[LSJ] Deals vs. Game Goals

Players A -> B -> C-> D-> E are playing a game. Player B has no chance to get any Victory Point and makes a deal with player E. The terms of the deal are that player B will help player E oust E's prey, if player E helps B on ousting B's prey (after which, player B would commit suicide). Later in the game, B grows stronger and has real chances to win the game. Is player B forced to break his or her deal with player E, because he must play to win (and he now has real chances to do so)? Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > Players A -> B -> C-> D-> E are playing a game. > > Player B has no chance to get any Victory Point and > makes a deal with player E. The terms of the deal > are that player B will help player E oust E's prey, > if player E helps B on ousting B's prey (after which, > player B would commit suicide). > > Later in the game, B grows stronger and has > real chances to win the game. Contradiction. This violates the stated fact that B had no chance to get any VPs. > Is player B forced to break his or her deal with > player E, because he must play to win (and he now > has real chances to do so)? Unknown. Cannot be determined without a non-contradictory starting point. -- 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/

>> Is player B forced to break his or her deal with >> player E, because he must play to win (and he now >> has real chances to do so)? > > Unknown. Cannot be determined without a non-contradictory > starting point. So, they've finally replaced LSJ with a computer i see......*BEEP* -- Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com http://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje news:3E9169BA...@white-wolf.com... > Damnans wrote: > > Players A -> B -> C-> D-> E are playing a game. > > > > Player B has no chance to get any Victory Point and > > makes a deal with player E. The terms of the deal > > are that player B will help player E oust E's prey, > > if player E helps B on ousting B's prey (after which, > > player B would commit suicide). > > > > Later in the game, B grows stronger and has > > real chances to win the game. > > Contradiction. This violates the stated fact that B had > no chance to get any VPs. Let me explain it better. Imagine that player B is at 1 pool and that there are two Anarch Revolt in play. During B's next untap phase B will be ousted regardless of what B can do, because B's deck has no other means to gain pool before B's next untap phase. Player B's only chance is to deal with player E (in the terms I stated above). > > Is player B forced to break his or her deal with > > player E, because he must play to win (and he now > > has real chances to do so)? > > Unknown. Cannot be determined without a non-contradictory > starting point. Then, I want you to explain which criteria should a judge take into account to determine when a player has no chance to win. Greetings, Damnans

LSJ wrote: > Damnans wrote: > >> Players A -> B -> C-> D-> E are playing a game. >> >> Player B has no chance to get any Victory Point and >> makes a deal with player E. The terms of the deal >> are that player B will help player E oust E's prey, if player E helps >> B on ousting B's prey (after which, player B would commit suicide). >> >> Later in the game, B grows stronger and has >> real chances to win the game. > > > Contradiction. This violates the stated fact that B had > no chance to get any VPs. Presumably, he had no chance of getting any Victory Points without the deal, and grew strong only because of that deal. >> Is player B forced to break his or her deal with >> player E, because he must play to win (and he now >> has real chances to do so)? No. By current rules he is free to maintain the deal he made earlier. Flux

Damnans wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje >>Damnans wrote: >>>Players A -> B -> C-> D-> E are playing a game. >>> >>>Player B has no chance to get any Victory Point and >>>makes a deal with player E. The terms of the deal >>>are that player B will help player E oust E's prey, >>>if player E helps B on ousting B's prey (after which, >>>player B would commit suicide). >>> >>>Later in the game, B grows stronger and has >>>real chances to win the game. >> >>Contradiction. This violates the stated fact that B had >>no chance to get any VPs. > > Let me explain it better. > > Imagine that player B is at 1 pool and that there are two > Anarch Revolt in play. During B's next untap phase > B will be ousted regardless of what B can do, because > B's deck has no other means to gain pool before B's > next untap phase. > > Player B's only chance is to deal with player E (in the > terms I stated above). ... or with any other player. In general, B can get more VPs - if he makes a deal. Any legally-made deal can be legally honored. Any deal can be legally broken. The game rules do not enforce deals. >>>Is player B forced to break his or her deal with >>>player E, because he must play to win (and he now >>>has real chances to do so)? >> >>Unknown. Cannot be determined without a non-contradictory >>starting point. > > Then, I want you to explain which criteria should a judge take > into account to determine when a player has no chance to win. The game state. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje news:3E91806C...@white-wolf.com... > > > > Player B's only chance is to deal with player E (in the > > terms I stated above). > > ... or with any other player. > In general, B can get more VPs - if he makes a deal. > Any legally-made deal can be legally honored. > Any deal can be legally broken. The game rules do not > enforce deals. So does it means that a judge should also take into account possible deals when determining a player's chances to get VPs? If that were so, should a judge force that player to make a deal to keep him or her in the game and try to win the game? Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje >>>Player B's only chance is to deal with player E (in the >>>terms I stated above). >> >>... or with any other player. >>In general, B can get more VPs - if he makes a deal. >>Any legally-made deal can be legally honored. >>Any deal can be legally broken. The game rules do not >>enforce deals. > > So does it means that a judge should also take into > account possible deals when determining a player's > chances to get VPs? ? When else does a player's chances to get VPs matter? > If that were so, should a judge force that player to > make a deal to keep him or her in the game and try > to win the game? No. The rules cannot force a player to enter into a deal since, as above, the rules do not enforce deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> escribió en el mensaje news:3E9187B8...@white-wolf.com... > >>>Player B's only chance is to deal with player E (in the > >>>terms I stated above). > >> > >>... or with any other player. > >>In general, B can get more VPs - if he makes a deal. > >>Any legally-made deal can be legally honored. > >>Any deal can be legally broken. The game rules do not > >>enforce deals. > > > > So does it means that a judge should also take into > > account possible deals when determining a player's > > chances to get VPs? > > ? > When else does a player's chances to get VPs matter? According to the V:TES Rulebook (sec. Object of the Game): "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs." As you state, there is nothing here enforcing deals (nor forbiding them) > > > If that were so, should a judge force that player to > > make a deal to keep him or her in the game and try > > to win the game? > > No. The rules cannot force a player to enter into a deal > since, as above, the rules do not enforce deals. Therefore, it seems that judges should not take deals into account to determine a player's chances to win, since they are not enforced by the rules. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: >>>If that were so, should a judge force that player to >>>make a deal to keep him or her in the game and try >>>to win the game? >> >>No. The rules cannot force a player to enter into a deal >>since, as above, the rules do not enforce deals. > > Therefore, it seems that judges should not take deals into > account to determine a player's chances to win, since they > are not enforced by the rules. OK. So the judge cannot force a deal. We agree. [ quoted text not captured ]

A related question: Let's say I have extremely low chances of getting a single VP (I don't want to say zero, but it's extremely unlikely.) If I struggle to stay alive, my grandpredator will almost certainly oust my predator, and then easily oust me, and get the table win. In that situation, can I choose to oust myself (thus helping my predator live), with the goal of preventing anyone from getting a table win? Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] If you can convince the judge that doing so doesn't reduce your chances of getting more VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: > If you can convince the judge that doing so doesn't reduce your > chances of getting more VPs. The play-to-win rule has about as much teeth as the average UN Resolution (whoo! hooo! asbestos underwear: ON!). It's great as a general reminder of what should be the proper spirit of the game, but would-be judges looking to it to help decide when to put someone else's game on remote control are wasting their time. Any deck, any deck at all, could have a single copy of Dramatic Upheaval. Any player could claim to be throwing a game, only to break whatever seppeku deal he acted like he was making and knife his way into a VP in fantastic Jyhad style. Only after the fact, after the game is over, can you look back and decide whether someone was playing to win or not, if even then. It will be too late to affect the game in question, but you could always warn/admonish/decapitate the player anyway, and that may affect future games. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b6rv29$8e6ma$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, it is important to Damnan's argument to make the point that, since the rules state nothing about deals, the correct answer would have to be, "No. He is free to do whatever he wishes, within the scope of the rules." ;) > > Flux Kevin M. "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03040...@petite.mc.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] This "ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" attitude is called the "Josh Duffin Defense", and is most often used to remove nearly all deal-making within the game structure. I haven't seen it used in this way, however, and it is quite interesting! "Any deck, any deck at all, could have a single copy of Dramatic Upheaval." Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to look through every card in every deck, if necessary. So do it. I've done this *twice* at Origins, each time because a deal hinged on it. "Any player could claim to be throwing a game, only to break whatever seppeku deal he acted like he was making and knife his way into a VP in fantastic Jyhad style." Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to take the "crazy Malkavian" player aside and ask him what the hell he is doing. So do it. At Origins last year, I was *forced* to stop the finals of a tournament to take a player aside who, between what he was saying and what was in his hand and in play, had utterly confused me (as the judge). I took him 50 feet away from the play area, he gave me a 15-second explanation which had to do somewhat with his BSing ability (which I will not relate here), and I was *completely* convinced of what was happening. "Only after the fact, after the game is over, can you look back and decide whether someone was playing to win or not, if even then." Point: If you have to wait until the game is over to become unconfused, or to settle whatever issue(s) you have with what is happening within the game structure, you haven't fully done your job as the judge. *When it becomes necessary*, don't be afraid to take an active role in the game! p.s. Nice UN comment, there... ;) LMAO! > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu Kevin M. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: >> p.s. Nice UN comment, there... ;) LMAO! > > Yeah! Stoooopid U.N. Who needs 'em? =P yeah. and trivial comments about politics in a games newsgroup,who needs them too ?

