Player refusing to give deck list?

Ok, I'm in a bit a weird position here. I ran the big Ropecon tournament for the Nth time last weekend (93 players this year), and things generally went great. As traditional, I have not demanded deck lists from players beforehand since I feel that just adds to the general hassle and provides little benefit, but I've always published the finalist deck lists along with final round transcript. The finalists were told (as is normal) before the final round started that I want them to send me their deck lists as soon as possible (the finals typically run from about 1am to 3am, so taking time off to transcribe deck lists at that point isn't a fun option). To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I want the deck lists before the final round started. I'm a bit mystified (and somewhat pissed off) here. It looked like a fairly bog-standard old-school Stanislava & friends deck to me, it's not like it's the secret to eternal youth or a cure for cancer we're talking about here. :} -Petri

On Jul 29, 10:46 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > .. > To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of > the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't > heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this > particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to > tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently > this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). > > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are > my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I > want the deck lists before the final round started. We had the same discussion some four years ago (IIRC) when one of the finalists of the german ECQ didn't want to have his deck list published. The reason for this was that he didn't want to know other players the *exact* contents of his deck, at least not before the next big tournaments. Although if you saw him playing you had a pretty good idea what the deck actually contained. The head judge & organizer back then complied to the wishes of the player, although he had the decklist in his hands and wasn't obliged to follow this player's wish. The same happened after the First Chance Qualifier during the EC 2009; here also the organizer & headjudge complied to the player's wish. I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them *before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist. If he's the tournament winner: too bad he's not getting his deck posted in Lasombra's tournament winning deck archive. Best regards, Ralf ==================== http://extrala.blogspot.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually as i see the situation you have no way to force player to provide you with decklist. yeah ok you can track him down and slap him so many times until he wil write it to you... This question of yours brings up one another question: Why in the hell he have to give you decklist? I understand this guy and in fact I do same as well, but in quite different and polite way - say it in advance to the judge. To be proper his decklist is his "intelectual property" and he don't have to share it with anybody else once he is not willing to. I agree with you that decklist in not cure for cancer or recepie for eternal youth but once again: why he have to give it to you? is he winner? uuuuh aaaah yeeeeah TWDA will miss one deck. that's s(n)oooooooo big loss... :D so please give me a logical and/or even relevant reason for such request...

On Jul 29, 12:33 pm, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give > you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for > now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists > mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them > *before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to > enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing > decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules > in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid off. Oh well. It does mean that from now on, I'll require deck lists from all Ropecon finalists before the final round starts. If this means that people will be forced to spend an extra 20+ minutes scribbling down deck lists at 1am... well, it sucks but they'll know who to blame for that. I'll also be requiring a written deck list from this specific player before the final round starts if he ever ends up in the finals of any constructed tournament I run, since he's proven that I cannot trust him to provide it later if needed. I hate to single out players, but one of the responsibilities of a judge is to make value judgments -- and here there is ample past evidence for that. All this assuming I don't get the deck list, as I'm now suspecting I won't. -Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] All the finalists in the tournament in question have traditionally published their deck lists during the years gone. It is well known fact that Petri publishes all the deck lists of the finalists. Maybe next year Petri should make it mandatory for the finalists to pass over their deck lists.

On Jul 29, 12:39 pm, Asnek <tatadl...@gmail.com> wrote: > so please give me a logical and/or even relevant reason for such > request... The relevant reason is: because I want to write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round transcript), and have done so for ages now. If that's not "relevant" enough for you, please do not play in any tournament I run. Some tournaments require deck lists from everyone, and make them all public later. Are you saying those tournaments somehow "don't have the right"? Sheesh. And "intellectual property"? Please. If you don't want people to see your deck, don't play with it in a big and important tournament. At least not one that I run. -Petri

On Jul 29, 12:47 pm, JH <jhatt...@tenerdo.org> wrote: > All the finalists in the tournament in question have traditionally > published their deck lists during the years gone. It is well known > fact that Petri publishes all the deck lists of the finalists. Maybe > next year Petri should make it mandatory for the finalists to pass > over their deck lists. Yeah. This forces me to demand finalist deck lists before the Ropecon finals starts. It sucks, but it's apparently something I need to start doing. To date I've been able to trust players on this, and I've been running these for... dunno. 10 years? It's not like any of the local players can claim ignorance, here. If someone refuses to have their deck list be public, they are free to choose to either not attend the Ropecon tournament, or to forfeit their place in the finals if it comes to that. -Petri

On Jul 29, 11:33 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > .. > I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give > you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for > now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists > mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them > *before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to > enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing > decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules > in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist. To correct myself there *is* something about decklists in the VEKN tournament rules: 6.3. Constructed Deck Registration The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists each round. Best Regards, Ralf =================== http://extrala.blogspot.com

