Disturbing Draft Behavior at the NE Qualifier

First off I have to give props to Josh for running a superb qualifier this past weekend. The qualifier in Providence was among the best-run qualifiers I have seen in years. There was however a rather disturbing incident during the Sunday event (which was beyond the control of the tournament organizers, who are faultless) that I feel needs to be addressed. On Sunday there was a booster draft event (4 Cam, 2 Anarchs, 4 Legacies). There were originally 24 people who paid the entry fee and participated in drafting. Five of these individuals (all apparantly from Maine) seemed to have ulterior motives however and took off promptly after the drafting process, without playing a single game. After talking with Josh, it seems that he was under the impression that the Maine players were going to play in the first round before leaving. Now I do understand that sometimes circumstances may arise forcing an individual to leave prematurely. And it is true that the first round did not start until around noon (the tournament was scheduled to begin at 10 AM). I am not sure what the experiences of the other draft tables were like, but my table included one Maine player whose behavior was especially egregious. Now I'm not going to be naming any names at this time, but I'll just refer to this individual as "Person X". Although I did not know Person X very well prior to this qualifier, I was acquainted with him from a few other events and he generally seemed to be an okay guy. Person X was apparantly aware that he was not going to be playing in the draft event so he decided to participate in only the draft phase but with the sole intention of rare drafting. Now I know that some people will rare draft, and I'll readily admit that I have done so on occasion as well. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it but the catch is that normally when you rare draft, you're stuck playing with whatever deck you did end up drafting. So passing on those really useful commons to get those unplayable corner-case rares is going to come back to haunt you during the actual rounds. But rare drafting with no intention of playing is problematic because not only does it distort the deck-building environment of anyone at your table but it is also extorting the other players from what they are paying for. At one point during the draft, Person X specifically asked aloud whether a card (Rumors of Gehenna) was rare. Most of us didn't think anything of it at the time, but now after seeing the behavior of the Maine contingent, it makes a lot more sense in hindsight. But the most offensive aspect of this entire travesty is that right before the Maine players were about to leave, Player X was *bragging* about how he had rare drafted and ended up with 21 rares. I kid you not. He was BRAGGING about it. After this issue was brought to their attention, Josh and Oscar were quick to rectify part of the problem. At least for players at my draft table, we each got 2 random rares from Legacies (to keep - not for playing in the draft though). I applaud the organizers for addressing this issue promptly and efficiently. But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine players who would stoop to such a low. One of the other draft participants I talked to said that this was the sort of behavior you'd expect from Magic players and that it's quite likely that the rare drafter(s) may try to earn a quick buck by putting them up on eBay. I can't help but agree. In the future, I will NEVER sit at a draft table with Person X ever again. If I was placed in such a position, I would request to be moved to a different draft table and if that was not possible I would rather drop from the tournament entirely than enable his repugnant behavior. (I mean, who knows when the guy might just "suddenly" have to leave again?). Similarly, I will be extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft table with any Maine players ever again. So I just thought that this issue needed to be brought into the open. In addition, I would be extremely interested in hearing about the experiences from the other draft tables. - Eric Chiang

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > After talking with Josh, it seems that he was under the impression that > the Maine players were going to play in the first round before leaving. > Now I do understand that sometimes circumstances may arise forcing an > individual to leave prematurely. And it is true that the first round > did not start until around noon (the tournament was scheduled to begin > at 10 AM). Well, the last sentence of the paragraph is likely the crux of the problem right there. Two hour delays in tournament start time play hell with peoples' travel schedules. It sounds quite likely from your description that the players involved probably understood they couldn't play out the tournament no matter what but entered it with the intention of drafting for what they wanted to keep more than what they wanted to play. When the tournament got delayed *two* *hours* (!), it probably added quite a bit to their cynicism about the whole affair and deducted all the rest of whatever integrity they planned to have it altogether. I'm not going to defend what they did, but two-hour delays in tournaments, especially on the last day, are really unacceptable and just don't help matters. > I am not sure what the experiences of the other draft tables were like, > but my table included one Maine player whose behavior was especially > egregious. Now I'm not going to be naming any names at this time, but > I'll just refer to this individual as "Person X". Although I did not > know Person X very well prior to this qualifier, I was acquainted with > him from a few other events and he generally seemed to be an okay guy. > Person X was apparantly aware that he was not going to be playing in > the draft event so he decided to participate in only the draft phase > but with the sole intention of rare drafting. I'm not going to defend them, exactly - but I do intend to be a bit of an apologist for it. I think you're taking the matter more seriously than is warranted. You have to accept that you just can't stop this sort of thing. 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. Some people like them, I expect, because there's still a lot of quick-on-your-feet type nuances to work through and some games aren't absolutely hopeless. I guess it probably depends on your attitude a lot. But a lot of us just feel like they're an excercise in masochism anyway so why take them seriously? (I'm not questioning why you should take them seriously, if you like. I'm just saying a lot of people won't take them seriously even when they choose to participate.) 2) Was there anything else to do on Sunday for VtES players who don't like playing limited? Anything at all? A good way to avoid people popping into limited events who really don't like them and won't take them seriously is to provide some kind of alternative constructed event. Even if you don't want to provide an alternative sanctioned constructed tournament, there could be some house-rules contructed tournament. I suspect a Rapid Thought tournament might be ideal for such a time. 3) Nothing in the entire universe can ever, EVER stop this including making people play one game or two games or the whole tournament or whatever***. I could do it pretty much without thinking about it if I really had a mind to. (I can't foresee why I ever would but make no mistake, I could.) You draft what you want and then you just grit your teeth and you accept that you will get beaten like a red-headed stepchild. But so what? I got the cards! Wheeeee! (*** - except things like ante. That might help a bit. I think most people don't really like ante, though.) So I guess that's my answer: a combination of more acceptance of the situation and, perhaps, a bit more awareness about avoiding certain kinds of things that will tend to invite it. Fred

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > After talking with Josh, it seems that he was under the impression that > the Maine players were going to play in the first round before leaving. > Now I do understand that sometimes circumstances may arise forcing an > individual to leave prematurely. And it is true that the first round > did not start until around noon (the tournament was scheduled to begin > at 10 AM). Just in case people weren't aware... this is from the V:EKN Tournament rules. 7.2.5. Early Departure and Later Arrivals Once a player in a Limited tournament has received sealed product, he or she may not withdraw from the event prior to the conclusion of first round. If a player violates this rule, he or she must return the product he or she received from the organizer, and receives a "Loss" for the round on the official tournament record and is dropped from the tournament. -Robert

Fred Scott wrote: > <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > After talking with Josh, it seems that he was under the impression that > > the Maine players were going to play in the first round before leaving. > > Now I do understand that sometimes circumstances may arise forcing an > > individual to leave prematurely. And it is true that the first round > > did not start until around noon (the tournament was scheduled to begin > > at 10 AM). > > Well, the last sentence of the paragraph is likely the crux of the problem > right there. Two hour delays in tournament start time play hell with > peoples' travel schedules. It sounds quite likely from your description > that the players involved probably understood they couldn't play out the > tournament no matter what but entered it with the intention of drafting > for what they wanted to keep more than what they wanted to play. When > the tournament got delayed *two* *hours* (!), it probably added quite a > bit to their cynicism about the whole affair and deducted all the rest of > whatever integrity they planned to have it altogether. > > I'm not going to defend what they did, but two-hour delays in tournaments, > especially on the last day, are really unacceptable and just don't help > matters. Please try reading that last sentence again. The tournament started a little late but it was *not* two hours late. I'm not sure if you have much experience with draft (your record on the registry doesn't show any games), but in booster draft, the draft process and deck construction can take a significant amount of time. Depending on how slow or fast the drafters are, I'd guess-timate that it might take an hour to finish drafting and maybe half an hour to finish deck-building. (Sidebar: Note that I did finish sleeving my cards well before the first round started!). So the two hours between the scheduled start and the first round *included* the draft process and deck building (and for me, card-sleeving). > 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. Some people like > them, I expect, because there's still a lot of quick-on-your-feet type > nuances to work through and some games aren't absolutely hopeless. I > guess it probably depends on your attitude a lot. But a lot of us > just feel like they're an excercise in masochism anyway so why take > them seriously? (I'm not questioning why you should take them seriously, > if you like. I'm just saying a lot of people won't take them seriously > even when they choose to participate.) #1. Booster draft is DA BOMB! I'm sure that Josh, Matt, and friends would agree (including Trey - if he took a moment from World of Warcraft to look at this post!). Draft is like this undiscovered treasure that most players just haven't really allowed themselves the opportunity to experience. #2. I might be in the minority, but I actually think that draft is *more fun* than constructed. If I had a choice between draft and a normal constructed tourney, I'll take draft any day. There's a reason why a decent number of already qualified players play draft events instead of participating in yet another qualifier. #3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but limited is here to stay. IIRC, future Championships are supposed to be based on a combination of both Constructed play *and* Limited play. > 3) Nothing in the entire universe can ever, EVER stop this including > making people play one game or two games or the whole tournament or > whatever***. I could do it pretty much without thinking about it if I > really had a mind to. (I can't foresee why I ever would but make no > mistake, I could.) You draft what you want and then you just grit your > teeth and you accept that you will get beaten like a red-headed > stepchild. But so what? I got the cards! Wheeeee! It's not as big of an issue with Constructed as it is with Limited. Nonetheless last year at Origins when Kevin Mergen ran overlapping staggered tournaments, there was talk that there might be an incentive to drop out of a tournament after the first round and play in the next one. AFAIK, not many people actually did that though I suppose it was more due to Kevin not tolerating such behavior. - Eric Chiang