>This "ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" attitude is >called the "Josh Duffin Defense", and is most often used to remove >nearly all deal-making within the game structure. I haven't seen it >used in this way, however, and it is quite interesting! > If it makes you feel better, I did manage to get Josh to back down slightly. See: From: Joshua Duffin jtdu...@yahoo.com) Subject: Re: [LSJ] Is a Judge required/allowed to rule on the details of a Succubus Club deal? Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Date: 2003-03-18 09:06:09 PST "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030317233543...@mb-fh.aol.com... [Joel aka Yoritomo Jiriki wrote] > >This came up during the tournament we held last Sunday, Muricia's > >Call: Castro Valley. There was some debate when a Methuselah who had > >no minions on the table and not enough pool to bring another out, made > >a deal to exchange his bleed cards with his grand-predator who had a > >Succubus Club in play. The Methuselah's predator called the judge to > >question the deal stating that the Methuselah wasn't getting any > >benefit from it and was just out to delay the game and the > >Methuselah's impending ouster (not his exact words mind you). > *** I suppose at this point, Josh or Trey might pipe in and state that the > player still has a chance of winning. Like if someone decides to call 3 Parity > Shifts to give you pool. Or you somehow manage to get a vampire by bidding via > HT, ToGP, or Time Auction. Or someone decides to oust your prey for you. But, > fanciful theoreticals aside, you've pretty much lost. OK, when you're in an "I'm at the mercy of the table to even try to keep me alive, let alone ever have a vampire in play" situation, I'll give you the lost cause benefit of the doubt. ;-) I just hate to see people give up far earlier than they need to. Hell, I hate to see people feel like they're in the "I can do nothing except kingmake" situation at all. It's a problem for multiplayer games where players can be removed from contention before they're removed from the game. Josh =P >At Origins last year, I was *forced* to stop the finals of a >tournament to take a player aside who, between what he was saying and >what was in his hand and in play, had utterly confused me (as the >judge). I took him 50 feet away from the play area, he gave me a >15-second explanation which had to do somewhat with his BSing ability >(which I will not relate here), and I was *completely* convinced of what >was happening. Ha ha. I remember hearing about *this*! >p.s. Nice UN comment, there... ;) LMAO! Yeah! Stoooopid U.N. Who needs 'em? =P Halcyan 2

Kevin M. wrote: > Actually, it is important to Damnan's argument to make the point that, > since the rules state nothing about deals, the correct answer would have > to be, "No. He is free to do whatever he wishes, within the scope of the > rules." ;) No. The player is specifically allowed to honor a legally-made deal even if the "must play to win" rule would oblige the player to take some other course of action in the absence of the deal. This means that his action (honoring the deal, when breaking the deal would increase his VPs) is outside the scope of the deal-blind rules. It is still legal to honor a legally-made deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 07:58:36 -0400, LSJ wrote: >No. The player is specifically allowed to honor a legally-made >deal even if the "must play to win" rule would oblige the player to >take some other course of action in the absence of the deal. This >means that his action (honoring the deal, when breaking the deal >would increase his VPs) is outside the scope of the deal-blind >rules. It is still legal to honor a legally-made deal. Given that the rules of the game are "deal-blind", as you say, then I take it that your comments about legality relate to VEKN tournaments and not the game in general. But the VEKN tournament rules don't say anything about deals any more than the rules of VTES do. The blind leading the blind ... Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 07:58:36 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >>No. The player is specifically allowed to honor a legally-made >>deal even if the "must play to win" rule would oblige the player to >>take some other course of action in the absence of the deal. This >>means that his action (honoring the deal, when breaking the deal >>would increase his VPs) is outside the scope of the deal-blind >>rules. It is still legal to honor a legally-made deal. > > > Given that the rules of the game are "deal-blind", as you say, then I No. I used "deal-blind" as an adjective to identify the alternate rules set in question. To reiterate: If the rules were deal-blind, it would be illegal to keep a deal if breaking the deal meant more VPs, due to the "play to win" rule, as I said. But the rules aren't deal-blind. The rules are deal-aware. They allow a player to keep a legally-made deal, even if doing so would otherwise be a violation of the "play to win" rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Kevin M. wrote: > This "ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" attitude is > called the "Josh Duffin Defense", and is most often used to remove > nearly all deal-making within the game structure. I haven't seen it > used in this way, however, and it is quite interesting! *Wrong*. I'm arguing the exact opposite. In my view, players can make whatever prima facie fooh-YUCKED up deals they want to make and you, as a judge, should keep your nose out of it. > "Any deck, any deck at all, could have a single copy of Dramatic > Upheaval." > Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to look through > every card in every deck, if necessary. So do it. I've done this > *twice* at Origins, each time because a deal hinged on it. I'd be mighty fuckin' hot if you pulled that crap on me. I don't know the exact circumstances you were in, but bluffing is part of the game, and so is deal-breaking. Hell, last night I chumped some guy into not ousting me in return for me "throwing everything I had" at my prey and influencing myself out. He's so used to these guys I played with knobbing each other under the table for the whole game that he just auto-accepted; I *used* that "mah honor is mah bond" crap to my advantage. I ended up keeping the deal due to crappy card flow, but if I'd top-decked into one Domain of Evernight, of which I'd seen *none* the whole game, I could've - and would've - ousted my prey and kept right on rolling. Being a judge doesn't make you telepathic, so all any player has to say about any deal that you find odious is "I'm going to break it." Then what do you do? You won't know he's lying until it's too late, and you may not even know then. All he's got to say is "I tried" or "things changed" and he may actually be telling the truth. Are you going to use your Mad Judge Powerz to say he's not? Hence, no teeth. > "Any player could claim to be throwing a game, only to break whatever > seppeku deal he acted like he was making and knife his way into a VP in > fantastic Jyhad style." > Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to take the > "crazy Malkavian" player aside and ask him what the hell he is doing. > So do it. At Origins last year, I was *forced* to stop the finals of a > tournament to take a player aside who, between what he was saying and > what was in his hand and in play, had utterly confused me (as the > judge). I took him 50 feet away from the play area, he gave me a > 15-second explanation which had to do somewhat with his BSing ability > (which I will not relate here), and I was *completely* convinced of what > was happening. So you stopped the game, he fed you some shit - that *may* even have been the truth - you got your warm fuzzy and trotted him back to the table. Now, what if he'd been some glassy-eyed knuckle-dragger that just mumbled something and picked his nose, cause he's got no social skills. This dude tells you the same thing, only judge ain't got no fuzzy, so this guy's screwed? Give it up. > "Only after the fact, after the game is over, can you look back and > decide whether someone was playing to win or not, if even then." > Point: If you have to wait until the game is over to become unconfused, > or to settle whatever issue(s) you have with what is happening within > the game structure, you haven't fully done your job as the judge. *When > it becomes necessary*, don't be afraid to take an active role in the > game! I'm not afraid to take action when it's necessary, such as when I catch a person cheating (card peekers are more common than you might think), or when play gets belligerent. What I *don't* do, is chuck every notion of epistemilogical honesty out the window and start playing god with the game, because it's not getting cranked out like the algorithm I think it should be. > p.s. Nice UN comment, there... ;) LMAO! Thanks. Nothing personal here, BTW. I think that coffee kicked in. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I saw this, but I'll still give Josh static about his premise, here. I believe Josh's heart is in the right place, but the method used as an ends to this means isn't really valid. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E92DDE2...@white-wolf.com>... > > To reiterate: > > If the rules were deal-blind, it would be illegal to keep a deal > if breaking the deal meant more VPs, due to the "play to win" rule, > as I said. > > But the rules aren't deal-blind. The rules are deal-aware. They > allow a player to keep a legally-made deal, even if doing so > would otherwise be a violation of the "play to win" rule. Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? And basically you can throw the 'play to win' rules right out the window now if all of a sudden you can keep whatever deal you want by these new rules of yours. This is all totally contradictory. Please explain and cite the rules that support this. T

>Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? > >And basically you can throw the 'play to win' rules right out the >window now if all of a sudden you can keep whatever deal you want by >these new rules of yours. > >This is all totally contradictory. Please explain and cite the rules >that support this. Because otherwise, you'd be obligated to break a deal if it could get you more VP's (or a GW) and if everyone was forced to break deals in such situations, practically no deals would ever be made. This has been discussed previously. Halcyan 2

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Kevin M. wrote: >> This "ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" attitude >> is called the "Josh Duffin Defense", and is most often used to remove >> nearly all deal-making within the game structure. I haven't seen it >> used in this way, however, and it is quite interesting! > > *Wrong*. I'm arguing the exact opposite. In my view, players can > make whatever prima facie fooh-YUCKED up deals they want to make and > you, as a judge, should keep your nose out of it. My apologies. I didn't mean that you were arguing *for* what Josh Duffin himself supports, which, as you point out, you're not. I meant that you were arguing with the Defense itself -- that ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME. In your case, you seemed to be saying that anyone can do any *deal* and it can happen at any time. >> "Any deck, any deck at all, could have a single copy of Dramatic >> Upheaval." >> Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to look >> through every card in every deck, if necessary. So do it. I've >> done this *twice* at Origins, each time because a deal hinged on it. > > I'd be mighty fuckin' hot if you pulled that crap on me. I don't > know the exact circumstances you were in, So how then can you say that you'd be hot if you don't know what the circumstances were? :) > but bluffing is part of the > game, and so is deal-breaking. Hell, last night I chumped some guy > into not ousting me in return for me "throwing everything I had" at > my prey and influencing myself out. He's so used to these guys I > played with knobbing each other under the table for the whole game WHOA, interesting out-of-game considerations, there. hehe. > that he just auto-accepted; I *used* that "mah honor is mah bond" > crap to my advantage. I ended up keeping the deal due to crappy card > flow, but if I'd top-decked into one Domain of Evernight, of which > I'd seen *none* the whole game, I could've - and would've - ousted my > prey and kept right on rolling. There aren't enough specifics in your example for me to discuss how it would relate to how I'd have handled it as a Judge, or even if it would have been necessary (and it doesn't sound like it would have been, but I don't know). > Being a judge doesn't make you telepathic, ...which is why you *occasionally* have to resort to other methods. > so all any player has to say about any deal that you find > odious is "I'm going to break it." Then what do you do? > You won't know he's lying until it's too late, and you may not > even know then. All he's got to say is "I tried" or "things changed" > and he may actually be telling the truth. Are you going to use your > Mad Judge Powerz to say he's not? Hence, no teeth. Lying Players notwithstanding, there ARE certain times when you, as a Judge, are forced by the rules (via other players' wish for you to involve yourself in the dispute, of course) to indicate that certain deals aren't allowed. Hopefully that's obvious, and that's all I'm really saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. >> "Any player could claim to be throwing a game, only to break whatever >> seppeku deal he acted like he was making and knife his way into a VP >> in fantastic Jyhad style." >> Point: As a judge, you have the ability to stop the game to take the >> "crazy Malkavian" player aside and ask him what the hell he is doing. >> So do it. At Origins last year, I was *forced* to stop the finals >> of a tournament to take a player aside who, between what he was >> saying and what was in his hand and in play, had utterly confused me >> (as the judge). I took him 50 feet away from the play area, he gave >> me a 15-second explanation which had to do somewhat with his BSing >> ability (which I will not relate here), and I was *completely* >> convinced of what was happening. > > So you stopped the game, he fed you some shit - that *may* even have > been the truth - you got your warm fuzzy and trotted him back to the > table. Now, what if he'd been some glassy-eyed knuckle-dragger that > just mumbled something and picked his nose, cause he's got no social > skills. This dude tells you the same thing, only judge ain't got no > fuzzy, so this guy's screwed? Give it up. I'm confused as to what the "fuzzy" has to do with it. If someone else told me the same thing in the same situation as the player in my example, then that someone else's attitude, his speech patterns, or his body odor wouldn't cause me to come to a different conclusion. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this contradictory argument. :P >> "Only after the fact, after the game is over, can you look back and >> decide whether someone was playing to win or not, if even then." >> Point: If you have to wait until the game is over to become >> unconfused, or to settle whatever issue(s) you have with what is >> happening within the game structure, you haven't fully done your job >> as the judge. *When it becomes necessary*, don't be afraid to take >> an active role in the game! > > I'm not afraid to take action when it's necessary, such as when I > catch a person cheating (card peekers are more common than you might > think), or when play gets belligerent. What I *don't* do, is chuck > every notion of epistemilogical honesty out the window and start > playing god with the game, because it's not getting cranked out like > the algorithm I think it should be. Now, now, you're exaggerating a bit too much, here. When players inform me, the Judge, that they are unable to resolve between themselves whatever dispute(s) they may have, and would I please MAKE a decision for them, that is just about the *only* time that I get involved in their game. I'm perfectly happy to say nothing to anyone for an entire 2 hours, believe me! And how I "think it should be" has very little to do with my decisions, really; since the rules are there to guide me, I don't have to make things up as I go. The only person involved with the game that makes decisions based on how he "thinks it should be" is LSJ, and for the obvious reason(s). > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu Kevin M. [ quoted text not captured ]

talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) wrote in message news:<76d1d5ef.03040...@posting.google.com>... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E92DDE2...@white-wolf.com>... > > > > But the rules aren't deal-blind. The rules are deal-aware. They > > allow a player to keep a legally-made deal, even if doing so > > would otherwise be a violation of the "play to win" rule. > > Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? > > And basically you can throw the 'play to win' rules right out the > window now if all of a sudden you can keep whatever deal you want by > these new rules of yours. If you made a "legal" deal, you can keep it. Illegal deals (such as throwing all your resources to someone via Succubus in a king-maker deal, when it would obviously not enhance your chance at earning VPs) can't be made in the first place.

A bit different situation: i am almost dead, no chances of getting VP's...someone offers me a deal and offers to let me withdraw if i help him... I guess i am not obliged to take this deal (because dealing is not my style or whatever), right? And what if i take the deal, situation does NOT change, but i break the deal anyway, leaving me again in my hopeless position... Am i allowed to break this deal, even if it lowers my chances of VP's? W

>i am almost dead, no chances of getting VP's...someone offers me a >deal and offers to let me withdraw if i help him... > >I guess i am not obliged to take this deal (because dealing is not my >style or whatever), right? Correct. A player cannot be forced to accept or make a deal. >And what if i take the deal, situation does NOT change, but i break >the deal anyway, leaving me again in my hopeless position... > >Am i allowed to break this deal, even if it lowers my chances of VP's? Yes. The rules can not force you to honor or break the terms of a legally made deal. They allow you the option of making a legal deal and allow you the option of honoring a legal deal but that's about the most involved they get. Halcyan 2