On Jul 29, 12:44 pm, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > I'll also be requiring a written deck list from this specific player > before the final round starts if he ever ends up in the finals of any > constructed tournament I run, since he's proven that I cannot trust > him to provide it later if needed. I hate to single out players, but > one of the responsibilities of a judge is to make value judgments -- > and here there is ample past evidence for that. On second thought, the more fair variant is: I'll be requiring deck lists from all the finalists in any constructed tournament where I do not personally trust that the winner from among the finalists will send me the deck list afterwards. Yes, this is a value judgment, but that's why we have judges and not automatons. This means that either there is someone at the table I know to be a potential problem case, or someone I do not personally know and trust. At Ropecon, I'll be requiring deck lists from all the finalists before the final round starts (smart people will have deck lists already printed out). This will be made very explicit in the tournament announce, to avoid claims of "did not know". If the finalists have their deck lists already printed out, this won't slow down things at all. If they don't, well... then we wait. -Petri

On Jul 29, 1:07 pm, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > To correct myself there *is* something about decklists in the VEKN > tournament rules: > > 6.3. Constructed Deck Registration > > The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register > their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the > original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives > a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly > register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate > provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that > organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists > each round. Yes, I checked that portion earlier, but that only talks about decklists on registration, not later. Like I said, on site before the finals started I very explicitly said that I'm requiring everyone (of the finalists) to send me their deck lists after the tournament, for the tournament report. People watching the finals will be able to verify this. One player is now (possibly) refusing to do so. The question is whether the tournament rules give me any option to do anything about it, other that be pissed off and change things in the next tournament(s) I run. Probably, no. -Petri

On Jul 29, 12:39 pm, Asnek <tatadl...@gmail.com> wrote: To be > proper his decklist is his "intelectual property" and he don't have to > share it with anybody else once he is not willing to. Sorry, but that is not the case. According to VTES tournament rules WW/tournament organizer can publish this info: 1.6. Publishing Event Information White Wolf, Inc. reserves the right to publish event information such as the contents of any player's deck as well as transcripts or video reproductions of any sanctioned tournament. The tournament organizer is also permitted to publish event information. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules

On Jul 29, 1:49 pm, Lönkka <lon...@fantasiapelit.fi> wrote: > Sorry, but that is not the case. > According to VTES tournament rules WW/tournament organizer can publish > this info: > ... Heh, I was *just* about to publish the same quote but you beat me to it :D -Petri

> To be proper his decklist is his "intelectual property" and he don't have > to > share it with anybody else once he is not willing to. Can you actually say this out loud without laughing?

On Jul 29, 4:46 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are > my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I > want the deck lists before the final round started. Players must follow the guidelines set forth by the tournament officials. Including rules about deck lists. Failure to do so could result in penalty, such as game loss or disqualification.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thank you. I'll go with the recommended penalty for bad decklist in that case, i.e. issue an official warning along with the tournament results. Anything more severe seems like overreaction, even though it's a case of intentionally defying the organizer and not an accident. I'll fix it in the future by demanding finalist decklists before play starts. All this assuming I don't get the decklist belatedly, of course. -Petri

On Jul 29, 9:37 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > On Jul 29, 3:10 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 29, 4:46 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are > > > I stated quite clearly that I > > > want the deck lists before the final round started. > > > Players must follow the guidelines set forth by the tournament > > officials. > > Including rules about deck lists. > > > Failure to do so could result in penalty, such as game loss or > > disqualification. Scott, Can the penalty be applied *after the tournament is over* assuming the results have not been submitted? It would seem if the judge stated that he wanted decklists and this player did not provide one in whatever time Petri feels is reasonable, that he could then be a) warned that this could result in a DQ for the tournament and then b) issued that DQ, even after the event. Just wondering,

On 29 heinä, 11:46, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > > To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of > the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't > heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this > particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to > tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently > this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). > I know who you mean, should he be talked to about this? It's really sad if one fellow makes the easygoing Ropecon tournament a bit more difficult. Dunno if it helps at all or have you already tried to explain the situation to him, but I'm pretty sure that he'd come around it if you explain the whole deal. With the deal I mean, that it has been traditional way to include decklists in the tournament report. And that he'd be doing things more difficult to future finalists. -Jarkko

If someone goes to the trouble of running a 93 player tournament and even lets people know he wants the finalists' deck lists ahead of time, it's extremely disrespectful to the organizer and the other rule- abiding finalists to refuse to give over the list after the event. As Kevin Mergen often says, shame is a good weapon with bad players. If he doesn't turn it over, publishing the results on the newsgroup with the warning and an explanation should be enough to let everyone know what to expect from this person. Brandon

On 29 heinä, 11:46, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: ... > To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of > the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't > heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this > particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to > tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently > this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). To clear matters, I never required him to post his decklist, merely inquired if he wishes to let it be known. He declined. I chose to not inquire more as to his reasoning, seeing how I have no - absolutely none- suspicion of foul play. No drama.