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:16:47 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: ><echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >3) Nothing in the entire universe can ever, EVER stop this including >making people play one game or two games or the whole tournament or >whatever***. I could do it pretty much without thinking about it if I >really had a mind to. (I can't foresee why I ever would but make no >mistake, I could.) You draft what you want and then you just grit your >teeth and you accept that you will get beaten like a red-headed >stepchild. But so what? I got the cards! Wheeeee! > >(*** - except things like ante. That might help a bit. I think most >people don't really like ante, though.) There are a variety of ways to stop raredrafting. A major bundle of ways involves the rares being the prizes. I played one CCG draft where I only got to keep some of my rares. It's common for team drafts to have the winning team get all of the rares. Can have everyone draft rares after the event based on what position they came in. Etc. I don't see this going over so well with a lot of casual limited players, but who knows? Could just have everyone keep the rares they crack, though this cuts down on skill. Somewhat. There's much less of a penalty taking some suboptimal cards with V:TES than, say, with Magic. So, even if there are significant rewards for doing well in the event, the incentives against raredrafting are limited. I just see it being too much effort to try to counter raredrafting given the V:TES limited player base I'm used to. I'm not sure why it's that big of a deal from the standpoint of disliking raredrafting that players raredrafted and then didn't play. I mean, suppose they did play. Maybe they all get beat, but they still have the cards they drafted. And, in fact, by not playing, they can't get any prizes, so the non-raredrafters are compensated right out of the gate with more cards or the opportunities for more cards. I can certainly see other reasons to get annoyed by a bunch of players not playing, so I fully support the rule about playing that was quoted. >Fred >

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138690053.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> I'm not going to defend what they did, but two-hour delays in tournaments, >> especially on the last day, are really unacceptable and just don't help >> matters. > > Please try reading that last sentence again. The tournament started a > little late but it was *not* two hours late. Doh! Sorry! > I'm not sure if you have > much experience with draft (your record on the registry doesn't show > any games), but in booster draft, the draft process and deck > construction can take a significant amount of time. Yup. Just forgot. Obviously, I don't have a lot of experience with draft. Some, but not a lot. >> 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. Some people like >> them, I expect, because there's still a lot of quick-on-your-feet type >> nuances to work through and some games aren't absolutely hopeless. I >> guess it probably depends on your attitude a lot. But a lot of us >> just feel like they're an excercise in masochism anyway so why take >> them seriously? (I'm not questioning why you should take them seriously, >> if you like. I'm just saying a lot of people won't take them seriously >> even when they choose to participate.) > > #1. Booster draft is DA BOMB! I'm sure that Josh, Matt, and friends > would agree (including Trey - if he took a moment from World of > Warcraft to look at this post!). Draft is like this undiscovered > treasure that most players just haven't really allowed themselves the > opportunity to experience. Sorry, I've booster drafted before and the problem - for a lot of players - is not they haven't "allowed themselves the opportunity to experience it". It's just not that good. For some, anyway. A lot of people just don't want to play games with appreciably weaker decks than constructed. > #2. I might be in the minority, but I actually think that draft is > *more fun* than constructed. I suspect you are in the minority but everyone's entitled to their opinion about it, of course. > If I had a choice between draft and a > normal constructed tourney, I'll take draft any day. There's a reason > why a decent number of already qualified players play draft events > instead of participating in yet another qualifier. Sure. > #3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but limited is here to stay. IIRC, future > Championships are supposed to be based on a combination of both > Constructed play *and* Limited play. I don't recall what was said about that. I think it would be a mistake, personally. But then, nobody asks me about such things. At the moment, I'm not sure how relevant the point is or what it has to do with the reality of rare drafting in non-CQ events. >> 3) Nothing in the entire universe can ever, EVER stop this including >> making people play one game or two games or the whole tournament or >> whatever***. I could do it pretty much without thinking about it if I >> really had a mind to. (I can't foresee why I ever would but make no >> mistake, I could.) You draft what you want and then you just grit your >> teeth and you accept that you will get beaten like a red-headed >> stepchild. But so what? I got the cards! Wheeeee! > > It's not as big of an issue with Constructed as it is with Limited. I'm not sure why you're comparing the two. In Limited, people can rare draft and force themselves not to care about how they do - if they're even forced to play at all. In constructed, why would you do such a thing? > Nonetheless last year at Origins when Kevin Mergen ran overlapping > staggered tournaments, there was talk that there might be an incentive > to drop out of a tournament after the first round and play in the next > one. AFAIK, not many people actually did that though I suppose it was > more due to Kevin not tolerating such behavior. Sure. But Keven was running constructed tournaments, IIRC. There may be an issue there, but it's clearly not the same one. Fred

<cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:9e2ut11rh2t946aa8...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:16:47 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >><echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>3) Nothing in the entire universe can ever, EVER stop this including >>making people play one game or two games or the whole tournament or >>whatever***. I could do it pretty much without thinking about it if I >>really had a mind to. (I can't foresee why I ever would but make no >>mistake, I could.) You draft what you want and then you just grit your >>teeth and you accept that you will get beaten like a red-headed >>stepchild. But so what? I got the cards! Wheeeee! >> >>(*** - except things like ante. That might help a bit. I think most >>people don't really like ante, though.) > > There are a variety of ways to stop raredrafting. A major bundle of > ways involves the rares being the prizes. I guess I was counting stuff like that as being a "thing like ante". Basically, taking people's cards from them and redistributing them on the basis of results. Understandably, that will help. But a lot of people tend to view it as basically gambling on the results of games and have varying degrees of distaste for it. That issue often comes down to whether the people who influence the people who set the rules hate gambling or rare-drafting more. > Could just have everyone keep the rares they crack, though this cuts > down on skill. OK. Obviously, if you don't actually _allow_ the rare cards into your draft process, that will certainly stop rare-drafting. I guess I was sort of writing about what you could do to stop "rare drafting that people can actually do if they so choose". > I'm not sure why it's that big of a deal from the standpoint of > disliking raredrafting that players raredrafted and then didn't play. > I mean, suppose they did play. Maybe they all get beat, but they > still have the cards they drafted. And, in fact, by not playing, they > can't get any prizes, so the non-raredrafters are compensated right > out of the gate with more cards or the opportunities for more cards. Yea, that's kind of where I'm at with it. I mean, make no mistake, on some level it's kind of assanine to participate in a tournament like that without intending to compete and without caring what effect you have on the people who are. But, since it's an unstoppable thing and since there are all sorts of shades of gray involved (thus, there's no specific line a guy can cross where you suddenly conclude that he's "evil"), it's probably best to accept that this is a factor you can't control. And, as I suggested, maybe give potential people like that an alternate outlet that they might like better. Fred

Robert Goudie wrote: > 7.2.5. Early Departure and Later Arrivals So here we have the official solution. In general i think rare drafting is not the big problem for draft play. 1st. If i get the cards for the draft as a bargain, i will usually put that in the prizes and not in the drafted cards. It is not so interesting to draft five more rares, if you win 5 boosters with fifth place. 2nd. As judge/organizer i always tell the players what card (usually the last card) is the rare card. So everyone has the same possibility to draft a rare card. 3rd. A good rare card is usually drafted in the first pick (Two times i got a Powerbase Montreal with first pick. That is not rare drafting, it is a winning card for the games.) You usually only get weak rares later on. So why draft a weak rare, that has not much value on ebay, if i can win the tournament? That draft is a wonderful tournament concept doenst need to be discussed. There may be many people who prefer constructed, there are also many people who hate constructed because of its nature to have overpowered decks. But the actual draft playing is hampered by the fact that we still have no good base to draft from. SW and CE are not so easy available, and have some problems (all good CE vote cards are in starters for example).. Other sets are often very limited for draft play. It would be also very good, if the tournament rules for drafting would be more flexible, allowing starter draft (including the cards of starters in the draft process gives you good and cheap basic cards) or random booster selection (including two BH boosters isnt usually enough to play a BH deck - if every player could draft them at a different time, you have more chance to get the BH cards you need). Frank

Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > 7.2.5. Early Departure and Later Arrivals > Once a player in a Limited tournament has received sealed product, he > or she may not withdraw from the event prior to the conclusion of first > round. If a player violates this rule, he or she must return the > product he or she received from the organizer, and receives a "Loss" > for the round on the official tournament record and is dropped from the > tournament. Let me explain the situation from my own perspective, as the organizer of the event. I take partial blame for what happened, and I apologize. The person in charge of driving that group home, came up to me before the event began. He specifically asked me if they could draft and then leave before Round 1, as they wanted to leave earlier than expected. I explained to him that it was *preferable* if they would play one round; I did not directly quote the VEKN rule but I thought he got the message. He said he would go discuss it with his fellow players, and I assumed that they came to the decision that they would sit down for one round. I may have been unclear, and I may have been naive, about the situation. After drafting was over, and I had already determined Round 1 seating (with those players in the stack), I discovered that they were not staying, and I witnessed this "Player X" bragging about how many rares he had drafted, and calling himself a Drafting Pirate. I did not demand the cards back at this time, which is my fault as a judge. I take responsibility for that mistake and unfamiliarity with that VEKN rule. Oscar and I tried to resolve it in the fairest way possible, and in the end I don't know how it had affected the actual deckbuilding ability of the drafters present. In hindsight, if I had known they had made their decision to leave, even if I was going to allow them to draft out of the kindness of my heart, I would have placed them all at the same table, with no one else, for the drafting round, and not counted them as a part of the event. But, due to this unfortunate incident and misunderstanding, I will deal with this group of people privately, when it comes to future Limited events. Eric, I wish you had brought this up in a private discussion with myself and the other organizers, rather than posting it to a public forum first, but I do understand your concerns. I would like to give those players the opportunity to contact me first, before I contact them regarding the situation. Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Fred Scott wrote: > 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. Wrong. Matt Morgan

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > First off I have to give props to Josh for running a superb qualifier > this past weekend. The qualifier in Providence was among the best-run > qualifiers I have seen in years. > > There was however a rather disturbing incident during the Sunday event > (which was beyond the control of the tournament organizers, who are > faultless) that I feel needs to be addressed. I have to say, I always love the annual "Eric Chiang NERQ post-mortem". It is the tastiest morsel of soap operatic thread-work in the first quarter of any given year... :-) DZ AW