Talonz wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E92DDE2...@white-wolf.com>... > >>To reiterate: >> >>If the rules were deal-blind, it would be illegal to keep a deal >>if breaking the deal meant more VPs, due to the "play to win" rule, >>as I said. >> >>But the rules aren't deal-blind. The rules are deal-aware. They >>allow a player to keep a legally-made deal, even if doing so >>would otherwise be a violation of the "play to win" rule. > > Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? They allow you to honor a legally-made deal. > And basically you can throw the 'play to win' rules right out the > window now if all of a sudden you can keep whatever deal you want by > these new rules of yours. Whatever "legally-made" deal you want. If the deal didn't follow the play to win rule when made, it isn't legal. > This is all totally contradictory. Please explain and cite the rules > that support this. [LSJ 8-APR-2003] most recently, as you quoted it above, but also [LSJ 31-MAY-2001] and [LSJ 17-FEB-2003]. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Kevin M. wrote: > My apologies. I didn't mean that you were arguing *for* what Josh > Duffin himself supports, which, as you point out, you're not. I meant > that you were arguing with the Defense itself -- that ANYONE can do > ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME. In your case, you seemed to be > saying that anyone can do any *deal* and it can happen at any time. OK. Sorry, too.... yesterday wasn't my best "reading comprehension day", it seems. > So how then can you say that you'd be hot if you don't know what the > circumstances were? :) That's why I qualified it; if you told the full story, maybe I wouldn't be. I doubt I'd ever be doing anything at the table that would put me in that position. I tend to take a pretty linear approach to the game (KILL PREY). I'll adapt my playstyle, though, if I'm playing, say, with a bunch of guys from LA (gettin' "LA'd" ;) ). > There aren't enough specifics in your example for me to discuss how it > would relate to how I'd have handled it as a Judge, or even if it would > have been necessary (and it doesn't sound like it would have been, but I > don't know). Yeah, my point is that there's nothing there to handle. > Lying Players notwithstanding, there ARE certain times when you, as a > Judge, are forced by the rules (via other players' wish for you to > involve yourself in the dispute, of course) to indicate that certain > deals aren't allowed. Hopefully that's obvious, and that's all I'm > really saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I'm afraid I've inadvertantly narrowed the discussion to one concerning deals. I think my stance applies equally to any in-game "Malkavian" behavior. I understand that judges get called over to make a ruling. My point is that in just about every case, that ruling should be "it's legal; he can do it". Even though you can look at anyone's deck, you can't say that his wacky, piss-the-whole-table-off, problem player behavior isn't his devious path to victory. Until the game's over, that is. Unfortunately, this does allow for some bad players to do some bad things, but I find it preferrable to the alternative. > If someone else told me the same thing in the same situation as the > player in my example, then that someone else's attitude, his speech > patterns, or his body odor wouldn't cause me to come to a different > conclusion. You can say that, but nonetheless, there was some pursuading going on. My view takes out that chunk of subjectivity, because it never gets there. > Now, now, you're exaggerating a bit too much, here. When players inform > me, the Judge, that they are unable to resolve between themselves > whatever dispute(s) they may have, and would I please MAKE a decision > for them, that is just about the *only* time that I get involved in > their game. I'm perfectly happy to say nothing to anyone for an entire > 2 hours, believe me! And how I "think it should be" has very little to > do with my decisions, really; since the rules are there to guide me, I > don't have to make things up as I go. The only person involved with the > game that makes decisions based on how he "thinks it should be" is LSJ, > and for the obvious reason(s). Yeah, and what you say is "it's his game, you can't say he isn't playing to win until he's lost." There are lots of clear rules that the judge can consult and execute based upon an observable, present state. The "play to win" rule isn't one of them. You can't make a ruling on it because: A) Playing to win is an *intention*. You have no way to ascertain what someone's intention is except by their testimony. The problem of testimony is a well-known conundrum in the philosophy of knowledge. B) Just break the phrase down, "play to win". It involves a future state. To really drive it home, that future state requires that the game be over (or maybe that someone's gotten three VP's, if you want to get picky). You can not determine if this future state will follow deterministically from the present state. The closing paragraph of Wittgenstein's Tractatus sums it up nicely: "Of that which you do not know, you must remain silent"[1]. [1] My apologies for introducing first politics, and now philosophy, into a mere gaming group, and within the same thread. I hope certain persons can find it in their hearts to forgive me. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Apr 2003, Jeff Kuta wrote: > If you made a "legal" deal, you can keep it. Illegal deals (such as > throwing all your resources to someone via Succubus in a king-maker > deal, when it would obviously not enhance your chance at earning VPs) > can't be made in the first place. I'll avoid repeating verbatim the response I made to Kevin M., but it's worth applying the general rule to specific examples. How can you say that the player shovelling his whole game across table to another player via the Succubus Club isn't playing to win? Jeff, you are an Assamite player. Are you telling me you are unfamiliar with playing for the 2-1-1 table win? Perhaps the SC owner feels that he can't win with his current predator, but could with the next one up the line, and so he takes steps to ensure that. Is it likely? No. In all likelihood, a spade is a spade. But are you prepared to impoverish the game just to ensure retarded, self-defeating moves cannot be made? As a judge, you'd just be guessing as to what the players are trying to accomplish. Sure, the players left out in the cold of that particular deal are going to be white-hot, and feel that their game has been yanked into Random Land. But is that the criteria you wish to apply when adjudicating deals? Of course not, but that is, in effect, what you are doing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: > Whatever "legally-made" deal you want. If the deal didn't follow the > play to win rule when made, it isn't legal. How do you determine if a deal follows the play to win rule when made? Obviously, my position is that you can't. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: > > >>Whatever "legally-made" deal you want. If the deal didn't follow the >>play to win rule when made, it isn't legal. > > > How do you determine if a deal follows the play to win rule when > made? Obviously, my position is that you can't. You examine the game state and see if making (and honoring) that deal results in a decreased win probability or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: > You examine the game state and see if making (and honoring) that deal > results in a decreased win probability or not. This is the first time I recall seeing the word "probability" in the definition (quick google yielded nothing, as well). Again, I think it is clear what the intent of the play to win rule is; it is good thing when players are mindful of it, and play accordingly. My concern here is that judges may feel honestly obligated to step in and stop gameplay based upon that rule. Couching things in probabilistic language is certainly preferrable to deterministic terms, but it introduces its own problems. How does it resolve the occasional big risk taken for an equally big payoff? It seems like, if a judge were to observe someone making or accepting a deal where that were the case, he would have to disallow it. Is this what you are advocating? Also, most of the criticisms I levelled against the limits of knowledge previously would seem to apply equally to our knowledge of that probability. I'm not suggesting that we, as judges, curl up in a fetal ball on the couch and bemoan that we know nothing, but I think it is better to not perturb an opaque system. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03040...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > > But are you > prepared to impoverish the game just to ensure retarded, self-defeating > moves cannot be made? Of course! Isn't that what was done when (D) bleeds were (re) ruled to only be usable against your prey unless they specified otherwise? Most people, being used to the "random land" they live in, would probably not want to see the same kind of restrictions applied to Bum's Rush, Arson, Kine Resources Contested, Hostile Takeover, etc etc etc. But doing so would certainly make for a less "random" game. It's true that a lot of the richness we like in multiplayer games (eg VTES) comes from the cross-table interaction. But too much cross-table interaction tends to result in kingmaking (or at least the too-easy possibility of kingmaking). I've probably harped on this dilemma before, but it's never going to go away. My current theory is that this is fine for VTES as far as it goes, but it makes it impossible for VTES to be played in a truly hardcore competitive setting. It's just too random, on the one hand, and too kingmakey on the other. In other words, why can't we all just get along, play "to win" but "for fun", and use our sense of good sportsmanship to avoid kingmaking behavior whenever possible? ;-) Josh this is, naturally, also why vtes should never be a "money" game...

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:ZzDka.19$%X5.4@fed1read03... > Yes, I saw this, but I'll still give Josh static about his premise, > here. I believe Josh's heart is in the right place, but the method used > as an ends to this means isn't really valid. :) What method is that, exactly? I just find kingmaking repugnant and am unhappy with any rules set that not only allows but justifies such behavior. Josh there's probably no way to escape it in VTES, but still...

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:_NNka.236$%X5.48@fed1read03... > > And how I "think it should be" has very little to > do with my decisions, really; since the rules are there to guide me, I > don't have to make things up as I go. The only person involved with the > game that makes decisions based on how he "thinks it should be" is LSJ, > and for the obvious reason(s). I don't think that's exactly accurate. The judging guidelines are just that, guidelines. The judge's job is to use his or her judgement to apply them as appropriate. Determining what's appropriate is certainly up to "how you think it should be". Josh feels strange being so terse

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: >>You examine the game state and see if making (and honoring) that deal >>results in a decreased win probability or not. > > This is the first time I recall seeing the word "probability" in the > definition (quick google yielded nothing, as well). Try the plural: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D949E8A.6EAC9DF4%40white-wolf.com Also, I've used "chance" on several occasions before, meaning the same thing. > Again, I think it is clear what the intent of the play to win rule is; it > is good thing when players are mindful of it, and play accordingly. My > concern here is that judges may feel honestly obligated to step in and > stop gameplay based upon that rule. > > Couching things in probabilistic language is certainly preferrable to > deterministic terms, but it introduces its own problems. How does it > resolve the occasional big risk taken for an equally big payoff? It seems > like, if a judge were to observe someone making or accepting a deal where > that were the case, he would have to disallow it. Is this what you are > advocating? Also, most of the criticisms I levelled against the limits of No. Big risk for big payoff is equivalent to low risk for low payoff. > knowledge previously would seem to apply equally to our knowledge of that > probability. I'm not suggesting that we, as judges, curl up in a fetal > ball on the couch and bemoan that we know nothing, but I think it is > better to not perturb an opaque system. Yes. I've been down that argument before. See the link above. Summary: the judge should make rulings based on reasonable expectations. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: > Yes. I've been down that argument before. Apparently we both have. Next time I'll search on "things I'm likely to reply to." [ quoted text not captured ]