On Jul 29, 10:36 pm, Oko <oko...@gmail.com> wrote: > To clear matters, I never required him to post his decklist, merely > inquired if he wishes to let it be known. He declined. Ah ok, I heard a different story through the grapevine. That's fine, then. > I chose to not inquire more as to his reasoning, seeing how I have no > - absolutely none- suspicion of foul play. I'll stress that the same goes for me, I have absolutely no suspicion of foul play in this matter. -Petri

> > so please give me a logical and/or even relevant reason for such > > request... > > The relevant reason is: because I want to write a tournament report > which includes said decks (and final round transcript), and have done > so for ages now. If that's not "relevant" enough for you, please do > not play in any tournament I run. The TWDA and any posts or tournament write-ups have always been implied to be a way to promote the game. (At least, that's how I have understood it.) I think this is relevent and important. > > Some tournaments require deck lists from everyone, and make them all > public later. Are you saying those tournaments somehow "don't have the > right"? Sheesh. > > And "intellectual property"? Please. If you don't want people to see > your deck, don't play with it in a big and important tournament. At > least not one that I run. Some gaming groups have a different culture. By this I mean, some groups have a majority of players who don't want a deck published until it wins a tournament and sometimes not even then. The playgroup in Los Angeles has always seemed to operate this way (now I'm going to get it from those guys!). I remember asking a player at an L.A. tourny if I could look at and talk to him about his deck because I had a similar deck. His prompt reply...."NO!" I guess what I'm saying is; if you are at a tournament where the culture is to turn in a decklist just do it. Its really not a big deal. And if your worried about losing some prestige when someone else plays a similar deck, stop worrying, there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in VtES."

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually you said the same thing before the finals than Petri that you want decklists from ALL the finalists posted to you.

On Jul 30, 2:06 am, TorranceCircle <torrance.cir...@gmail.com> wrote: > The TWDA and any posts or tournament write-ups have always been > implied to be a way to promote the game. (At least, that's how I have > understood it.) I think this is relevent and important. Yeah. I'll expand on this: the reason I write a finals transcript and include the finalist decklists is that it gives a snapshot into what sorts of decks were played at the winning table of a very large tournament, and how they were played. A snapshot into the local metagame of that year, if you will. I think that's very interesting and educational for other players, both local and foreign. Also, please remember that "deck tech" isn't a universal constant, it *heavily* relies on the metagame. A deck that might win the Ropecon tournament might easily fail totally at the EC. Or vice versa. Different metagames. It's not like you can "netdeck" something that has won somewhere and just use it to easily win somewhere else. You need to figure out how to play it, and also modify it for the local metagame. > Some gaming groups have a different culture. By this I mean, some > groups have a majority of players who don't want a deck published > until it wins a tournament and sometimes not even then. The playgroup > in Los Angeles has always seemed to operate this way (now I'm going to > get it from those guys!). I remember asking a player at an L.A. tourny > if I could look at and talk to him about his deck because I had a > similar deck. His prompt reply...."NO!" I guess what I'm saying is; if > you are at a tournament where the culture is to turn in a decklist > just do it. Its really not a big deal. And if your worried about > losing some prestige when someone else plays a similar deck, stop > worrying, there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in VtES." Quite. To minimize misunderstandings, tournament organizers should probably be more clear and specific about their intent to publicize deck lists (in the tournament announcements etc). Some organizers want to make the finalist decks public, some want to only make the winner deck public, some allow for player choice in the matter... making that stand public beforehand would clear up a lot of things.That way people who are paranoid about their decks can simply choose not to play in certain tournaments. As a side note: while there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in VtES", there is the kind of fame that comes from having other people use your deck elsewhere -- polite players attribute the original creator, and word spreads around. Being the originator of a new "deck archetype" can be a very cool thing, too. -Petri

I am personally amazed this thread hasn't degenerated into name calling, because I have a lot in mind. There is an EXTREMELY clear expectation of a decklist, I say you require the winning product to be returned and the results voided until the player complies with the rules of the tournament.

A possible reason one might be reluctant to turn over a deck-list, as required, might be the concern that someone might remember its player playing a card not on the list. Making successful decks public is, in part, an anti-cheating safeguard.