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:PgDDf.16883$JT.15246@fed1read06... > <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> After talking with Josh, it seems that he was under the impression that >> the Maine players were going to play in the first round before leaving. >> Now I do understand that sometimes circumstances may arise forcing an >> individual to leave prematurely. And it is true that the first round >> did not start until around noon (the tournament was scheduled to begin >> at 10 AM). > > Well, the last sentence of the paragraph is likely the crux of the problem > right there. Two hour delays in tournament start time play hell with > peoples' travel schedules. It sounds quite likely from your description > that the players involved probably understood they couldn't play out the > tournament no matter what but entered it with the intention of drafting > for what they wanted to keep more than what they wanted to play. When > the tournament got delayed *two* *hours* (!), it probably added quite a > bit to their cynicism about the whole affair and deducted all the rest of > whatever integrity they planned to have it altogether. Yeah, as Eric said, this was *not* a two hour delay in the tournament. When you start a draft event at 10 am, you start *drafting* at 10 am. Drafting and deck construction takes at least an hour if everyone involved is already an experienced drafter - two hours is not at all unreasonable with a large draft where a number of participants haven't done a lot of drafting in their lives. This is why draft events are usually 2 rounds plus final rather than 3 rounds plus final: you expect to use the 2 hours that would "normally" go into the third preliminary round for the drafting process instead. Now, it *is* possible that they entered the tournament not understanding this about draft - that there's an hour or two of time to invest before the games begin. > I'm not going to defend them, exactly - but I do intend to be a bit of > an apologist for it. I think you're taking the matter more seriously > than is warranted. You have to accept that you just can't stop this > sort of thing. I actually agree with that to some extent. Not with your arguments, necessarily, but that you can't entirely stop people from rare-drafting (nor do you really want to). To my mind, it's pretty much up to each participant in a draft tournament to decide how much they want to value drafting the rares from the packs they open versus drafting the strongest card in terms of gameplay for their draft deck. To me, each time I open a draft pack, I'm going to consider how much I value the rare versus whatever else is in the pack. There are plenty of crappy rares that I'm going to pass, but there are also a significant number of rares that are worth drafting, even if I could get a decent draft common by passing it up. The strong common improves my chances of winning the tournament (and whatever additional rares in the form of prize support that might produce), but the rare is, as you might say, a bird in the hand. :-) Then, too, some rares are not only good in constructed (and therefore "valuable") but also good in draft play. Those give you a pretty easy decision. :-) (examples: Mbare Market Harare, Art Museum, Ivory Bow...) > 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. Some people like > them, I expect, because there's still a lot of quick-on-your-feet type > nuances to work through and some games aren't absolutely hopeless. I > guess it probably depends on your attitude a lot. But a lot of us > just feel like they're an excercise in masochism anyway so why take > them seriously? (I'm not questioning why you should take them seriously, > if you like. I'm just saying a lot of people won't take them seriously > even when they choose to participate.) Not true. Draft tournaments for VTES are totally awesome. Those who feel they're an exercise in masochism just haven't played enough to learn to love the draft. They probably don't like coffee either. :-) In this particular event, I made a four-clan, eight-discipline deck that was just nothing but sweet. Man. I love that deck. It had Malkavians and Nosferatu from CE, Akunanse and Kiasyd from LoB, and used Dementation, Obfuscate, Auspex, Dominate, Animalism, Potence, Abombwe, and Mytherceria. Plus, Anarchs three-ways on which I could also use the Celerity and Fortitude! In two out of three games, I could use all eight disciplines by influencing out three of my initial four-vampire draw. No wait, actually that was true of the third game too, only in that one my weenie predator made me feel unable to bring out the 9-cap to contribute the last few disciplines, so I drew a fifth vamp and brought out the 6-cap instead. > 2) Was there anything else to do on Sunday for VtES players who don't > like playing limited? Anything at all? A good way to avoid people > popping into limited events who really don't like them and won't take > them seriously is to provide some kind of alternative constructed event. > Even if you don't want to provide an alternative sanctioned constructed > tournament, there could be some house-rules contructed tournament. I > suspect a Rapid Thought tournament might be ideal for such a time. There were pickup games for people who didn't like draft, or didn't have time to participate. I know several perfectly respectable players (some of whom even enjoy draft play - yeah, I'm talking about you, Mr. Bakija) who were playing pickup constructed at 10 am because they weren't going to stay in Providence long enough for the draft event. > So I guess that's my answer: a combination of more acceptance of the > situation and, perhaps, a bit more awareness about avoiding certain > kinds of things that will tend to invite it. I think you're right in that drafting the rares is not in itself something to really get worked up about. But drafting the rares and then leaving without even playing a game isn't really in the spirit of the game. And we are all players of a game that only works when people uphold the spirit of the game: at any time, any game of VTES can be made un-fun for all the players if one player decides to make an ass of himself. That's just the way it is. I don't think we would say that everyone should be more accepting of players making asses of themselves, though, would we? Josh not an angry girl

Well, As the ex-Prince of Bangor (Maine) I have talked to the person in question in the previous posts regarding the Draft Tournament at the 2006 NEQ. Note that I did not attend the event, but this is what I would like to say. On Sunday, before the event, the players from Maine consulted with the Tournaments Head Judge regarding leaving the event after drafting. The HJ, through no fault of his own, said that was allowed but would prefer if they stayed and played in the event. Note this "ruling" was incorrect as stated by Robert (see 7.2.5. Early Departure and Later Arrivals). However at the time, the HJ was not aware of this specific rule and not at fault. The Maine players entered the draft, paid their entry fee, received their cards and proceeded to draft cards. They drafted cards based upon whatever strategy, theory or whim they wanted to exercise-the same thing that EVERYONE else had the opportunity to do at this event. After the draft, the Maine players decided to leave. So technically the only thing they did that violated V:EKN Floor Rules was to leave without playing one round. I'm sure that if 7.2.5. had been officially mentioned and thus enforced, the players would've played in at least one round or not entered the event. So there you have it. The very nature of these draft events allow people to use whatever process, theory or strategy when selecting cards. If you are offended by the fact that someone may be selecting a rare card for their collection over a common card to be used in their tournament deck, perhaps you should just stay home. Finally, regarding some of the comments by posters in this thread. Eric Chaing wrote, "But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine players who would stoop to such a low." and "Similarly, I will be extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft table with any Maine players ever again." To which I reply that you are entitled to you own personal opinions on other people. If you wish to make biased assumptions and stereotype people due to their geographic origins, fine. As a player from Maine, I do take offense to your remarks but consider them basically worthless slander and pathetic whining. Josh Feuerstein wrote, "But, due to this unfortunate incident and misunderstanding, I will deal with this group of people privately, when it comes to future Limited events." To which I reply I feel that your above statement sounds like an openly aggressive threat. How exactly do you plan to "deal" with them? Are you saying that you will attempt to ban or discriminate against any player from that group at your future events? I wonder what White Wolf thinks of one of their volunteer Princes deciding not to allow (or at least discouraging) certain players from playing their game? The last time I checked, pressuring players or making them feel uncomfortable to attend your events is not listed as a duty of a Prince. Fred Scott wrote, "In Limited, people can rare draft and force themselves not to care about how they do - if they're even forced to play at all." To which I reply, exactly. Thank you Fred for calmly pointing out that how someone drafts in a draft event is entirely up to themselves. Everyone at every draft event has the same opportunity to draft however they wish. Like it or not, that is the nature of that particular format. Ben Spaulding, The Anarch of Maine

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:33:27 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >Sorry, I've booster drafted before and the problem - for a lot of players - >is not they haven't "allowed themselves the opportunity to experience it". >It's just not that good. For some, anyway. A lot of people just don't >want to play games with appreciably weaker decks than constructed. >Fred This is such an odd view. In what CCG are limited decks remotely comparable to constructed decks? Netrunner? Is there any CCG currently supported where draft decks can compete with constructed decks? Limited and constructed play in various CCGs might use the same core mechanics, but they are entirely different animals. There's just no getting around that. V:TES draft isn't V:TES constructed with weak decks, it's a different game. It's a game where Personal Scourge is playable, where Animalism is the best discipline, etc. It's fine to not like this game, but there's no reason to compare it to what's essentially a different game. I think you also dislike limited Magic. Given how popular that is, is it that surprising that a fair number of people like limited V:TES? BTW, one argument against limited I've never understood is people complaining about how bad their decks were. Um, bad in comparison to what? Certainly not your opponents' decks. If your concern is the ability to compete, isn't how good your deck is in relation to your opponents what actually matters?

Fred Scott wrote: > <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > #2. I might be in the minority, but I actually think that draft is > > *more fun* than constructed. > > I suspect you are in the minority but everyone's entitled to their > opinion about it, of course. Well if he is, then I'm right there with him...I love draft events. In fact I'd rather play draft than constructed any day of the week. For me its all about skill and making the best of what you get, as a friend of mine once put it, "In draft everyone is equally screwed." Additionally, draft events tend to be the most fun as players pull off some of wierdest and funniest combos, things that you would never see in constructed.

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > Josh Feuerstein wrote, "But, due to this unfortunate incident and > misunderstanding, I will deal with this group of people privately, when > it comes to future Limited events." > To which I reply I feel that your above statement sounds like an openly > aggressive threat. Hi Ben, I want to let you know that this wasn't intended as a threat at all. I was expressing frustration at the fact that Eric decided to bring this to a public forum, with such dramatic flair, before it was able to be dealt with in a mature and responsible manner, privately. I fully admit that my ignorance of the VEKN Floor Rule is significant to what happened, and I'm not blaming them for drafting however they wanted to, in the poorly-communicated (on my part) situation they were presented. What truly does upset me, was the one player (who shall still remain nameless) who loudly bragged about how many Rares he drafted as he departed, which is truly poor sportsmanship. I want to actively discourage this behavior, and yes it will reflect poorly on my opinion of this player. For future Limited events, I will make sure that *all* players are aware that drafting is disallowed without playing one round.

<cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:1jvut1lj655qn732f...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:33:27 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>Sorry, I've booster drafted before and the problem - for a lot of players - >>is not they haven't "allowed themselves the opportunity to experience it". >>It's just not that good. For some, anyway. A lot of people just don't >>want to play games with appreciably weaker decks than constructed. > > This is such an odd view. In what CCG are limited decks remotely > comparable to constructed decks? ... > Is there any CCG currently supported where draft decks can compete > with constructed decks? They don't need to be remotely comparable. They just need to give a sense that you can do something. I enjoyed booster draft in Magic well enough, I guess. There's so many more clans and disciplines than there are, say, spell colors in Magic. There's also the issue of what happens when your cards don't match your vampires, which tends to make for a very uninteresting game. Jyhad is going to be play-balanced completely differently than a game like Magic for a number of reasons. I think the two most important ones are the fact that you automatically draw a card when you play a card in Jyhad - which makes the opportunity cost of a card different - and the fact that there's no card limits - which makes it very difficult to just throw away some slots on common card sheets for booster packs to cards that are ass in constructed but make limited interesting (the way they seem to do in Magic). I suspect these things tend to make it more difficult to print boosters that can be drafted in small, affordable numbers and yield decks that do much. > I think you also dislike limited Magic. I don't like it as much as constructed Magic. But it's at least good enough that the drafting portion of the tournament makes up somewhat for the less interesting games. > BTW, one argument against limited I've never understood is people > complaining about how bad their decks were. Um, bad in comparison to > what? Constructed, obviously. But it's more than just an issue of comparing limited directly to constructed. It's also what happens in a game when you've got five bad decks going against each other. I can bleed for one at zero stealth, get intercepted, and we hand-strike each other at one strength. Well, that's pointless. So I don't. I sit and draw a card. Not that I'm particularly looking forward to drawing anything in my library... Jyhad, with its abundant card flow is a much more combo-based game than Magic, with its four-card limit, one draw per turn. In constructed, obviously you build your deck carefully to include the card combinations you want and the ones that will work with your vampires. Therefore, being constrained to a small collection of cards, even one that you draft, is a much worse handicap than in Magic. Fred

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1138721125.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Well, > > As the ex-Prince of Bangor (Maine) I have talked to the person in > question in the previous posts regarding the Draft Tournament at the > 2006 NEQ. Note that I did not attend the event, but this is what I > would like to say. > > On Sunday, before the event, the players from Maine consulted with the > Tournaments Head Judge regarding leaving the event after drafting. The > HJ, through no fault of his own, said that was allowed but would prefer > if they stayed and played in the event. Note this "ruling" was > incorrect as stated by Robert (see 7.2.5. Early Departure and Later > Arrivals). However at the time, the HJ was not aware of this specific > rule and not at fault. > > The Maine players entered the draft, paid their entry fee, received > their cards and proceeded to draft cards. They drafted cards based > upon whatever strategy, theory or whim they wanted to exercise-the same > thing that EVERYONE else had the opportunity to do at this event. > After the draft, the Maine players decided to leave. So technically > the only thing they did that violated V:EKN Floor Rules was to leave > without playing one round. I'm sure that if 7.2.5. had been > officially mentioned and thus enforced, the players would've played > in at least one round or not entered the event. > There seems to be an implicit assumption here that this problem is beyond a timeframe for application of the VEKN rules... I don't think thats the case. All parties should toss around the idea of having the non-playing participants return their cards to Josh for a refund, per VEKN rules, and those cards may be distributed among the winning players from the draft event (assuming event economics can absorb the cost)? It seems an appropriate goodwill gesture on the part of the non-playing participants to help in correcting this admittedly messy matter. > So there you have it. The very nature of these draft events allow > people to use whatever process, theory or strategy when selecting > cards. If you are offended by the fact that someone may be selecting a > rare card for their collection over a common card to be used in their > tournament deck, perhaps you should just stay home. > You have to realize, though, Ben, that the motivation to rare draft is demonstrably stronger when there is no intention of playing even a single round. The nature of drafts allows for this behavior, yes, but that doesn't fully excuse the profiteering nature of at least one non-player (Person X), at the expense of his pod-mates. > Finally, regarding some of the comments by posters in this thread. > > Eric Chaing wrote, "But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine > players who would stoop to such a low." and "Similarly, I will be > extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft > table with any Maine players ever again." > > To which I reply that you are entitled to you own personal opinions on > other people. If you wish to make biased assumptions and stereotype > people due to their geographic origins, fine. As a player from Maine, > I do take offense to your remarks but consider them basically worthless > slander and pathetic whining. > This I fully agree with. If one to five people mis-behave, it is absolutely inappropriate to imply that a whole region is therefore suspect. That smacks of some variety of eugenics... Poor form, Eric. I expect this matter had you quite upset when you posted, and that you probably don't really mean this. > Fred Scott wrote, "In Limited, people can rare draft and force > themselves not to care about how they do - if they're even forced to > play at all." > > To which I reply, exactly. Thank you Fred for calmly pointing out that > how someone drafts in a draft event is entirely up to themselves. > Everyone at every draft event has the same opportunity to draft however > they wish. Like it or not, that is the nature of that particular > format. By the same token, if the drafters within pods should be made aware if one of their number is planning on not even participating, since it could impact their own draft motive decisions. That seems to me to be the most inherintly unfair aspect of the situation before us; pod-mates to non-players weren't aware of the fact that these people were leaving, and didn't have an opportunity to adjust their draft method to accomodate. There might be a case for the idea that a theoretical future non-playing drafter may be somehow penalized under unsportsamnlike conduct rules, for not informing other draft pod members of his intent not to participate in the event. It has an unusually stong influence on the draft dynamic, beyond that of rare-drafters who will actually play what they draft. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:449dipF...@individual.net... >> 1) Draft tournaments in Jyhad just aren't very good. ... > Not true. Draft tournaments for VTES are totally awesome. Those who feel > they're an exercise in masochism just haven't played enough to learn to love > the draft. They probably don't like coffee either. :-) No, no! Coffee is good! But too much coffee and a horrendous draft deck in a game with other bad draft decks is a terrible combination. Fred, who concedes that at least he would have enough time to pee...

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Fred Scott wrote: > But too much coffee and a horrendous draft deck in a game with other bad > draft decks is a terrible combination. I don't know where you're coming up with this stuff. I suggest you give draft another try. I didn't like it that much at first, myself. The fact of that matter is that one CAN build effective draft decks that oust people and get stuff done. It takes practice, skill, cunning and coffee. You're 1/4 of the way there already. From my perspective, the draft haters are in the minority. It seems very popular on the east coast, anyway. But just to throw this out there, even if draft did suck (which it doesn't), that wouldn't at all be an excuse to rare-draft and split. That's like ordering lasangna in a restaurant and then refusing to pay for it on the grounds that you don't like lasangna. Instead, one should sleep in, play other games, go home, take a walk, read a book, etc. Or one could sit sadly and quietly with one's hands folded neatly in one's lap and a tear in one's eye while everyone else has fun drafting! Matt Morgan

cur...@aol.commetal wrote: > Limited and constructed play in various CCGs might use the same core > mechanics, but they are entirely different animals. There's just no > getting around that. V:TES draft isn't V:TES constructed with weak > decks, it's a different game. It's a game where Personal Scourge is > playable, where Animalism is the best discipline, etc. It's fine to > not like this game, but there's no reason to compare it to what's > essentially a different game. Yeah, part of the fun with draft is that some of the strongest cards are cards that normally wouldn't make it in a constructed deck. In the past, I've gotten passed as the last card, awesome cards like Frenzy and Masquerade Endangered. Both of which are superb in draft. Personal Scourge and Blood Rage are quite good due to a greater reliance on weapons. Many Bloodlines cards are highly valued for their outferior effects. I've even made excellent use of Mistaken Identity in draft. In draft you're far more likely to take advantage of out-of-clan disciplines on otherwise crappy vampires. > BTW, one argument against limited I've never understood is people > complaining about how bad their decks were. Um, bad in comparison to > what? Certainly not your opponents' decks. If your concern is the > ability to compete, isn't how good your deck is in relation to your > opponents what actually matters? Heh. I think complaining about how bad your deck is, is part of the fun for draft. (With the knowledge that everyone else's deck is just as bad). And it's just hilarious when you do well with a deck that you know is pretty crummy. - Eric Chiang

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I'm not going to defend them, exactly - but I do intend to be a bit of > > an apologist for it. I think you're taking the matter more seriously > > than is warranted. You have to accept that you just can't stop this > > sort of thing. > > I actually agree with that to some extent. Not with your arguments, > necessarily, but that you can't entirely stop people from rare-drafting (nor > do you really want to). > > To my mind, it's pretty much up to each participant in a draft tournament to > decide how much they want to value drafting the rares from the packs they > open versus drafting the strongest card in terms of gameplay for their draft > deck. To me, each time I open a draft pack, I'm going to consider how much > I value the rare versus whatever else is in the pack. There are plenty of > crappy rares that I'm going to pass, but there are also a significant number > of rares that are worth drafting, even if I could get a decent draft common > by passing it up. The strong common improves my chances of winning the > tournament (and whatever additional rares in the form of prize support that > might produce), but the rare is, as you might say, a bird in the hand. :-) > > Then, too, some rares are not only good in constructed (and therefore > "valuable") but also good in draft play. Those give you a pretty easy > decision. :-) (examples: Mbare Market Harare, Art Museum, Ivory Bow...) Somehow it feels like people are putting words in my mouth and are accusing me of condemning rare drafting entirely. #1. I understand that it is inevitable, hence why my original post included "Now I know that some people will rare draft." #2. I acknowledged that on occasion I also rare draft ("I'll readily admit that I have done so on occasion as well") #3. I specifically stated that "There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it" To clarify, I am not upset about rare-drafting. I am upset about the rare-drafting and then taking off before even playing a game. Rare-drafting is an entirely viable strategy. And it allows you to do some pretty awesome things. On the Saturday draft I managed to get 38 pool of vampires on the table thanks to Menele, Secret Horde, Minion Tap, and an Arcane Library and I also got the Sword of Nuln and Sword of Troile in play as well. In the past I have used a Walk of Arcadia while attempting to equip with an Enchanted Marionette in draft. I have also effectively used crap rares like Mistaken Identity and XTC-Laced Blood. But it seems like too many people are sidestepping my main points by assuming that I am opposed to rare drafting at all. - Eric Chiang

Jozxyqk wrote: > Eric, I wish you had brought this up in a private discussion with myself > and the other organizers, rather than posting it to a public forum > first, but I do understand your concerns. Well I do want to state that this was not simply a unilateral decision. During and after the event I discussed the matter with several other players who were displeased by what some of the Maine players had done. During this consultation, several of us agreed that we should bring the matter to the newsgroup and I volunteered to start the post since I'm not afraid of generating some relevant controversy and I'm okay with attracting most of the flak for bringing up the issue. I suppose that bringing the issue up privately might have assuaged some of my concerns (assuming I was kept updated on the final resolution) but this affected other people as well. Since multiple people were affected and some concerned parties might not have even been aware of what had happened, my viewpoint was that a public forum would be a more appropriate means than private e-mail. - Eric Chiang