> If you can convince the judge that doing so doesn't reduce your > chances of getting more VPs. Ousting myself will always decrease my chances of getting more VPs, since there's always a chance some player will decide to help me out. I think the rule above should be changed to "significantly reduce your chances..." I should be able to sacrifice a 0.01% chance of getting a VP in exchange for an X % chance of preventing a Table Win, where X is some significant number, like 10 or higher. Ira

Ira wrote: >>If you can convince the judge that doing so doesn't reduce your >>chances of getting more VPs. > > Ousting myself will always decrease my chances of getting more VPs, > since there's always a chance some player will decide to help me out. That's true even if you attempt to oust yourself, so the argument doesn't hold. Transfer your last pool to an uncontrolled vampire, someone could still Life Boon you. > I think the rule above should be changed to "significantly reduce your > chances..." "Reasonably" is already a part of it. > I should be able to sacrifice a 0.01% chance of getting a VP in > exchange for an X % chance of preventing a Table Win, where X is some > significant number, like 10 or higher. Since the judge cannot fix hard numbers like that, that are not useful in practice. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, LSJ wrote: >> >> >>>Whatever "legally-made" deal you want. If the deal didn't follow the >>>play to win rule when made, it isn't legal. >> >> >> How do you determine if a deal follows the play to win rule when >> made? Obviously, my position is that you can't. > You examine the game state and see if making (and honoring) that deal > results in a decreased win probability or not. The problem with this whole thing is that you're basing a *rule* on forcing someone to justify their own personal judgment call. If someone is not very good with strategy, and they see their situation as hopeless, and they do something like oust themselves because they "know" they are out of it, then by the rules, someone could call over a judge and question this move. And if the *other* player (or judge) can justify to the judge "Well, if *I* were in that situation, I could have seen something different and not made that play," you can force the player not to do that, but that's no better than playing the game for him. I think "play to win" is better suited for an "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalty floor rule, than forcing people to make decisions they couldn't have made themselves in-game. But similar to the way that you put in "game wins" to fix some issues, there may be another way to force "play to win", as defined by the rules, in a more rule-ish manner. I have no idea if I'm making sense here...

Jozxyqk wrote: > I think "play to win" is better suited for an "unsportsmanlike conduct" > penalty floor rule, than forcing people to make decisions they couldn't have > made themselves in-game. Same effect. If someone plays unsportsmanlikely, then they receive a penalty and, if the infraction affected the game, then the effect of the infraction on the game is undone as much as possible and set aright as much as possible. If that involves making ejecting them from the playing area and setting up a "proxy" position to finish out their game (becuase, for example, they refuse to play according to the rules), so be it. Most players are able to accept rulings from the judge without resorting to that, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: >> I think "play to win" is better suited for an "unsportsmanlike conduct" >> penalty floor rule, than forcing people to make decisions they couldn't have >> made themselves in-game. > Same effect. > If someone plays unsportsmanlikely, then they receive a penalty and, if the > infraction affected the game, then the effect of the infraction on the game > is undone as much as possible and set aright as much as possible. If that > involves making ejecting them from the playing area and setting up a "proxy" > position to finish out their game (becuase, for example, they refuse to play > according to the rules), so be it. Most players are able to accept rulings > from the judge without resorting to that, however. But all I'm saying is, you can't force someone to play the game differently, if they actually legitimately thought their action was the best one.

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:ZzDka.19$%X5.4@fed1read03... > >> Yes, I saw this, but I'll still give Josh static about his premise, >> here. I believe Josh's heart is in the right place, but the method >> used as an ends to this means isn't really valid. :) > > What method is that, exactly? The method where you (and others) say that, since "ANYONE can do ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" there's always a chance, no matter how ridiculously small, you can *almost never* effectively make a deal to divvy up VPs. > I just find kingmaking repugnant and am unhappy with any rules > set that not only allows but justifies such behavior. Oh, I find it repugnant as well. I just don't believe that as much dealmaking is kingmaking as you do. That's all. > Josh > > there's probably no way to escape it in VTES, but still... Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, you can. The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. That is impossible. The judge is asked to evaluate the game state. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E940B5D...@white-wolf.com>... Ok thanks for the citations, reading the last two helped immensely. I can say that I understand it now but have a few problems. > > Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? > > They allow you to honor a legally-made deal. > The rules don't allow or disallow anything in terms of deals. These rulings you have made do. There is a distinction between the two. I would suggest making sure there is a section in the next rulesbook printing to cover these areas, or at the very least the VEKN rules and online rulings collection. I think however this passage is disturbing; From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) Subject: Re: LSJ - Tournament Question Date: 2001-06-09 19:53:07 PST "If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that could be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would leave you with fewer than 2 VPs." There should be no way that this kind of deal can be supported under the 'play to win' rule. Clearly the player getting 2 vps will not win, and therefore the deal is illegal. It was exactly this kind of dealmaking that prompted the gamewin change in the first place. Obviouslly if the deal was to give each player 2 vps and then play for the final vp that would qualify under the playtowin rule and certianly be more preferable from a simple fair-play point of view. T

Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I think however this passage is disturbing; > > From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) > Subject: Re: LSJ - Tournament Question > Date: 2001-06-09 19:53:07 PST > "If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that > could be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would > leave you with fewer than 2 VPs." > > There should be no way that this kind of deal can be supported under > the 'play to win' rule. It is supported. See the ruling you missed, below. > Clearly the player getting 2 vps will not > win, and therefore the deal is illegal. It is legal. See the ruling you missed, below. > It was exactly this kind of > dealmaking that prompted the gamewin change in the first place. > Obviouslly if the deal was to give each player 2 vps and then play for > the final vp that would qualify under the playtowin rule and certianly > be more preferable from a simple fair-play point of view. You forgot this ruling by LSJ: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CC9585D.5A1CDD9F%40white-wolf.com "Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then one is free to choose from among those paths. If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, then one is free to choose. If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is '0 more than currently acquired', then one is free to acquire those 0 more VPs in any manner one wishes." > > T [ quoted text not captured ]

Talonz wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E940B5D...@white-wolf.com>... > Ok thanks for the citations, reading the last two helped immensely. I > can say that I understand it now but have a few problems. > >>>Wha? How are the rules 'deal-aware'? >>They allow you to honor a legally-made deal. > > The rules don't allow or disallow anything in terms of deals. These > rulings you have made do. There is a distinction between the two. I As has been covered, yes. > would suggest making sure there is a section in the next rulesbook > printing to cover these areas, or at the very least the VEKN rules and > online rulings collection. > > I think however this passage is disturbing; > From: LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) > Subject: Re: LSJ - Tournament Question > Date: 2001-06-09 19:53:07 PST > "If you make a deal to get 2 (and help another player get 3), that > could > be acceptable if your alternative (not making the deal) would leave > you > with fewer than 2 VPs." > > There should be no way that this kind of deal can be supported under > the 'play to win' rule. Clearly the player getting 2 vps will not > win, and therefore the deal is illegal. It was exactly this kind of That player *not* making the deal also has no way to get more than 2 VPs, so will not win, so therefore, by your logic, every decision he could possibly make is illegal. That is not the case. The "play to win" rule obliges him to maximize his VPs (since he cannot win). Making the deal is one way to do so, so it is allowed. > dealmaking that prompted the gamewin change in the first place. > Obviouslly if the deal was to give each player 2 vps and then play for > the final vp that would qualify under the playtowin rule and certianly > be more preferable from a simple fair-play point of view. > > T -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> But all I'm saying is, you can't force someone to play the game differently, >> if they actually legitimately thought their action was the best one. > Yes, you can. > The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. > That is impossible. > The judge is asked to evaluate the game state. Couldn't there could be a less subjective way to make a rule that upholds the concept behind the "play-to-win" rule, but is easier to judge? Like the way you knocked down table-splitting with the Game Win rule, rather than the "out-of-game-consideration" rule, which is hard to make a call on. I don't know what that rule could be, but I'd like to see something that lets the "bad player" be punished only by his own bad playing, and not by forcing him to keep playing a game he's given up on. While still punishing those who deliberately self-oust for personal gain or kingmaking.