Petri Wessman wrote: > As a side note: while there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in > VtES", there is the kind of fame that comes from having other people > use your deck elsewhere -- polite players attribute the original > creator, and word spreads around. Being the originator of a new "deck > archetype" can be a very cool thing, too. If this player doesn't want other players to copy his deck, he doesn't have to worry. It didn't win, why would people? If he's worried that people would gain measurable advantage against him in a subsequent tournament, either through detailed knowledge of his deck or even specifically building their deck to counter it, then, well, he has some serious ego issues (that, or people really hate him and want him to lose really badly). I just can't see it being a problem. -- salem

On Jul 30, 8:52 am, salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If this player doesn't want other players to copy his deck, he doesn't have > to worry. It didn't win, why would people? Maybe because it made the finals in a 92 person tournament. That makes it as good as most TWDs in my book.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. Knock me down with a feather, but I agree with you! However, it's still very silly. Decks do not play themselves, particularly not in a 92 player tournament. As someone who's both copied and been copied, as well as someone who enjoys borrowing and freely lends decks, I can tell you the player matters quite a lot. Now you could memorize (or even write down and carry around) a decklist and thereby have a significant advantage over that deck should you happen to see it again, assuming the deck hasn't been changed. But doing this simply isn't practical. In a 92 player tournament, you're fairly unlikely to come up against any one player. And assuming it's not a total noob-fest (and this is Finland we're talking about - vtes is their national sport), there are no guarantees about which players will be seen in the final. For my money, doing this is wasting effort on one dangerous foe at the expense of ignoring the other 90.

On Jul 30, 10:45 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Now you could memorize (or even write down and carry around) a decklist > and thereby have a significant advantage over that deck should you happen > to see it again, assuming the deck hasn't been changed. But doing this > simply isn't practical. In a 92 player tournament, you're fairly unlikely > to come up against any one player. And whatever statistical advantage you might gain that way would be brought back to zero (or less) by the disadvantages you would have visited upon you when you mistakenly identify a different deck as that deck.

[ quoted text not captured ] Damn it, I was gonna say this (shakes fist in the air) but yeah, if a player breaks a rule, then a punishment should be given.

[ quoted text not captured ] The last deck that was held back was very good. Deck Name: saveurs et arômates de France Created By: TTC It would not surprise me that this one is also. The fact that he does not want it posted leads me to believe that he is running a couple of small combos that work well together. I would say it is vote/DOM with House of Sorrow, Enkil Cog, Gather, Golconda and some events. Perhaps Lilith's Blessing found a space in there as well. Matt

Petri Wessman wrote: > To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four > of the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one > I haven't heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard > that this particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists > to tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer > (apparently this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). > > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what > are my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly > that I want the deck lists before the final round started. I don't encounter complete fucking assholes like this anywhere that I judge, but what I would suggest that you do in the future is to say to everyone the same thing you always do, that you will ask for a decklist when the finals are over, blah blah, but that prizes and tournament reporting will be withheld until you get the decklist from each player. If anyone has a problem with that you can point them to the VEKN rules, and I personally would also tell everyone the name of the guy who caused this issue with his bad behavior and point him out to everyone at every event ever, so that the bad feelings toward you get redirected to the real problem -- players like that asshole. But that's just me. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

I am the "complete fucking asshole" in question. I apologized Petri, and the rest of you, for not sending the decklist promptly. I sent it to Petri (orava"at"iki.fi) just a few minutes ago, when I first learned of this being a problem. Petri asked for the decklists (to be sent within the next week) before the final and I agreed to give it by not disagreeing then. Petri's method of judgeing has always worked at Ropecon before, and there is really no reason not to continue with the same method. I have been on vacation so I have not monitored the boards or anything. Same would have been with email, but I did not receive any. A call or a text message reminding me of the decklist would have done the job just fine. I am not saying that Petri should call 90 people for decklists, but if only one is missing from the report, and it is a big deal, maybe one message would not be so bad? Thanks a lot, Petri, for Ropecon this year and I hope I can play again next year. Nice thread though ... "complete fucking asshole" ... as it happens, I am still in time with the decklist too. For this weekend it is still "within the next week" as you requested. Also I have never previously refrused to give out my decklist either. I have asked if it is compolsory to give out one and when it was not, decided not to give it out.

Kevin M. wrote: > I don't encounter complete fucking assholes like this anywhere that > I judge, Don't hold back Kevin, tell us what you _really_ think of this guy. :D -- salem wouldn't have said it myself, but was thinking along those lines.