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006013111...@eris.io.com... > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Fred Scott wrote: >> But too much coffee and a horrendous draft deck in a game with other bad >> draft decks is a terrible combination. > > I don't know where you're coming up with this stuff. Just my experience with it. It's not much fun for me when I do it. > I suggest you give draft another try. I didn't like it that much at > first, myself. The fact of that matter is that one CAN build effective > draft decks that oust people and get stuff done. "Effective" is a subjective judgement that hinges on what one wants from the game and likes about the game. Sure, I acknowledge that some drafts are better than others and sometimes people can accomplish things they set out to do when drafting a deck. That said, however, clearly it's a lot harder to do "things" - e.g. incorporate effective combat or effective combat defense, find ways to force good bleeds through, bloat or guard your pool. And what things you can do are basically out of your control. If you have no problem going with the flow, that's fine. Some of us find that more frustrating than others, though. > It takes practice, I'm sorry, I live in a state where we're challenged to sanction more than two tournaments a year. I don't think I'm going to get a lot of practice here. I think the nearest sanctioned draft tournaments to me in the last three years are 750 miles away. I don't think I'm going to be getting much practice, no matter how you slice it. > skill, Ha! That's easy for you to say. I have no skill. > cunning None o' that either. You are talking to a man who is frequently outsmarted by his own cats. > and coffee. You're 1/4 of the way there already. See, that's the thing. Coffee's easy. I can buy that at the grocery store. Tell me where to buy a cup of skill. (That's a joke, son. Please refrain from the stock "you-got-to-keep- trying" lecture. If I tried, I'd have to engage in an activity that bores the hell of me for many more hours.) > From my perspective, the draft haters are in the minority. It > seems very popular on the east coast, anyway. I don't know. You might be right. Joking aside, though, if I'm stuck at a convention or something and draft Jyhad is the only real thing going on right now, I'd play. I'm not that much of a humbug about it. I wonder how many people there are like that who'll play some draft, especially for a change of pace, but really prefer constructed to draft in the end. "Draft haters" is not really the right expression. > But just to throw this out there, even if draft did suck (which it > doesn't), that wouldn't at all be an excuse to rare-draft and split. > That's like ordering lasangna in a restaurant and then refusing to pay for > it on the grounds that you don't like lasangna. Instead, one should sleep > in, play other games, go home, take a walk, read a book, etc. Or one > could sit sadly and quietly with one's hands folded neatly in one's lap > and a tear in one's eye while everyone else has fun drafting! Sure. As I said in another post, it's kind of assanine to join a draft with no intention to compete knowing you're screwing up others' ability to compete in order to rare draft or for any other reason. It's just something you can't control in the end so why worry about it. Unfortunately, there is a bit of an incentive for people to do so which is probably why the issue comes up at all. Fred

David Zopf wrote: > > Finally, regarding some of the comments by posters in this thread. > > > > Eric Chaing wrote, "But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine > > players who would stoop to such a low." and "Similarly, I will be > > extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft > > table with any Maine players ever again." > > > > To which I reply that you are entitled to you own personal opinions on > > other people. If you wish to make biased assumptions and stereotype > > people due to their geographic origins, fine. As a player from Maine, > > I do take offense to your remarks but consider them basically worthless > > slander and pathetic whining. > > > > This I fully agree with. If one to five people mis-behave, it is absolutely > inappropriate to imply that a whole region is therefore suspect. That > smacks of some variety of eugenics... Poor form, Eric. I expect this > matter had you quite upset when you posted, and that you probably don't > really mean this. I actually did mean this and I stand by my remarks (which have nothing to do with eugenics BTW). The fact is: #1.) People will draw assumptions and generate stereotypes, #2.) Individuals are representing their geographic location and may affect the reputation of that region, and #3.) Behavior is often consistant with the playstyle and attitudes of that particular playgroup. * Note that I'm simply referring to geographic location. Issues of race/sex/gender/religion/etc. would only diverge this discussion even further and are quite controversial in nature. A.) There are many generalizations and assumptions about VTES playstyle. The Quebec players will uphold their deals even to their own detriment, the L.A. playgroup is ruthless and willing to break deals, and the Europeans *love* DI. I'm flattered if you actually think that I am responsible for creating, proliferating, and maintaining such stereotypes but I really don't think I can take credit for all this. B.) While Random Person Z might not affect the reputation of a playgroup, I'm certainly willing to bet that the behavior of name-players will. If David & Robyn Tatu, Jeff Thompson, and Derek Rey all do something, people are going to associate that with the Atlanta playgroup. If Ben Peal, Matt Hirsch, and Josh Feuerstein all share a similar playstyle, people are likely to view it as representative of Boston (even if it was exhibited by a group of five or less). Similarly, it's likely that the behavior of the American players at the various EC's will be broadly applied to American players in general. (What was that I recall hearing about American players being cliquey?). C.) Perceptions about an individual even transfer to others related to that person. I know that Jared Strait's reputation has inadvertently rubbed off on his brother Shane. D.) If you recall the Grouping controversy around the time of Camarilla, as I understand it, one individual's behavior completely screwed over his playgroup even though that individual was not representative of the playgroup. E.) It seems likely that an individual's playstyle is cultivated or at least influenced by his or her playgroup. The fact that Mr. Spaulding agrees with this behavior and explicitly condones it only further supports my perception of the Maine playgroup's playstyle and attitudes. > > Fred Scott wrote, "In Limited, people can rare draft and force > > themselves not to care about how they do - if they're even forced to > > play at all." > > > > To which I reply, exactly. Thank you Fred for calmly pointing out that > > how someone drafts in a draft event is entirely up to themselves. > > Everyone at every draft event has the same opportunity to draft however > > they wish. Like it or not, that is the nature of that particular > > format. > > By the same token, if the drafters within pods should be made aware if one > of their number is planning on not even participating, since it could impact > their own draft motive decisions. That seems to me to be the most > inherintly unfair aspect of the situation before us; pod-mates to > non-players weren't aware of the fact that these people were leaving, and > didn't have an opportunity to adjust their draft method to accomodate. > There might be a case for the idea that a theoretical future non-playing > drafter may be somehow penalized under unsportsamnlike conduct rules, for > not informing other draft pod members of his intent not to participate in > the event. It has an unusually stong influence on the draft dynamic, beyond > that of rare-drafters who will actually play what they draft. I agree that knowing that specific individuals were not going to participate would have been helpful and would have modified my drafting decisions. In particular, I spoke with people on either side of Person X and they commented on how many rares they had passed in his direction and that if they had known he was rare-drafting with the intention of not playing, they would not have passed so many rares. Similarly, counter-drafting is far less important when individuals in the draft pod will not be playing. (If for example you were the only person at the table who was actually going to play, there would be no reason to counterdraft at all!). I would have counterdrafted less if I had known that not all of the players at my draft pod were going to be playing. - Eric Chiang

[ quoted text not captured ] I cannot fathom how you thought that it was 'more appropriate' to escaleate matters by calling out an entire playgroup, including people who were not even at the tournament (quote: "I will be extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft table with any Maine players ever again.") than it would have been to talk directly to either the tournament organizers, the Prince of those players, the WW guy in charge of organized play, or that offending player himself. 99% of the people you have publically aired your gripe to won't ever meet the players in question, much less play VTES with them. To these people, your post is arguably a bigger waste of time and bandwidth than it is beneficial and instructive. When I go to a tournament, I do want the organizers/judges to be aware of potential problems. I'd like for players that have made a habit in the past of poor sportsmanship to be known -to the people in charge- as someone worth watching. However, it's not my job as a player to keep a 'blacklist' of players that other people dislike or have had problems with, nor is it something I particularly care to do. When I sit down at a tournament, I assume and rely on the organizers to be in charge, responsible and aware of serious isses that might arise. And when I have a problem with a player's behavior, I take it to a judge, or -maybe- something like the Prince list (since usually the judges are a part of the Prince community). As far as I'm concerned, Eric, your post reads basically as follows: "There was a serious problem with several players at the NERQ. I talked to the tourney organizer, and he and the head of WW's organized play acted immediately to recompnse the players affected. I've decided that their decision was not good enough for me, so I'm going to publically go over their heads to the entire community to not only gripe about those players and their behavior - and I'm not going to name names - but also I'm just going to paint their entire playgroup by association as if everyone from their state is equally culpable." Even if you had thought that further penalties were appropriate (and apparently you do), again I cannot comprehend how you thought that directly asking the people in charge of making those decisions would be less appropriate than broadcasting your query to the entire worldwide community. So Eric, your choices here strike me as very immature and disrespectful to both Josh, Oscar, and every player in Maine that did nothing wrong (including those that weren't even in attendance.) > - Eric Chiang -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Depends on the behavior. You certainly qualify as a 'name-player', especially given your frequent travel to major events. Yet I don't think anyone would assume that the Chicago playgroup (or any playgroup you have previously been associated with) is more likely to be extremely careful about the condition and cleanliness of their cards simply because you always are, for example - nor that we would be any more likely to play VTES in a certain fashion just because you routinely do. And similarly, I don't think that anyone would assume that the negative behaviors you have exhibited at events are characteristic of your playgroup(s) - or theirs characteristic of you. -John Flournoy

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > > #2. I acknowledged that on occasion I also rare draft ("I'll readily > admit that I have done so on occasion as well") > > #3. I specifically stated that "There's nothing intrinsically wrong > with it" Sure. I think many people who play draft events - probably a vast majority - have at least once rare-drafted something either very valuable or at least very valuable to their collection. I sure have, although not to a 'I got 21 rares' extreme - but it's not uncommon I'd expect for a lot of Limited drafters to grab one or two rares based on their value outside of the draft event most of the time they participate in a draft. > To clarify, I am not upset about rare-drafting. I am upset about the > rare-drafting and then taking off before even playing a game. I'd certainly be upset about this too; I don't think you were wrong to complain about this when it happened. [ quoted text not captured ]