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:gcdla.425486$S_4.492886@rwcrnsc53... > Couldn't there could be a less subjective way to make a rule that > upholds the concept behind the "play-to-win" rule, but is easier to judge? > Like the way you knocked down table-splitting with the Game Win rule, rather > than the "out-of-game-consideration" rule, which is hard to make a call on. > > I don't know what that rule could be, but I'd like to see something that > lets the "bad player" be punished only by his own bad playing, and not by > forcing him to keep playing a game he's given up on. > While still punishing those who deliberately self-oust for personal gain > or kingmaking. I was thinking about this issue earlier, and the possibility occurred to me of only counting VPs for the winners of games. This would make tournament scoring even more heavily weighted toward winning games (since you'd get very little benefit from VPs in games you don't win). The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for players who didn't win any games.) Plus the fact that some people would probably be pissed off by being told that second place doesn't count for anything. ;-) Josh maybe someone else can come up with a better idea?

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:hr4la.943$%X5.690@fed1read03... > You forgot this ruling by LSJ: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CC9585D.5A1CDD9F%40white-wolf.com > > "Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then > one is free to choose from among those paths. > > If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there > are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, > then one is free to choose. > > If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is '0 more > than currently acquired', then one is free to acquire those 0 > more VPs in any manner one wishes." It's worth remembering, though, that LSJ's position (as I read it) is that this only rarely applies to actual games. He has often acknowledged that if you can't possibly win, you can make losing deals, but the hypotheticals people persist in bringing up on the newsgroup tend to *postulate* that a position is lost rather than involve actual situations. "As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting)." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D89EC50.3016944A%40white-wolf.com "If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com Josh do you like apples? well, how do you like *them* apples? ;-)

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:u_1la.862$%X5.142@fed1read03... [snip] > The method where you (and others) say that, since "ANYONE can do > ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" there's always a chance, no > matter how ridiculously small, you can *almost never* effectively make a > deal to divvy up VPs. I don't think that's quite what I want to say. What I want to say is, since there is a non-negligible possibility of winning up until your position is so weak that you have almost no influence on the game, you shouldn't be willing (or able) to make non-winning deals while you still have the forces to disrupt the game by doing so. > > I just find kingmaking repugnant and am unhappy with any rules > > set that not only allows but justifies such behavior. > > Oh, I find it repugnant as well. I just don't believe that as much > dealmaking is kingmaking as you do. That's all. Hmm. It seems to me that any time you agree to help someone else win in exchange for help coming in second (or sometimes even third), you're kingmaking. You don't see it that way? Josh king without a throne

>> I don't know what that rule could be, but I'd like to see something that >> lets the "bad player" be punished only by his own bad playing, and not by >> forcing him to keep playing a game he's given up on. >> While still punishing those who deliberately self-oust for personal gain >> or kingmaking. > >I was thinking about this issue earlier, and the possibility >occurred to me of only counting VPs for the winners of games. >This would make tournament scoring even more heavily weighted >toward winning games (since you'd get very little benefit from >VPs in games you don't win). > >The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces >the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with >the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the >games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for >players who didn't win any games.) > >Plus the fact that some people would probably be pissed off by >being told that second place doesn't count for anything. ;-) > > >Josh > >maybe someone else can come up with a better idea? There are several cases where I can see someone not playing to win. In no particular order - Collusion (or the equivalent): Obviously undesirable. Your proposal would have minimal effect as the colluders would just focus on manipulating TWs to the exclusion of everything else. Putting the tournament before the games: I don't have any problem with this. But, if you really want to encourage people to focus on each individual game, dole out prizes based on TWs rather than making the finals. Or, play single round tournaments. No? Then maybe playing to each game instead of the tournament isn't that important? Spite/despair/etc.: This is annoying, but I don't see it having a lot of effect. Sure, within a given tournament, the throwing of a game can be important. But, it tends to be random in who it hurts (much like, say, seating order) and over time, the better players will do better than the worse players. Random game element: Also annoying but where anyone can be frustrated to the point of giving up on a game (previous category), random game elements should be kept away from tournaments. Can probably do this by putting a heftier price on playing in the tournament effectively forcing them to pay everyone else for their selfish desires since they won't be as likely to score prizes. Whatever scoring system you have in place isn't going to mean anything to these people. Besides competing and trying to score prizes, I can't think of a reason to play in tournaments. The people into competing should be playing to win because, uh, that's what competing means. The people trying to score prizes, their behavior can be manipulated by the prize distribution scheme. Rules against cheating (which I don't think not playing to win falls under) cover, uh, cheating.

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b740r8$aknst$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > news:gcdla.425486$S_4.492886@rwcrnsc53... > > The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces > the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with > the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the > games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for > players who didn't win any games.) > > Plus the fact that some people would probably be pissed off by > being told that second place doesn't count for anything. ;-) It'd sure cut down on deals where you "split a table."

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.03041...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b740r8$aknst$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces > > the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with > > the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the > > games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for > > players who didn't win any games.) > > > > Plus the fact that some people would probably be pissed off by > > being told that second place doesn't count for anything. ;-) > > It'd sure cut down on deals where you "split a table." Yes, that's kind of what I was going for. :-) Whether that's a good thing or not is somewhat a matter of taste, of course. Josh i'd like you to split the table... right down the middle

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:u_1la.862$%X5.142@fed1read03... > > [snip] > >> The method where you (and others) say that, since "ANYONE can do >> ANYTHING and it can happen at ANY TIME" there's always a chance, no >> matter how ridiculously small, you can *almost never* effectively >> make a deal to divvy up VPs. > > I don't think that's quite what I want to say. What I want to > say is, since there is a non-negligible possibility of winning > up until your position is so weak that you have almost no > influence on the game, you shouldn't be willing (or able) to > make non-winning deals while you still have the forces to > disrupt the game by doing so. OK, I'll give a little bit here. It *may* be that I am entering into (as a player) and allowing (as a judge) Victory Point deals a *bit* too early, when my or whichever players' position isn't weak enough that they have lost the ability to achieve a Game Win. There. I said it. =) >> > I just find kingmaking repugnant and am unhappy with any rules >> > set that not only allows but justifies such behavior. >> >> Oh, I find it repugnant as well. I just don't believe that as much >> dealmaking is kingmaking as you do. That's all. > > Hmm. It seems to me that any time you agree to help someone > else win in exchange for help coming in second (or sometimes > even third), you're kingmaking. You don't see it that way? Not only do *I* not see it that way, the rules don't, either. ASSUMING that the deal that I am entering into or allowing has been made at the "appropriate" time -- meaning that I no longer have the chance for a Game Win, and I'm therefore dealing for VPs only -- the rules (ruling) state that, "If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can get, then one is free to choose." Assuming the deal I'm entering into -- which may or may not allow someone other than me to achieve the Game Win -- maximizes my VPs, then it's perfectly valid. > Josh > > king without a throne Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:hr4la.943$%X5.690@fed1read03... > >> You forgot this ruling by LSJ: >> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CC9585D.5A1CDD9F%40white-wolf.com >> >> "Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, then >> one is free to choose from among those paths. >> >> If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. If >> there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs one can >> get, then one is free to choose. >> >> If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is '0 more >> than currently acquired', then one is free to acquire those 0 >> more VPs in any manner one wishes." > > It's worth remembering, though, that LSJ's position (as I read it) > is that this only rarely applies to actual games. He has often > acknowledged that if you can't possibly win, you can make losing > deals, but the hypotheticals people persist in bringing up on the > newsgroup tend to *postulate* that a position is lost rather than > involve actual situations. > > "As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" > position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting)." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D89EC50.3016944A%40white-wolf.com I'm not sure whether or not LSJ was talking about a 'Game Win'-lost position or a 'Victory Point'-lost position. It sounds like he was talking about a position that is *totally* lost, i.e. not able to achieve any additional VPs, and that's not what I'm talking about. My argument refers to a position that can no longer achieve a Game Win, but *most likely* can achieve additional VPs. > "If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a > losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you > cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com Again, I'm not sure what LSJ is talking about when he says "...unless you cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." If he's talking about how it is rare that you are ever in a position where you cannot achieve a Game Win, he's smoking some SERIOUS crack. And since it does sound like that is what he was saying, I have no idea how to comment. :) It may be *difficult* or *time consuming* to determine if the "non-Game Win" player in a Game Win/non-Game Win split is truly in a position where he is unable to achieve a Game Win, but under no circumstances, in my playgroup and tournament experience, do I see it as being an impossible task. > Josh > > do you like apples? > well, how do you like *them* apples? > ;-) Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier An apple a day keeps Josh Duffin away? ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] A practical reason why this system wouldn't be well received is the fact that, since you've effectively eliminated VPs as what determines the tiebreakers, you have just reduced one of the most important parts of the tournament down to a die roll (or rolls). :P > Josh > > i'd like you to split the table... right down the middle Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Hmm. It seems to me that any time you agree to help someone >>else win in exchange for help coming in second (or sometimes >>even third), you're kingmaking. You don't see it that way? > > > Not only do *I* not see it that way, the rules don't, either. > > ASSUMING that the deal that I am entering into or allowing has been made > at the "appropriate" time -- meaning that I no longer have the chance > for a Game Win, and I'm therefore dealing for VPs only -- the rules > (ruling) state that, "If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize > one's VPs. If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs > one can get, then one is free to choose." Assuming the deal I'm > entering into -- which may or may not allow someone other than me to > achieve the Game Win -- maximizes my VPs, then it's perfectly valid. Being legal doesn't mean it's not kingmaking. :) Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess what I was trying to say there was that, because it's legal, and especially *why* it's legal, I don't see it as kingmaking. > > Flux [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E954C16...@white-wolf.com>... > That is not the case. The "play to win" rule obliges him to maximize his > VPs (since he cannot win). Making the deal is one way to do so, so it is > allowed. > I guess we looked at the 2/3vp deal situation differently. Is it safe to say then that it is nearly impossible for a player to make this deal as he must have satisfied the 'must play to win, if not must maximize vp' stipulation? It had seemed to me at first that you were allowing flat out 2/3 splits at any point and that startled me. T