Are13 wrote: > Nice thread though ... "complete fucking asshole" ... as it happens, I > am still in time with the decklist too. For this weekend it is still > "within the next week" as you requested. Also I have never previously > refrused to give out my decklist either. I have asked if it is > compolsory to give out one and when it was not, decided not to give it > out. To be fair, he was probably* just calling someone who would intentionally refuse to give in a decklist, even when told it was required, a 'complete fucking asshole'. The fact that you don't actually match that description (not intending to intentionally withhold the list) would, I hope, help you to not take his insult personally. * I hope. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Jul 29, 3:46 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote: > Ok, I'm in a bit a weird position here. I ran the big Ropecon > tournament for the Nth time last weekend (93 players this year), and > things generally went great. As traditional, I have not demanded deck > lists from players beforehand since I feel that just adds to the > general hassle and provides little benefit, but I've always published > the finalist deck lists along with final round transcript. The > finalists were told (as is normal) before the final round started that > I want them to send me their deck lists as soon as possible (the > finals typically run from about 1am to 3am, so taking time off to > transcribe deck lists at that point isn't a fun option). > > To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of > the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't > heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this > particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to > tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently > this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships). > > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are > my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I > want the deck lists before the final round started. > > I'm a bit mystified (and somewhat pissed off) here. It looked like a > fairly bog-standard old-school Stanislava & friends deck to me, it's > not like it's the secret to eternal youth or a cure for cancer we're > talking about here. :} #1. It looks like the situation has pretty much sorted itself out. (But it does touch upon larger issues that I'd like to address) #2. If the player had refused to send a deck list despite your official request and despite the official rules, I agree with you that he is being a bit of a jerk. But some people are okay with being a jerk and that's fine. #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney report with a general description instead of an exact deck list. I do applaud tournament organizers for all their hard work. That being said, I've known quite a number of tournament organizers (this isn't specifically addressed to anyone in particular) who are actually also control freaks. Everything has to be done a special way - their way, or they get really upset. I can sympathize with that - I can be a bit like that at times as well. But ultimately, it's a bit self-centered (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) to expect or force everyone to do things *your* particular way. It was mentioned that: 1.6. Publishing Event Information White Wolf, Inc. reserves the right to publish event information such as the contents of any player's deck as well as transcripts or video reproductions of any sanctioned tournament. The tournament organizer is also permitted to publish event information. --> Although the rules *allow* tournament organizers to publish deck information (even without the player's permission), it certainly does not *require* them to do so. There's a big difference between can and should. There are many things that players (and organizers) can do, which are permitted by the rules, but invoking such a rule is still a jerk thing to do. Plus, there are plenty of rules which aren't always strictly followed.... 2.4 Spectator Responsibilities All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. --> "Quiet Dave! I'm in a game with Robyn right now and the rules say you're not allowed to ask for car keys / cell phone / money / hotel key card / food / whatever. Rules say no communicating at all. Sorry." Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. --> Oftentimes when spectators observe an obvious rules violation (sorry, Timothy Crowley can't play superior Govern because he only has inferior Dominate) they simply point it out. Strictly speaking, the rules actually prohibit that. They're technically supposed to relay that to a judge (though most of the time, by the time you've dragged a judge over and explained the mistake, it's a big hassle to "rewind" things back to that point). 3.1.2. Preliminary Rounds Seating The judge will group players randomly and impartially, using prepared index cards, a computerized system for generating random groupings, or another impartial randomizing method. --> Seen several tournaments where judges number players based on their arrival/registration order (which means that people who arrive together in the same carpool end up playing at the first table together). 3.1.5 Multi-Deck System Players are prohibited from making modifications to their decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following multi-deck rules. --> Brings up the interesting issue of what happens when Player A's card (like a Fame) accidentally ends up in Player B's library for the next round. What sort of penalty should occur? Heck, a really jerky player could intentionally bring a deck full of cards that get passed around to other players. Surely some cards will fail to get returned. Talk about a "Vampiric Disease" deck - you can try to infect everyone else's libraries with your cards! (Works best if no one plays with sleeves). 4.1. Cards Allowed All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal Struggle or Jyhad cards. If cards with distinct backs are used in the same deck (e.g., Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards, or upside-down 3rd Edition cards and right-side up cards, or mis-cut cards) are used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets, printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type. --> Strictly speaking, this section does not seem to factor in sleeves. Based on the wording, a sufficiently mixed combination must be present even if all the cards are in opaque sleeves. --> I've never seen the provision used in practice. But a jerky player or organizer could demand to inspect a deck for sufficiently mixed card types. 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. --> Never seen anyone invoke this. Say someone has a medical condition that affects the placement of their hands. Technically, you could invoke this rule (though you'd be a jerk to do so). 4.6. Card Sleeves Once a game begins, players may request that the judge inspect an opponent's card sleeves. The judge may disallow a player's card sleeves if the judge believes they are marked, worn, or otherwise in a condition that interferes with shuffling or game play. --> Never seen this either. But a jerk player technically could make such a request. (The rules are hazier whether the judge could refuse to inspect the sleeves. 2.4 specifically allows the judge to refuse requests involving spectators as they see fit). 4.7. Tapped Cards If a card must be tapped as a part of the game rules, it must be turned approximately 90 degrees from the normal position. --> "Sorry, 45 degrees just doesn't cut it. I want a full 90 degree rotation." Ha ha. I guess this one doesn't even count as stalling - it's just invoking the proper rules. 8.1. Sanctioning Deadline To ensure sanctioning approval, tournament organizers must apply for V:EKN sanctioning at least twenty-eight days prior to the event. 8.2. Sanctioned Tournament Advertising Sanctioned tournaments should be announced/advertised at least twenty- eight days prior to the event. Announcements should include the time and place of the event. 9.1. Organizer Records Tournament organizers are required to keep copies of all tournament reports for V:EKN-sanctioned events they run for a period of one year. These records serve as backups in case event results are lost. 9.2. Event Report Deadline Event reports are due to the V:EKN within eight days of the tournament's conclusion. Tournament reports not received by the V:EKN within eight days are considered late, and are listed in the V:EKN tournament database as "Not Received" for fourteen days after the event. 9.3. Delinquent Tournaments Event reports must be received by the V:EKN within thirty days of the tournament's conclusion. Event reports not received within fifteen to thirty days are listed as "Delinquent" in the V:EKN tournament database. Organizers may still submit event results in this time frame without penalty. --> Even in the old days, these rules were commonly broken. In the past, some events (like EC's) have had English language rules. For example: "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: Unless each player at a given table speaks the same language, each player will have to speak English during their games. In the case that there are players who don't speak English, they should call a judge as a translator." (This one was approved by LSJ in 2003 for Spain). Suppose you're at a table where your prey only speaks Spanish. Technically, you could demand that he speak English (or else find a translator). It can be a bit of a jerky thing to do, but the rules do allow it. Must...speak...English! --> So yes, the rules do allow you to publish deck information without consent. But doing so can be a jerk thing to do. Especially if your only motivation is your OCD / control freak tendency / personal tradition that *has* to be followed.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:49:06 -0700 (PDT), echia...@yahoo.com <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk > (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the > player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've > always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to > write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round > transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it > wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing > a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney > report with a general description instead of an exact deck list. > > I do applaud tournament organizers for all their hard work. That being > said, I've known quite a number of tournament organizers (this isn't > specifically addressed to anyone in particular) who are actually also > control freaks. Everything has to be done a special way - their way, > or they get really upset. I can sympathize with that - I can be a bit > like that at times as well. But ultimately, it's a bit self-centered > (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) to expect or force everyone to > do things *your* particular way. I kind of like the idea of tournament organizers organizing the tournament, and setting the expectations towards players, who can - based on those expectations - choose whether they want to attend the tournament or not. Then nobody is being a jerk - the players can freely choose not to attend, but those attending accept the whole package. So simply say in the description of the tournament that decklists are expected of finalists, so people who don't want to give their decklists skip out on the tournament altogether. Then if someone is still trying to be a smartass you can happily penalize their asses off. It's much better for everyone to punish that person than to punish everyone in the future (e.g. by requesting finalists to write up their decklists before the finals...). -- Regards, Daneel