Yeah, I really hate letting myself be reduced to his level, but I must respond to this comment by Mr. Chiang: "E.) It seems likely that an individual's playstyle is cultivated or at least influenced by his or her playgroup. The fact that Mr. Spaulding agrees with this behavior and explicitly condones it only further supports my perception of the Maine playgroup's playstyle and attitudes." Let me say that I am now living 2hrs away from the playgroup that attended the NEQ. Next, I was not approving or disapproving of their "behavior". I was stating the one V:EKN floor rule that was violated by a misunderstanding. I was also trying to get across the notion that any player, at any draft event, can draft whatever they feel like for whatever reason they want. A player can also leave an event whenever they want. When they left, did you drop out of the event in disgust? Did your deck and the remainder of the tournament really suffer to such an extent you must vent endlessly and needlessly on the newsgroup about it? In addition, why should a player tell you what strategy or travel plans they have before the event starts? You claim it's so that you could adjust your drafting decisions. How does this make sense? How does pre-knowledge that a person at your table could be drafting only rares and then leaving make such a huge impact on your plans? Did you tell everyone at the table what disciplines you were planning on drafting? Sure you know that you might have potentially fewer opponents in the tournament (doesn't this mean you have a better chance to win more prizes, prizes that the people who are leaving have paid for and forfeited)? What's the big difference between a player drafting a rare card versus a common or uncommon? If you passed a rare to them, you obviously didn't feel that you needed to draft it that bad at that point. Finally, feel free to name the other players you refer to that share your "disgust" of Maine players. I'd like to stoop to your illogical, infantile level and vow never to play against anyone from their (or your) geographical location/playgroup ever again. If you want to continue to insult me personally and the players from Maine, do everyone a favor and send your mouse-like squeaks via private email. I appreciate the effort Josh.F. has taken to clarify this whole situation. I also appreciate the calm, rational thoughts of people like John Flournoy. I will now no longer publicly respond to Eric (unless he grows up) or his misplaced hate. Ben Spaulding, Anarch of Maine

bspaul wrote: > > When they left, did you drop out of the event in disgust? Did your > deck and the remainder of the tournament really suffer to such an > extent you must vent endlessly and needlessly on the newsgroup about > it? shouldn´t your deck be better if someone at your table was just drafting rares? since you get to see more playable cards? do you play draft to get rares (if so buying 9 boosters might be more fun). eric you are a class guy and i understand your frustration, but you should let this whole mess rest, and not further damage your reputation. what the maine players did, was against the vekn rules. now everybody knows this previously unknown rule, your job is done eric let it rest. stefan

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138733614.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > [Fred Scott wrote] >> > I'm not going to defend them, exactly - but I do intend to be a bit of >> > an apologist for it. I think you're taking the matter more seriously >> > than is warranted. You have to accept that you just can't stop this >> > sort of thing. >> >> I actually agree with that to some extent. Not with your arguments, >> necessarily, but that you can't entirely stop people from rare-drafting >> (nor >> do you really want to). > Somehow it feels like people are putting words in my mouth and are > accusing me of condemning rare drafting entirely. It would hardly be an accusation, since condemning rare drafting is no kind of crime. But I don't think I'm putting words in your mouth, either. The tone of your first post definitely made it sound like you thought rare-drafting was always bad, if inevitable. Anyway. Your clarification does make it more clear that it was the leaving before the first round that bothered you. I agree with that, it's not the right thing to do. But the only "price" you pay by playing out a round or two instead of leaving immediately is the time (two hours, maybe?) that you spend sitting around playing a deck that might not be very good. And the only additional cost you necessarily inflict on other players by leaving is the organizer's time to re-seat everyone. (Which is kind of a pain for the organizer, speaking from experience. :-) In other words, while I agree that drafting and then leaving before round 1 is not good sportsmanship, I don't think it ends up affecting everyone all that much more than would be the case if the same people did the same things but *did* stay and play in the draft games. Which is to say, I agree with you to some extent, but from my point of view, you might have been overreacting a little. Which is what I was trying to convey before, in my response to Fred's message. Josh condemnation: drafted!

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138735738.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > David Zopf wrote: > >> > Finally, regarding some of the comments by posters in this thread. >> > >> > Eric Chaing wrote, "But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine >> > players who would stoop to such a low." and "Similarly, I will be >> > extremely apprehensive about sitting at a draft >> > table with any Maine players ever again." >> > >> > To which I reply that you are entitled to you own personal opinions on >> > other people. If you wish to make biased assumptions and stereotype >> > people due to their geographic origins, fine. As a player from Maine, >> > I do take offense to your remarks but consider them basically worthless >> > slander and pathetic whining. >> > >> >> This I fully agree with. If one to five people mis-behave, it is >> absolutely >> inappropriate to imply that a whole region is therefore suspect. That >> smacks of some variety of eugenics... Poor form, Eric. I expect this >> matter had you quite upset when you posted, and that you probably don't >> really mean this. > > > I actually did mean this and I stand by my remarks (which have nothing > to do with eugenics BTW). The fact is: #1.) People will draw > assumptions and generate stereotypes, #2.) Individuals are representing > their geographic location and may affect the reputation of that region, > and #3.) Behavior is often consistant with the playstyle and attitudes > of that particular playgroup. > As John points out, it depends upon the type of behavior. Also, are these examples indicative of one playgroup, or the whole state? If there is more than one group in a region, you risk painting them with a brush over-broad. Such is the risk when stereotypes are applied, and I would think that you would be the last person to want to apply a label unfairly. > A.) There are many generalizations and assumptions about VTES > playstyle. The Quebec players will uphold their deals even to their own > detriment, the L.A. playgroup is ruthless and willing to break deals, > and the Europeans *love* DI. I'm flattered if you actually think that I > am responsible for creating, proliferating, and maintaining such > stereotypes but I really don't think I can take credit for all this. > You're trying to. Whether you're successful or not? too early to tell. I'd expect that there won't be many takers who are willing to apply the caution you do to a whole state, because of the actions of a few players. Also note the difference between what you're cautioning against, and other examples you gave (in-game vs. out of game attributes) > B.) While Random Person Z might not affect the reputation of a > playgroup, I'm certainly willing to bet that the behavior of > name-players will. If David & Robyn Tatu, Jeff Thompson, and Derek Rey > all do something, people are going to associate that with the Atlanta > playgroup. If Ben Peal, Matt Hirsch, and Josh Feuerstein all share a > similar playstyle, people are likely to view it as representative of > Boston (even if it was exhibited by a group of five or less). > Similarly, it's likely that the behavior of the American players at the > various EC's will be broadly applied to American players in general. > (What was that I recall hearing about American players being cliquey?). > Are we to encourage this with our actions and words? Is it good for the VTES community? > C.) Perceptions about an individual even transfer to others related to > that person. I know that Jared Strait's reputation has inadvertently > rubbed off on his brother Shane. > Are we to encourage this with our actions and words? Is it good for the VTES community? > D.) If you recall the Grouping controversy around the time of > Camarilla, as I understand it, one individual's behavior completely > screwed over his playgroup even though that individual was not > representative of the playgroup. > There were consequences... I wouldn't characterize them as "completely screw[ing] over" the playgroup. And again, Are we to encourage this with our actions and words? Is it good for the VTES community? > E.) It seems likely that an individual's playstyle is cultivated or at > least influenced by his or her playgroup. The fact that Mr. Spaulding > agrees with this behavior and explicitly condones it only further > supports my perception of the Maine playgroup's playstyle and > attitudes. > And Ben himself may be over-defensive of their actions, because you started your thread out by lumping him in with them, solely based on their mis-deeds (was Ben S. even in RI?)... Have you treated him fairly in doing so? I think you place too much emphasis on the ability of the play-group to influence behavior outside of the game (and this definitely counts as an out of game consideration). This problem you encountered has suprisingly little to do with VTES itself, so I don't see how the VTES play group has more influence in the matter than the myriad other factors in a person's social development. snip rest; we seem to be in agreement there. You found a problem, and it needs emphasis and a recommended penalty, IMO. At the very least, return of cards drafted, with a refund if event economics allow, no refund if it cannot be accomodated (opened/drafted cards placed in the prize pool). Maybe also apply a Game Loss for round 1 to the offender's Rating, for a non-emergency departure? (not that I place much value on that). Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

Joshua Duffin wrote: > In other words, while I agree that drafting and then > leaving before round 1 is not good sportsmanship, I don't think it ends up > affecting everyone all that much more than would be the case if the same > people did the same things but *did* stay and play in the draft games. Agreed. While "Draft and Dash" is neither honorable nor sportsmanlike, it doesn't have that much of an effect on the overall event. Most of the good rares get plucked by the original pack-openers, so I'm not overly upset that some profiteers scooted off with extra Cold Amber's Holds and Bind the Nightwalkers. Remember "21 rares" really breaks down to 10 random rares from the player's original packs, and 11 rares that at least one other person didn't want. -Matt H. /Remember that the grand prize of the tournament was a re-gifted fruitcake. That may redefine "playing to win." :)

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > There were originally 24 people who paid the entry fee and > participated in drafting. Five of these individuals (all apparantly > from Maine) seemed to have ulterior motives however and took off > promptly after the drafting process, without playing a single game. Stinky. Was there prize support? If there was, console yourself that though a few rares were drafted away from you, your odds of winning more cards were improved due to less competiton. Incidentally, if anyone wants to run a draft tournament where rare drafting is not a factor, a solution that occurs to me is to set an entry fee that permits so much prize support that snatching a few extra rares that won't help you win looks unappealing. Award a booster for every VP and five boosters for every TW, plus a big old pile of boosters for 1st through 5th place. Charge accordingly. Far fewer will rare draft, and I doubt anyone will pay that much to play, then drop out.

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday there was a booster draft event (4 Cam, 2 Anarchs, 4 > Legacies). There were originally 24 people who paid the entry fee and > participated in drafting. Five of these individuals (all apparantly > from Maine) seemed to have ulterior motives however and took off > promptly after the drafting process, without playing a single game. > What I'm confused about is -- if Mr. X had drafted his 21 rares, then played the full tournament with his (presumably crappy) deck, and then gone home would you have been happy? Why would that have been different? Seems like he would have just been wasting everyone's time. NW

David Zopf wrote: > And Ben himself may be over-defensive of their actions, because you > started your thread out by lumping him in with them, solely based on their > mis-deeds (was Ben S. even in RI?)... Have you treated him fairly in doing > so? David, I made a decision to not attend the NEQ this year in R.I. for various reasons. Therefore, I was not present at any of the events. Although I have talked to the Maine players who did attend the event. So yes, I may be a little over defensive. But you (I hope) can't really fault me for taking this stance regarding most of Eric's conclusions and generalizations. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] This reminds me. It is also likely that someone could say they intend to play in the event, and then rare draft and be unable to create a legal deck and be removed from the event. -Robert

Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Was there prize support? Oh yes.. There were a couple of boosters, but more importantly, the tournament (titled 'Refruitment') begat the grand prize of the mighty New Hampshire Fruitcake! From New Hampshire it came, and back to New Hampshire it did return.