Kevin M. wrote: > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:621dd332.03041...@posting.google.com... >> >>>"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>news:<b740r8$aknst$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... >> >>>>The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces >>>>the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with >>>>the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the >>>>games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for >>>>players who didn't win any games.) >>>> >>>>Plus the fact that some people would probably be pissed off by >>>>being told that second place doesn't count for anything. ;-) >>> >>>It'd sure cut down on deals where you "split a table." >> >>Yes, that's kind of what I was going for. :-) Whether that's a >>good thing or not is somewhat a matter of taste, of course. > > > A practical reason why this system wouldn't be well received is the fact > that, since you've effectively eliminated VPs as what determines the > tiebreakers, you have just reduced one of the most important parts of > the tournament down to a die roll (or rolls). :P At current tournaments, yes. But if the number of rounds and/or players is increased, then all finalist positions could be determined without using die rolls. 'Winning' has a range of 2-5 VPs, so a reasonable distribution can still be expected with enough rounds. Also, you could introduce some other type of tie breaker. A couple of options: - VPs gained with no GW become the second tie-breaker, after GWs and VPs won with a GW - thus encouraging players who win to make a many VPs as possible with their GW, but still giving some weight to 'loser VPs'. - second tie breaker is number of VPs not made by the winner at each table. So 2nd place is as good as 5th. Doesn't really reduce the incentive for table-splits though (it just changes the reasoning for doing it, and non-dealing players won't be as pissed off at it). Flux

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b741ni$aqh20$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:hr4la.943$%X5.690@fed1read03... > <snip> > > "If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a > losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you > cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com > How is the "with intention of honoring it" enforced? How is a judge to know what the player's intentions are? Tell me it isn't to "ask them"? Seems like that might give away a little too much strategy to the the rest of the table. Of course, there is LSJ's comment: >> But all I'm saying is, you can't force someone to play the game differently, >> if they actually legitimately thought their action was the best one. >Yes, you can. >The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. >That is impossible. >The judge is asked to evaluate the game state." http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl960003675d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3E94AF7D.5030109%40white-wolf.com (hope i did that right) So, does the judge just assume that every deal is entered into with the intention of honoring it (and judge accordingly)? -Scrote [ quoted text not captured ]

Talonz wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E954C16...@white-wolf.com>... >>That is not the case. The "play to win" rule obliges him to maximize his >>VPs (since he cannot win). Making the deal is one way to do so, so it is >>allowed. > I guess we looked at the 2/3vp deal situation differently. Is it safe > to say then that it is nearly impossible for a player to make this > deal as he must have satisfied the 'must play to win, if not must > maximize vp' stipulation? He must play to win and, if not able to win, must play to maximize his VPs, as stated, yes. > It had seemed to me at first that you were allowing flat out 2/3 > splits at any point and that startled me. When startled, the best response is to read it again and see if a non-startling reading can be had. [ quoted text not captured ]

scrote wrote: >>"If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a >>losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you >>cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." >> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com >> > How is the "with intention of honoring it" enforced? It isn't. Making deals is regulated. The player's intentions are not. You are not allowed to make a losing deal (i.e., to make a deal that, if honored, would violate the play to win rule) unless you don't plan on honoring it. The trick there is to find a player willing to make the deal with you when you cannot legally honor the deal. > How is a judge to know what the player's intentions are? Tell me it > isn't to "ask them"? Seems like that might give away a little too much > strategy to the the rest of the table. No. When the losing deal is offered and the judge is called over and he determines that it is a losing deal (regardless of the intentions of the players), then he can rule that the player can only make the deal if he intends to break it. > So, does the judge just assume that every deal is entered into with > the intention of honoring it (and judge accordingly)? No. Deals can be made with the intention to break. In that case, however, there is no repreive from the "play to win" rule when it comes to potentially honoring the deal. If a deal is made such that the honoring is legal, then it can be honored even if, when the time comes to pay the piper, the play to win rule would dictate otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Apr 2003, scrote wrote: > How is the "with intention of honoring it" enforced? > > How is a judge to know what the player's intentions are? Tell me it > isn't to "ask them"? Seems like that might give away a little too much > strategy to the the rest of the table. This is my big concern with judges "forcing" play. > >Yes, you can. > > >The judge is not asked to determine what the player is thinking. > >That is impossible. > >The judge is asked to evaluate the game state." I think it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by "game state". Are we talking about a complete description of the game at a given moment in time? That's what I would assume we mean, but then it doesn't make any sense to evaluate the legality of an act, based upon that act's future consequences, but also only based upon what we can assess at this moment. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:20:45 -0400, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >I think it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by "game state". Are >we talking about a complete description of the game at a given moment in >time? I had simply thought that is referred to any and all available public information. No more, no less. Then again, IANALSJ. :) Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] Any and all public and private in-game information. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Xian wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:20:45 -0400, David Cherryholmes >> <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >>>I think it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by "game state". Are >>>we talking about a complete description of the game at a given moment in >>>time? >> >> >> I had simply thought that is referred to any and all available public >> information. No more, no less. > Any and all public and private in-game information. How are all players supposed to know the private in-game information of the other Methuselahs, when making decisions about whether or not their action is "playing to win"?

[ quoted text not captured ] They don't. Nor do they need to. We're not talking about players. We're talking about judges. The judge can know. She can look. She can use that information in making a judgment. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>Xian wrote: >>>>On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:20:45 -0400, David Cherryholmes >>>><david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: >>>>>I think it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by "game state". Are >>>>>we talking about a complete description of the game at a given moment in >>>>>time? >>>> >>>>I had simply thought that is referred to any and all available public >>>>information. No more, no less. >> >>>Any and all public and private in-game information. >> >> How are all players supposed to know the private in-game information of >> the other Methuselahs, when making decisions about whether or not their >> action is "playing to win"? > They don't. Nor do they need to. We're not talking about players. We're > talking about judges. > The judge can know. She can look. She can use that information in making a > judgment. But the judgment is about an action taken by a player who didn't have access to that information. How can you say "You couldn't make this deal because of something you didn't know about"?