On 7/31/2010 10:49 PM, echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > #2. If the player had refused to send a deck list despite your > official request and despite the official rules, I agree with you that > he is being a bit of a jerk. But some people are okay with being a > jerk and that's fine. OMFG, why is everyone so down on this? If the guy doesn't want to give a decklist, he doesn't want to give a decklist. I suppose you can just make a rule and enforce it requiring decklists going into the final, but even that seems like overkill to me. I'll give you guys one of my decklists instead. It would probably cause you all mental insanity but hey - if you're all so hard up for decklists, why not take what take what you can get? > #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk > (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the > player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've > always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to > write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round > transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it > wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing > a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney > report with a general description instead of an exact deck list. Right. Exactly. Fred

On Aug 1, 1:16 am, Are13 <are.vask...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am the "complete fucking asshole" in question. I apologized Petri, > and the rest of you, for not sending the decklist promptly. I sent it > to Petri (orava"at"iki.fi) just a few minutes ago, when I first > learned of this being a problem. Petri asked for the decklists (to be > sent within the next week) before the final and I agreed to give it by > not disagreeing then. Petri's method of judgeing has always worked at > Ropecon before, and there is really no reason not to continue with the > same method. > > I have been on vacation so I have not monitored the boards or > anything. Same would have been with email, but I did not receive any. > A call or a text message reminding me of the decklist would have done > the job just fine. I am not saying that Petri should call 90 people > for decklists, but if only one is missing from the report, and it is a > big deal, maybe one message would not be so bad? The problem is that I did not have your contact info. I told Otto to get in touch with you (first time on Monday I think), and since I had heard nothing by Thursday *and* got reports from two different directions that decklists had been a problem for you in a past tournament, I started wondering. First off, I apologize for jumping to conclusions (though I think I did have some basis there). Secondly, I started this thread to inquire what my options were in the case I don't get the deck list. As I note in many points, all my points are moot if I do get it. I never used your name (though some local players have of course guessed it), nor have I called you an asshole or such. Also, I've stressed that I have no suspicion of any wrongdoing as such here -- I just wanted to know what my options as judge/organizer were, as far as tournament rules go (and got clarification on that). So. I probably should have gotten your email/phone directly and gotten in contact, instead of relying on an intermediate party. Apologies for that. At the least, maybe this thread has clarified some stuff for someone else, too, so maybe there is a small bonus point. > Thanks a lot, Petri, for Ropecon this year and I hope I can play again > next year. Of course. As you note, you're still in time (I *did* say "within a week"), and it turns out this thread was premature. I hope you're not too pissed off at me over all this :} -Petri