Jozxyqk wrote: > I fully admit that my ignorance of the VEKN Floor Rule is significant to > what happened, and I'm not blaming them for drafting however they wanted > to, in the poorly-communicated (on my part) situation they were presented. I think it's a fairly obscure rule to expect the organizer to know about - after all, there were a number of experienced players at each of the drafting tables (myself not among them) that didn't know about it either. I expect people will now. > What truly does upset me, was the one player (who shall still remain > nameless) who loudly bragged about how many Rares he drafted as he > departed, which is truly poor sportsmanship. I want to actively discourage > this behavior, and yes it will reflect poorly on my opinion of this > player. This is the key to me. It was poor sportsmanship. Other people have pointed out that what happened is virtually indistinguishable from some alternative form of conduct given the same circumstance: either playing with a horrible deck, or just showing up for the first round and transferring out, or the fact that the only rares you're missing out on are ones that are bad enough that a player wouldn't want to use them. And this is why we have notions like "sportsmanship" - because there's some behavior that we're more or less powerless to control, but we want to discourage it for the sake of making the game more enjoyable. If I sat down at a table and my prey said "Guess what? I'm not going to go forward all game, I'm just going to wall up and get my .5 vp," and then proceeded to do so, the outcome would be identical to a game where she just did that anyway without telling you about it beforehand. But I would be mad. It leads to a lot of upset and anger if you feel like someone isn't playing by the same rules as you are. Going back to the point about mostly useless rares being the ones plucked out - there is a whole other impact here. If the player is drafting all rares, then the player is not drafting "power commons" - bounce, pool gain, damaging votes ... which can lead to other destabilizing effects, since players next to them will get that much more of a share at these cards. One player's poor valuation of cards will always be to the benefit of his podmates, but it makes you a little more upset if the only reason is for something purely extrinsic to the tournament. > For future Limited events, I will make sure that *all* players are aware > that drafting is disallowed without playing one round. I encourage this. Really, I would be far less upset if Player X had just said, at the beginning of the draft, "Hey guys, I just found out I have to leave a little early, but I'm just going to hang around and draft - don't worry, I'll just be taking out all the useless rares you guys don't want anyway!" If all the differences are as negligible as everyone says, then there should be no problem with this, and the other players in the pod should be overjoyed that they'll have more useful cards. I still don't like it, and it would be a violation of the VEKN rules, but if the players aren't planning anything shady then they shouldn't have a problem telling everyone about it. Eric mentioned that knowledge would help change his drafting strategy. Since I only played my first draft game ever on Saturday, I'm new enough to not have much of a drafting strategy beyond "Me like brain and eye," so I can't say I'd draft any differently. What Player X (again, I don't know the others - at least one of the other Maine players was in the Saturday evening tournament and played a good game) did was unsportsmanlike. And he bragged about it afterwards. When he got roundly condemned by everyone around, he tried to laugh it off, but the people there took it seriously. It's the kind of conduct that I don't think people should throw their hands up at and say "It can't be stopped, just suck it up." It's the kind of things where if people say it's poor play long enough, then people will accept that it is. Isn't that a better gaming environment? I'm not advocating vigilanteism or any kind of blacklist, but this community operates on reputation in a lot of ways. I have no opinion of "the Maine group," other than Player X, and I don't see that there's any harm by Eric bringing a complaint about this conduct into this forum. Everyone seems to be labelling this behavior as a necessary evil incident to the draft format. Maybe it's why draft isn't terribly popular in this game. But it seems desirable to me that if people feel like a certain normative perspective would improve things, that should be encouraged. And condemning bad behavior, even if there's no punishment other than general approbrium, is a positive thing. It wouldn't have been that hard for Player X to do any number of mitigating things, starting with returning the cards drafted when he realized he couldn't play (of course, then don't we have to worry about people unsatisfied with their draft getting a free refund, as it were?), or telling his pod that it was the case (after all, we should be happy about it, right?), or even after making his very ill-advised joke about being a drafting pirate, walking away with 21 rares for the price of 10, just saying that he was kidding, or being sincerely disappointed about not being able to play. I don't see anyone that's roundly approved of what Player X did and thinks it's a great asset to the gaming environment. I just see a lot of people offering ex post justifications for why it's not that harmful. But if you looked around at the faces of the people standing there when Player X was telling everyone this, you would see the harm.

[ quoted text not captured ] When a group leaves early, do they not also remove that pool of easy victory points? Thinking about it from the point of view of a player in the tournament, if I draft rares, I'm going to have a hard time winning. If I draft more-useful commons, I'll have a better chance of winning, especially against that guy at my table who went with a ton of rares.

[ quoted text not captured ] I won't fault you, no way. Eric put you in an uncomfortable, unwarranted, and unfair position, and decisions or comments you made from there have to be seen in light of that unfair treatment. Thats what I'm trying to do, anyways. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Rebate the player (if event funds allow), drafted cards go to prize pool. DZ AW

Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, I live in a state where we're challenged to sanction more > than two tournaments a year. I don't think I'm going to get a lot of > practice here. I think the nearest sanctioned draft tournaments to > me in the last three years are 750 miles away. Except for the several publicized FREE draft events at GenConSoCal. ;) 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

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > In addition, why should a player tell you what strategy or travel > plans they have before the event starts? You claim it's so that you > could adjust your drafting decisions. How does this make sense? How > does pre-knowledge that a person at your table could be drafting only > rares and then leaving make such a huge impact on your plans? Ben, it is apparent that either you are not a draft-player or you are so upset by this situation that you are mind-blanking on what Eric said in an earlier post. To clarify: echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > I agree that knowing that specific individuals were not going to > participate would have been helpful and would have modified my > drafting decisions. In particular, I spoke with people on either side > of Person X and they commented on how many rares they had > passed in his direction and that if they had known he was rare- > drafting with the intention of not playing, they would not have > passed so many rares. Similarly, counter-drafting is far less > important when individuals in the draft pod will not be playing. > (If for example you were the only person at the table who was > actually going to play, there would be no reason to counterdraft > at all!). I would have counterdrafted less if I had known that > not all of the players at my draft pod were going to be playing. The reason you need to know if players are going to leave after drafting or if they are going to play at least a round or two is that it is essentially the difference between playing in a "draft" and just sitting around opening boxes with friends in a "booster" format. Hope that makes it more obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, As a follow up, I am posting comments from the now infamous Player X. I talked to X via phone tonight and he wanted me to put up the following (as he did read the post by Eric but has no immediate way to post to this google group). Any response you make here will be read by X. Start of comments by Player X. I must say that I had a great time at the NEQ. Major props to Josh for running an excellent event! This morning I found a rather suspect posting to the Google group concerning the Maine players. Since I'm one of them I thought I should tell my side of the story. We weren't sure about playing in the draft since we had a 7 1/2 hour drive home after the event. The idea came up that we could get cards from the draft and go home. One member of our group consulted with Josh and I believe we all got the impression that Josh said we could do what we did. I don't think any of us would draft the cards and leave if it wasn't allowed by the organizer of the tournament. I'm not 100% familiar with the official VEKN draft rules so I didn't know that what we were doing was a violation of any particular rule. Eric Chiang wrote, "Now I know that some people will rare draft, and I'll readily admit that I have done so on occasion as well. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it but the catch is that normally when you rare draft, you're stuck playing with whatever deck you did end up drafting. So passing on those really useful commons to get those unplayable corner-case rares is going to come back to haunt you during the actual rounds." Oh? Is this so? 10 packs = 110 cards. If you were to use all the cards you would roughly have a 90 card deck and a full crypt. Does anyone know people who play with a 40 card deck? Is that cheating? Eric Chiang wrote, "At one point during the draft, Person X specifically asked aloud whether a card (Rumors of Gehenna) was rare. Most of us didn't think anything of it at the time, but now after seeing the behavior of the Maine contingent, it makes a lot more sense in hindsight." Really? I saw that card go around _twice_ and nobody took it. I already own several copies of the card so I can't see how that was an issue. If someone really needed it for their deck I imagine I wouldn't have seen it twice. Eric Chiang wrote, "But I have nothing but scorn for the Maine players who would stoop to such a low. One of the other draft participants I talked to said that this was the sort of behavior you'd expect from Magic players and that it's quite likely that the rare drafter(s) may try to earn a quick buck by putting them up on eBay." Eric, you really can't be serious with this-eBay? The cards that I took were, for the most part, cards I took for deck construction. Any player who drafts cards can take what they want for whatever reason they want. Every player at a draft has to make a decision on what card to pull and what cards to pass. If they are passing a decent card they shouldn't expect to see it come back to them. I fail to see how this is any different. I'll admit, if I did do anything to other players, I perhaps managed to help some of the people in my pod. One guy to my right seemed overjoyed when he saw some of the stuff I was passing him. Why? Because I was passing him utility commons instead of corner case rares. Example: he was passed Governed the Unaligned instead of an Ankara Citadel. Eric Chiang wrote, "I can't help but agree. In the future, I will NEVER sit at a draft table with Person X ever again. If I was placed in such a position, I would request to be moved to a different draft table and if that was not possible I would rather drop from the tournament entirely than enable his repugnant behavior." I don't think pulling cards I want is really that bad a thing. Now that I know that there is a VEKN floor rule against leaving I'll be certain this won't happen again. This was all a mistake. It wasn't anything intentional, like agreeing to split a table _before_ the round even started. It was overheard that Eric made a deal and gave the table to his co-conspirator. That is something that is truly repugnant and unsportsmanlike. I spoke with one player who was really frustrated when Eric did little more than influence out vampires and then roll over for his predator. I wish there was a way to halt this kind of vile and repugnant behavior. I guess I can just be happy that Eric won't sit at a table with me and will leave the tournament instead. Sometimes good things come out of even the worst situations :) So ends the comments by Player X. I have also received other responses from the Maine players who attend the event. In fact, I may be posting another reply here soon. To summarize those other responses, the Maine players didn't know that they were breaking some obscure VEKN floor rule (they even consulted the judge before the event started). Thus they drafted knowing that they would probably be leaving early. It was all basically a misunderstanding. However, an interesting theme that has come out of their responses is a suspect behavior by Eric Chiang. Several of the players relay the same story as listed in Player X's comments. They recall that during the actual Qualifier, Eric admitted to having made a deal with a fellow player (before the event) to assist one another throughout the event. Even to the extent of not playing to win or trying to maximize VP's. As I was not there, I do not know. But when I have more than a couple of the players telling me this story (all independently via separate emails or phone calls), it seems like it's more than just a fabrication. Feel free to form your own conclusions. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matt Hirsch wrote: > /Remember that the grand prize of the tournament was a re-gifted > fruitcake. That may redefine "playing to win." :) Also, it turned out to be The Fruitcake of Evil. It's beset Mr. Swainbank's entire family from the time he got it. John Eno

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:NVVDf.17179$JT.5759@fed1read06... > Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I'm sorry, I live in a state where we're challenged to sanction more >> than two tournaments a year. I don't think I'm going to get a lot of >> practice here. I think the nearest sanctioned draft tournaments to >> me in the last three years are 750 miles away. > > Except for the several publicized FREE draft events at GenConSoCal. ;) Er, *where* were they publicized?!? (As if attending a GenCon could ever be termed "free". An odd choice of words, indeed...) (not that it matters to me) Fred Totally missed THAT!