Jozxyqk wrote: > But the judgment is about an action taken by a player who didn't have access > to that information. How can you say "You couldn't make this deal because > of something you didn't know about"? The judge makes the decision as to whether to not the deal represents that player playing to win based on what that player knows. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:MMmla.2491$%X5.1464@fed1read03... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "As I've often said, it is nearly impossible to be in a truly "lost" > > position (except for the moments leading up to your ousting)." > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D89EC50.3016944A%40white-wolf.com > > I'm not sure whether or not LSJ was talking about a 'Game Win'-lost > position or a 'Victory Point'-lost position. It sounds like he was > talking about a position that is *totally* lost, i.e. not able to > achieve any additional VPs, and that's not what I'm talking about. My > argument refers to a position that can no longer achieve a Game Win, but > *most likely* can achieve additional VPs. My argument - and honestly (although the man is a bit enigmatic :-) I do think that LSJ is closer to my position than not - is that most of the time, a position that has a significant chance of achieving additional VPs also has an undismissable chance of achieving the game win. > > "If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a > > losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you > > cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com > > Again, I'm not sure what LSJ is talking about when he says "...unless > you cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." If he's talking about how it is > rare that you are ever in a position where you cannot achieve a Game > Win, he's smoking some SERIOUS crack. And since it does sound like that > is what he was saying, I have no idea how to comment. :) I think the comment is obvious: LSJ agrees with me, people should only rarely be allowed to make deals assuming that they have no chance to achieve the game win, nyah nyah nyah. ;-) Mmm, tasty crack.... > It may be *difficult* or *time consuming* to determine if the "non-Game > Win" player in a Game Win/non-Game Win split is truly in a position > where he is unable to achieve a Game Win, but under no circumstances, in > my playgroup and tournament experience, do I see it as being an > impossible task. Not impossible, perhaps, but impractical verging on unknowable, I might say. I reiterate that, if you have enough "position" on your side (eg in-game assets) to be able to make deals that involve you getting any non-zero amount of additional VPs, you will almost always also have enough positional strength to have a non- negligible chance of winning the game outright. > An apple a day keeps Josh Duffin away? ;) It might... if you have good aim. ;-) Josh four and twenty apples baked in a pie

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:qPmla.2493$%X5.1370@fed1read03... > >> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:<b740r8$aknst$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > > > >> > The problem with that, of course, is that it seriously reduces > >> > the amount of tiebreaking ability we have between players with > >> > the same number of game wins. (How many VPs they got in the > >> > games they won, if they won any, still exists, but not for > >> > players who didn't win any games.) > > A practical reason why this system wouldn't be well received is the fact > that, since you've effectively eliminated VPs as what determines the > tiebreakers, you have just reduced one of the most important parts of > the tournament down to a die roll (or rolls). :P Well yeah, that's what I was talking about when I described the problem above. ;-) The *most* important part of the tournament is already winning games. Making it even more so might be worthwhile, at least in my opinion. If there's a good way to do it. :-) Josh everybody's postin' for the weekend

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Tzmla.2488$%X5.2067@fed1read03... > OK, I'll give a little bit here. It *may* be that I am entering into > (as a player) and allowing (as a judge) Victory Point deals a *bit* too > early, when my or whichever players' position isn't weak enough that > they have lost the ability to achieve a Game Win. > > There. I said it. =) It takes a big man to admit to misjudgements... And it takes an even bigger man to point and laugh at him. ;-) (I kid because I love...) > Assuming the deal I'm > entering into -- which may or may not allow someone other than me to > achieve the Game Win -- maximizes my VPs, then it's perfectly valid. As Flux pointed out, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not kingmaking. As I understand it, "kingmaking" is taking actions that help some other player win the game rather than yourself. This behavior isn't always prohibited in games. It should (ideally) carry its own disincentives. If people are still finding it worthwhile to help out the winner to get a VP or two along the way, though, it is (to my mind) not carrying enough disincentives in VTES. :-) Josh iw...@iwasaspammer.org

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b757i1$b2sdo$2...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > Kevin M. wrote: > > A practical reason why this system wouldn't be well received is the fact > > that, since you've effectively eliminated VPs as what determines the > > tiebreakers, you have just reduced one of the most important parts of > > the tournament down to a die roll (or rolls). :P > > At current tournaments, yes. > But if the number of rounds and/or players is increased, then all finalist > positions could be determined without using die rolls. 'Winning' has a range > of 2-5 VPs, so a reasonable distribution can still be expected with enough > rounds. Yeah... increasing the number of rounds probably isn't really practical for regular tournaments, though, unless time limits could be decreased somehow (like in Rapid Thought tournaments or something). Increased players could work, but it may be a bit of a pipe dream for now. :-) > Also, you could introduce some other type of tie breaker. > A couple of options: > > - VPs gained with no GW become the second tie-breaker, after GWs and VPs won > with a GW - thus encouraging players who win to make a many VPs as possible > with their GW, but still giving some weight to 'loser VPs'. I kind of like this one at first glance. Still a tiebreaker but less of one, nice. > - second tie breaker is number of VPs not made by the winner at each table. > So 2nd place is as good as 5th. Doesn't really reduce the incentive for > table-splits though (it just changes the reasoning for doing it, and > non-dealing players won't be as pissed off at it). Also interesting. Anyone else have opinions/ideas on the topic? Josh topical use only

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030410143456...@mb-fq.aol.com... > There are several cases where I can see someone not playing to win. In no > particular order - > > Collusion (or the equivalent): Obviously undesirable. Your proposal would > have minimal effect as the colluders would just focus on manipulating TWs to > the exclusion of everything else. Is there any scoring system that would have a desirable effect on collusion? I'd think that if people are colluding, they could probably manipulate any scoring system we care to devise. > Putting the tournament before the games: I don't have any problem with this. > But, if you really want to encourage people to focus on each individual game, > dole out prizes based on TWs rather than making the finals. Or, play single > round tournaments. No? Then maybe playing to each game instead of the > tournament isn't that important? I do this already (prizes for game wins as well as for finalists). Could drop all non-winning-finalist prizes in favor of game-win prizes but I don't know if I want to go that far, people are probably used to finalist-prizes. (Although in tournaments of medium-size up, every finalist would typically have gotten prizes for having won preliminary games anyway, if I did it entirely that way, so it might work out.) It seems to me that what's important about playing to each game rather than playing (more) to the tournament "as a whole" is that it's annoying to the other players for some of the people to be looking at the tournament situation rather than just the situation of the game they're currently playing. > Spite/despair/etc.: This is annoying, but I don't see it having a lot of > effect. Sure, within a given tournament, the throwing of a game can be > important. But, it tends to be random in who it hurts (much like, say, seating > order) and over time, the better players will do better than the worse players. Sure. But it's annoying when it happens. What I'd like is to get people not to want to throw/disrupt games when they become despairing or spiteful. Hard to accomplish, possibly not suited for being accomplished by tournament-scoring reforms. :-) > Random game element: Also annoying but where anyone can be frustrated to the > point of giving up on a game (previous category), random game elements should > be kept away from tournaments. Can probably do this by putting a heftier price > on playing in the tournament effectively forcing them to pay everyone else for > their selfish desires since they won't be as likely to score prizes. Whatever > scoring system you have in place isn't going to mean anything to these people. Yah... the other goal (in my mind) of tournaments, though, is to try to interest/keep people interested in the game, so they keep buying it, it keeps getting printed, etc. So getting people not to play is much less good (for that purpose) than (somehow) getting them to become "good tournament citizens"... > Besides competing and trying to score prizes, I can't think of a reason to play > in tournaments. The people into competing should be playing to win because, > uh, that's what competing means. The people trying to score prizes, their > behavior can be manipulated by the prize distribution scheme. Rules against > cheating (which I don't think not playing to win falls under) cover, uh, > cheating. I expect that some people play in tournaments just because they like to play the game. Of course, if they don't like the competitive aspect, they probably won't like tournaments that much and might decide not to play in them after all, but... I dunno. Josh rush job...

>It seems to me that what's important about playing to each game >rather than playing (more) to the tournament "as a whole" is that >it's annoying to the other players for some of the people to be >looking at the tournament situation rather than just the situation >of the game they're currently playing. I expect people to play to the tournament since that's the rational choice. How is it any less annoying for people to ignore the tournament situation just to focus on a particular game?

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030411184236...@mb-cs.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'd think that, to the people who might not have a chance of winning the tournament, it would be annoying to be treated as pawns by the "playing to the tournament" players, when all these (possibly eliminated-from-finals-contention) players have to play for is the current game. Not to be inflammatory, but I'd think you could also claim that colluding to "fix" the tournament and maximize your conspirators' prizes to split would also be the "rational" choice. If it's prohibited by the rules, then maybe it shouldn't be considered the rational choice? I might have sounded like I was being too picky above, though; when I wrote "look at the tournament situation rather than just at this game" what I really meant was "focus on the tournament situation to the exclusion of maximizing, as much as they "should", their finish in this particular game". Josh playing to the firmament