On Aug 1, 8:49 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > #1. It looks like the situation has pretty much sorted itself out. Yes, it seems so. Some nice discussion in this thread (despite some name-calling), so I hope it's not a complete waste. :} > #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk > (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the > player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've > always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to > write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round > transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it > wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing > a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney > report with a general description instead of an exact deck list. Well, my point here is precedent. If I let one person hide his deck list, I will have to let everyone else do so, too. I cannot play favorites. So it boils down to a choice of: a) require all finalists to give me their deck lists b) make giving deck lists optional I simply choose to do (a). Maybe I'm being a jerk by doing so, but I've outlined "why" in earlier posts. In my opinion, the "general good" (i.e. seeing what the finalist decks for a certain year looked like and how they were played) overrides the "personal bad" of one person not being able to keep their deck private. It's a matter of opionion, of course, and other tournament organizers will have different priorities there. That's fine. What I think *is* important (as I said earlier) is making stuff like this clear in the tournament announcement. I a certain tournament says that the winner deck list will become public and you absolutely do not want your newest invention to become public, then you just need to skip that tournament. It's a matter of choice, on both parts. -Petri

On Aug 1, 1:18 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I kind of like the idea of tournament organizers organizing the > tournament, and setting the expectations towards players, who can - > based on those expectations - choose whether they want to attend the > tournament or not. Then nobody is being a jerk - the players can > freely choose not to attend, but those attending accept the whole > package. > > So simply say in the description of the tournament that decklists are > expected of finalists, so people who don't want to give their > decklists skip out on the tournament altogether. > > Then if someone is still trying to be a smartass you can happily > penalize their asses off. It's much better for everyone to punish > that person than to punish everyone in the future (e.g. by > requesting finalists to write up their decklists before the > finals...). > -- > Regards, > Daneel Exactly. In the future, I'll personally be a lot more clear and specific on this matter in tournament announcements, so everyone will know where things stand (instead of assumptions, which can and will be wrong at times). -Petri

To make things absolutely clear: the matter is now settled, and was based on bad communication and jumping to conclusions based on (inaccurate) things I heard via the grapevine. I hope that this thread will at least have shed some light on *something* -- communication is usually good, and deck lists have been a controversial matter before. -Petri

On 8/2/2010 12:36 AM, Petri Wessman wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:49 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com"<echiang...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk >> (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the >> player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've >> always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to >> write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round >> transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it >> wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing >> a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney >> report with a general description instead of an exact deck list. > > Well, my point here is precedent. If I let one person hide his deck > list, I will have to let everyone else do so, too. I cannot play > favorites. This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd assert, it's not really that beneficial. In my experience, most players _want_ to give you their decklist; you don't have to create a reputation for yourself as being a kind of a "scary judge dude who'll stop at nothing" to get it. Why bother? Eric was right the first time: it wouldn't be the end of the world if you let report go without the winning deck list. Fred

On Aug 2, 6:10 pm, Frederick Scott <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As > you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd > assert, it's not really that beneficial. Well, we're going round and round on this. I'd assert that there is also little benefit to hiding your decklist. There are arguments to be made for both sides here. It comes down to whether you want to require decklists from finalists (or winner) or just ask for them. It may be a silly distinction to *you*, but in this your mileage *does* vary ;). Some people (me included) think requiring deck lists from everyone in the tournament (before the tournament) is a bit silly. However, when some tournaments (EC etc) require that, I go along with it (as a player), no question. Because it's the organizers' call Again, I think the most important thing here is to make stuff like that clear to everyone attending. Different places and different tournament have different styles and expectations, and as long as they conform to the official tournament rules and rulings, people are free to run their tournaments in whichever way they choose. And "scary judge dude"? Not really, generally. I've run these things for 10-ish years or so, and (imho) have been very laid back about it and the atmosphere has been very relaxed and sportsmanlike. I don't see this one communication glitch changing that. -Petri

