seems reasonable that a Methuselah who is ousted should be reduced to vying for "tournament points". This reduces them to an extremely minor participant in the game, without pretending that it doesn't concern or involve them. > 9.1 refers to them as a player, yes, and they *were* "one of > the players in that game", but that's more of a past-tense > sense than an ongoing thing, as I read it. Section 9.1 said "the winner is the player with...", and "is" is present tense. Although you spoke in the past tense, the rules (to my knowledge) do not. > it's not saying that they *remain* players in that > game after they've been ousted - I disagree. It is implicitly saying such. > by usual definitions of > "player" it seems to me nonsensical to consider them to still > be "playing" the game after they've explicitly already been > removed from the game. It could also be considered nonsensical that someone who is removed from the game can still win. Jyhad is not like most games in this respect, and it appears Jyhad's definition of "player" is tailored to fit that. How "removed from the game" is someone if they are still in the running for winning? -- Brian

> I've always gone by: Once you're ousted, you're a specter. Trotting > out the argument about having something at stake could apply to other > situations, such as a player on the bubble for making it into the finals > watching a game in the last round where one of the players might leapfrog > him. He would therefore likewise have something at stake in terms of the > tournament, but this doesn't give him the right to interfere with the > game. In someone else's game, you may have something at stake, but not DIRECTLY. Directly, in this case, meaning having to do with the ways victory is measured in the game. Table Win at stake = directly at stake. Placed a bet (which is illegal anyway)= indirectly at stake. Tournament Points at stake = directly at stake. Want John, and not Mark, in the finals = indirectly at stake. Having Mark in the finals may harm you much more than getting a few extra table points, but that is immaterial to the matter at hand and cannot be directly measured. You should be able to put in in your own game, where tournament points and maybe the table win are up for grabs, but not in John and Mark's game. You are not a player in that game. The situation you suggested (ousted player speaking freely to members of another table) certainly makes me sound ridiculous, but is not my argument. I challenge you to show me how anything bad could come about from allowing a person to continue to speak when ousted. They may talk without much ground to stand on, but then, players around here do that anyway. :) -- Brian

> I asked LSJ about this quite a while back, and apparently when you're > out, you're not allowed to interfere. You're not "in the game" any > more. (otherwise, things that work on the number of meths "in the > game" would still be counting you, etc...) > can't find the email atm, though. sorry. So then, it appears "Methuselah" is a game term for "player who has not been ousted". "Choose a set of Methuselahs" could only affect a player who has not been ousted, for example. Cards generally refer to Methuselahs. "Players place their cards [for seating] in the following order:" would refer to players who are definitely not Methuselahs at present. Rules generally refer to players. Are there, in fact, ANY cards that specify "players" (but don't affect ousted players), or any rules that refer to "Methuselahs" (but affect ousted or yet-to-play players)? If these terms aren't already standardized this way, perhaps further discussion will make them so...? -- Brian P.S. Does this sort of post bother you, LSJ? I look at it as progressive, but I've heard some consider it too abstruse or pedantic.

First off, this thread is awesome. I am a firm believer that most of this game is table seating and table talk, so this is very much a relevant question. I would love for ousted players to still be able to talk. I think that the forced silence is the worst part of being ousted. Whats more, there is evidence to support the theory that an ousted Methuselah is still a player. I will quote the errata/card text migrations page from the V:TES webpage to support my theory. Controlled Cards If control of a card is returned to a PLAYER who has been OUSTED, the card is burned. [RTR 19960221] Caps added for emphasis. Ousted Methuselahs appear to be players. Tim Bowen Columbus, OH "Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:80bafd85.0208...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Brian wrote: > So then, it appears "Methuselah" is a game term for "player who has > not been ousted". "Player" and "Methuselah" are interchangeable. > "Choose a set of Methuselahs" could only affect a player who has not > been ousted, for example. Cards generally refer to Methuselahs. > > "Players place their cards [for seating] in the following order:" > would refer to players who are definitely not Methuselahs at present. > Rules generally refer to players. ? The rules genrally refer to Methuselahs, but sometimes use "players" (to mean the same thing). > P.S. Does this sort of post bother you, LSJ? I look at it as > progressive, but I've heard some consider it too abstruse or pedantic. No. Not that it should matter if it did, of course. This is USENET. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Timothy F. Bowen" wrote: > > First off, this thread is awesome. I am a firm believer that most of this > game is table seating and table talk, so this is very much a relevant > question. I would love for ousted players to still be able to talk. I > think that the forced silence is the worst part of being ousted. Whats > more, there is evidence to support the theory that an ousted Methuselah is > still a player. I will quote the errata/card text migrations page from the > V:TES webpage to support my theory. > > Controlled Cards > > If control of a card is returned to a PLAYER who has been OUSTED, the card > is burned. [RTR 19960221] > > Caps added for emphasis. Ousted Methuselahs appear to be players. Sorry. No dice. "player who has been ousted" is another way of saying "former player of the current game". [ quoted text not captured ]

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02080...@posting.google.com>... > (David Pontes) wrote: > > I apologise if my use of the term fascist isn't the best. What I meant > > Being a fascist is forcing others to accept your philosophy. What you > describe is called "draconian," which generally refers to harsh and zealous > enforcement of rules to an extreme. It can often be summed up as, "Dura > lex. Sed lex." > Ok, then. > >> Personally, I subscribe to there being no such thing as "harmless > >> interference." There was an individual at Origins, whom I shall > > > > That's one way of seeing it, yes. You may even look at it in a > > perspective of "would the future be the same if that person wasn't > > standing there?". But that's taking things too far, IMO. > > It doesn't matter what the future holds. If the person interferes or > communicates in any manner with the current participants of a game, any of > the players still involved with the game may ask the judge to make him > leave. Quite reasonable, I should think. > Simply being there might conceivably be seen as an interference. And the judge might act to prevent interference - something that is left to the judge's discretion, I believe. This would be draconian, and from my experience useless. > What is not reasonable is the belief that just because you used to be a > player in the game, you are somehow entitled to attempt to influence its > outcome. As I mentioned, feel free to try these theories out at a poker > tournament. > Of course. That is no longer on debate, as far as I'm concerned. > > To ask this nuisance to stop isn't fascist. To have a judge ask one > > silent Joe to back out regardless of him being a nuisance or not is, > > IMO. > > Again, draconian, not fascist, would be the word you're looking for. I also > agree that this isn't generally called for. If someone is silently > observing and not making a nuisance of himself, there is no basis for a > player to ask that he be removed. After all, the VEKN tournament rules have > no prohibition of scouting, so a case could not be made on that merit. This was exactly my point - no rule should be added to remove spectators from the game scene on principle. However, judges should be expected to act in that direction should a complaint arise, or if they see a reason to act (if, for example, the offended player is too shy to ask for the offender's removal). > > (I should have known I had to post again to explain my first post...) > > Heh. Did you expect otherwise. :-) > I had forgotten how it was like. It's been a while since I posted here. See ya, David Pontes