On 8/2/2010 8:36 AM, Petri Wessman wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:10 pm, Frederick Scott<no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As >> you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd >> assert, it's not really that beneficial. > > Well, we're going round and round on this. I'd assert that there is > also little benefit to hiding your decklist. There are arguments to be > made for both sides here. It comes down to whether you want to require > decklists from finalists (or winner) or just ask for them. It may be a > silly distinction to *you*, but in this your mileage *does* vary ;). Sure. > Some people (me included) think requiring deck lists from everyone in > the tournament (before the tournament) is a bit silly. However, when > some tournaments (EC etc) require that, I go along with it (as a > player), no question. Because it's the organizers' call It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut- and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information. Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least). > Again, I think the most important thing here is to make stuff like > that clear to everyone attending. Agreed; this is always a very good thing. > And "scary judge dude"? Not really, generally. I've run these things > for 10-ish years or so, and (imho) have been very laid back about it > and the atmosphere has been very relaxed and sportsmanlike. I'm just saying, you usually shouldn't need to do anything in particular to get players to get you their decklists - especially in a tournament with 10 or more people in it which will therefore land in the TWDA. In most of those cases, I'd expect the winner to be chasing you around waving it at you to get it published. (One of the players in San Fransisco, Ian Lee, actually once mentioned that he didn't think sanctioning a VEKN tournament with fewer than 10 players in it was worth bothering with because the winner wouldn't get his decklist in the TWDA.) So if the occasional player wants to be shy about it, it doesn't strike me as a big deal. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut- > and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a > poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start > of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the > tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in > response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information. > Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's > just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but > hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least). As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as effectively as demanding all information in advance. Obviously, demanding decks from everyone, in advance, is more of a hassle for all concerned. But I support the organizer's right to do this, just as I support his right to take lesser measures, according to his judgment. Bottom line is, nobody should be giving the judge a hard time, or calling him a "bit of a jerk" or a "hard-ass", for demanding and publishing deck-list information.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:10:35 -0700, Frederick Scott <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Would you agree that if communicated in advance, "guys please give me the decklists if you make the finals but I'm ok if you don't" and "guys, you need to give me the decklists if you make the finals, only attend if you agree" are both respectable, valid ways the tournament organizer can handle his tournaments, and he isn't being a jerk in either case? -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] But..But...But... I thought there was going to be tarring and feathering followed by a lynching... Back in my day, when someone called you a "complete fucking asshole" , they were being nice to you. Now everyone is so sensitive

On Aug 2, 2:46 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > But..But...But... I thought there was going to be tarring and > feathering followed by a lynching... > > Back in my day, when someone called you a "complete fucking asshole" , > they were being nice to you. > > Now everyone is so sensitive Sniff...sniff...sniff. I miss Derek. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup. I think it was the day Derek told me I had an anus for a mouth was the day I realized I was taking my flamefests _wayyyyyyyyyyy_ too seriously! That was some funny! Fred

On 8/2/2010 10:55 AM, John Whelan wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut- >> and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a >> poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start >> of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the >> tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in >> response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information. >> Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's >> just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but >> hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least). > > As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list > information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a > safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or > publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a > safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as > effectively as demanding all information in advance. A) That's kind of a far-fetched safeguard; but more importantly,... B) It's not why Petri says he's doing it. We can only judge the purposes of his rules by what he says the purposes are.Hence my distinction in the context is valid. ... > Bottom line is, nobody should be giving the judge a hard time, or > calling him a "bit of a jerk" or a "hard-ass", for demanding and > publishing deck-list information. The "bit of a jerk" thing was Eric's wording not mine. To be sure, I'm fine with the to-each-his-own attitude about this issue; I'm just saying I disagree with how far Petri goes with it: it's not necessary and it even has some negative implications (players may choose to pass on Petri's tournaments, reducing participation, if they don't care for his rule), albeit admittedly far-fetched ones. "Hard-ass" is an accurate description of the situation and not a flame (nor intended as a flame). It means 'extreme'. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > On 8/2/2010 10:55 AM, John Whelan wrote: > > As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list > > information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a > > safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or > > publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a > > safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as > > effectively as demanding all information in advance. > > A) That's kind of a far-fetched safeguard; [...] I disagree. Though, of course, it is all relative. > [...] but more importantly,... > B) It's not why Petri says he's doing it. I don't care. The assumption that judges/organizers have a right to see and to publish deck information is a deterrent to would-be cheaters regardless of the precise motives of the judges organizers as to individual players. An organizer should not be obliged to make an allegation of cheating before he has the right to see and publish deck information. This would only make cheaters feel safer. > We can only judge the purposes of his rules by what he says the purposes > are. I disagree. He is part of a broader V:tES community. The deterrent function served by rules such as these transcend his precise motives. If he enforces his prerogative against a recalcitrant player, he sets an example that makes would-be cheaters feel less safe, regardless of whether he has the slightest suspicion of cheating by the recalcitrant player. > "Hard-ass" is an accurate description of the situation and not > a flame (nor intended as a flame). It means 'extreme'. Fine. But I disagree. I don't think Petri has been extreme at all.