> So Eric, your choices here strike me as very immature and disrespectful > to both Josh, Oscar, and every player in Maine that did nothing wrong > (including those that weren't even in attendance.) I totally agree with John, and I would add that it's also disrespectful of those players who you thought *did* do something wrong. If you actually want to effect positive change, greater diplomacy would yield you greater success. Ira

<echia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1138686002.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > First off I have to give props to Josh for running a superb qualifier > this past weekend. The qualifier in Providence was among the best-run > qualifiers I have seen in years. Way to go Josh! > > So I just thought that this issue needed to be brought into the open. > In addition, I would be extremely interested in hearing about the > experiences from the other draft tables. > > > > - Eric Chiang This behavior is legal and allowed. Unfortunately it also is annoying as hell to both players and organizers. Its human nature and will continue to occasionally crop up. The fact that it does not speaks loudly for the over all maturity of the Vtes community. It can be fixed easily enough, by the simple addition of draft rules that the first rare card in your pack you draft and keep. So each player keeps the rare cards that started with. To mitigate the forced draft of rares, a second stage could be added so the players can trade within the pod rare cards. or The event offers 1 additional booster so the 7-10 rare cards your forced to take get filled with some more useful cards. Raille in for a dollar, in for a pound

Raille wrote: > This behavior is legal and allowed. No. Check the V:EKN rules. Players leaving before Round1 have to give back their cards to the organizer. > It can be fixed easily enough, by the simple addition of draft rules that > the first rare card in > your pack you draft and keep. So each player keeps the rare cards that > started with. Not necessary if you follow the rules. And that would affect the deckbuilding process as well as make the drafting even more complicated. -- johannes walch

John Flournoy wrote: > 99% of the people you have publically aired your gripe to won't ever > meet the players in question, much less play VTES with them. To these > people, your post is arguably a bigger waste of time and bandwidth than > it is beneficial and instructive. Not true. I was very interested in this discussion because if you are aware about problems that CAN happen during tournaments you will be well prepared in the case when you have the issue at one of your own tournaments (from an organziers perspective). Having a well discussed solution ready is most of the times better than hectic decisions. I have experienced this myself in the form of incorrect decklists at a major tournament where I as a head judge made decisions that I would have taken differently after thinking and discussing about it. The point is I was under time pressure and not prepared for these kind of problems (had never happened to me before). If I had discussed before on the newsgroup I would have been prepared better. I agree, though, that these kind of "I will never again ... " threats are childish, but from my (little) personal experience with Eric I assume he will cool down soon enough ;-) -- johannes walch

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote > > I totally agree with John, and I would add that it's also disrespectful > of those players who you thought *did* do something wrong. If you > actually want to effect positive change, greater diplomacy would yield > you greater success. So, just to be clear... the blame in Maine falls mainly on the? Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > So, just to be clear... the blame in Maine falls mainly on the? Wes, I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about in the above sentence. Josh.F. was unaware of an obscure VEKN floor rule. The Bangor playgroup contingent at the NEQ thus left the draft event post-draft but before playing the required one round. So you can cancel your misdirected blame and finger pointing. I am just the newsgroup voice for the Bangor players. I used to be the Prince but moved and now no longer have a group. But I am still "from Maine", hence my offense to some of the remarks made by Eric. Finally, here is another email from one of the Bangor NEQ players who doesn't have immediate newsgroup access. I'm sure he will read any comments that you make. > > > Josh Feuerstein wrote, "But, due to this unfortunate incident > and > > > misunderstanding, I will deal with this group of people > privately, > > > when it comes to future Limited events." > > > > > > To which I reply I feel that your above statement sounds like an > > > openly aggressive threat. How exactly do you plan to "deal" > with > > > them? > > > > Considering we expressed concern about the event and consulted the > > tournament organizer beforehand, how can we be held in fault about > > this? If we were told that we needed to play a round, we certainly > > would have done so, but we were told it was fine by the organizer. > > > > I'm not sure if this is a threat, but I would like to point out, > > again, the fact that "dealing" with us is pointless and misguided, > > since we did nothing wrong, to our knowledge. > > > > > Fred Scott wrote, "In Limited, people can rare draft and force > > > themselves not to care about how they do - if they're even > forced to > > > play at all." > > > > I completely agree with both Ben and Fred. As a matter of fact, if > > there's a player at your draft pod that is drafting things for his > or > > her collection, it's only to your benefit within the tournamanet. > Like > > you were going to use Tabriz Assembly in the draft, anyway (for > > example). I pass a Nose of the Hound to pick up an extra Pandora's > > Whisper, and it's your benefit. As for rare drafting, it is common > in > > these events, as Fred said, so I don't ever want to hear anyone > > complaining about it. > > > > I would like to conclude by saying that I won't let this sour my > > memory of the 2006 NEQ. I had a great time, for the most part, and > > almost everyone I met and played with were great players and great > > people. If anyone has taken personal offense from the draft, be > > assured that this was not the intent, and that I think this > incident > > has been overblown. To quote MST3K: "Just repeat to yourself 'It's > > just a (game),' and you should really just relax." > > > > -Chris Barter

bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > Wes wrote: > > So, just to be clear... the blame in Maine falls mainly on the? > Wes, > I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about in the above sentence. Ben, Wes was just trying to make a joke/pun here. You know, "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain"... Jokes are never funny when you have to explain them :)

And just with one specific response to a comment from the message: bspaul <bspa...@excite.com> wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this is a threat, but I would like to point out, > > > again, the fact that "dealing" with us is pointless and misguided, > > > since we did nothing wrong, to our knowledge. I didn't know the VEKN rule at the time, but now I do.. And I believe it would be a "noble" gesture (although that's a little overdramatic of a word) if the players involved would accept their refund and return the cards, if logistically possible. I emailed Lance Shope privately about this, but he did not respond yet. I leave it as a request for voluntary action, and if those players involved do not wish to return their cards (and get their 20 bucks back), they are by no means forced to. Again, the thing that irks me most about this was not the action itself; it was an honest mistake, for the most part, since I neither knew about, nor quoted, the appropriate rule, and I should have been more direct in defining "I would prefer it if you didn't." as "No." It was the followup loud bragging by "Player X", which was entirely uncalled for, that really bothered me (and many others). Again, at all Limited events in the future, I'm sure everyone in the entire VTES community will now be well-aware of this lesser-known rule. I harbor no hard feelings for the Maine group in general, and look forward to sharing more events with them. Josh Prince of Boston

[ quoted text not captured ] Right, I had never heard that phrase before...thanks for the explanation. I guess that I need to expand my joke vocabulary and watch some more Family Guy. [ quoted text not captured ]

bspaul wrote: > I had never heard that phrase before...thanks for the explanation. I > guess that I need to expand my joke vocabulary and watch some more > Family Guy. For what it is worth, I'm fairly certain that the line "the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" is from My Fair Lady, where Henry Higgins is teaching Eliza Dolittle to speak in an upper class English accent. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1138808885.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] *points* ... Geek. ;-) DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Google knows all: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=430358

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1138800611.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Wes wrote: >> So, just to be clear... the blame in Maine falls mainly on the? > > Wes, > > I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about in the above sentence. > Josh.F. was unaware of an obscure VEKN floor rule. The Bangor > playgroup contingent at the NEQ thus left the draft event post-draft > but before playing the required one round. So you can cancel your > misdirected blame and finger pointing. I am just the newsgroup voice > for the Bangor players. I used to be the Prince but moved and now no > longer have a group. But I am still "from Maine", hence my offense to > some of the remarks made by Eric. I was just making a silly joke, as you now see. Sorry if that was not clear. Actually, I'm sorry that it was not funny :) I think you guys are handling this well enough. A few mistakes were made... efforts are now being made to resolve them. No big deal. I would still happily throw down cards against any Maine players, should the opportunity arise. Cheers, WES

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1138800611.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Wes wrote: >> So, just to be clear... the blame in Maine falls mainly on the? > > Wes, > > I'm not sure what "blame" you are talking about in the above sentence. > Josh.F. was unaware of an obscure VEKN floor rule. The Bangor > playgroup contingent at the NEQ thus left the draft event post-draft > but before playing the required one round. So you can cancel your > misdirected blame and finger pointing. I am just the newsgroup voice > for the Bangor players. I used to be the Prince but moved and now no > longer have a group. But I am still "from Maine", hence my offense to > some of the remarks made by Eric. I was just making a silly joke, as you now see. Sorry if that was not clear. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:drq3ov$op0$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Raille wrote: >> This behavior is legal and allowed. > > No. Check the V:EKN rules. Players leaving before Round1 have to give > back their cards to the organizer. Correct. I was opperating, like you, under the assumption of the older rules. >> It can be fixed easily enough, by the simple addition of draft rules that >> the first rare card in >> your pack you draft and keep. So each player keeps the rare cards that >> started with. > > Not necessary if you follow the rules. And that would affect the > deckbuilding process as well as make the drafting even more complicated. > > -- > johannes walch Correct. Althought I don't think it would make drafting more complicated. But we just don't have to go there now, do we! Raille

Jozxyqk wrote: > It was the followup loud bragging by "Player X", which was entirely > uncalled for, that really bothered me (and many others). Hi, I've been thinking about this particular detail and it made me wonder... Would this bragging be elligible to a penalty under Unsportsmanship Behaviour? If so, which one(s) would be most applicable? Can Player X even be assigned any penalty since it seems that he already was "out" of the event at the point he started bragging? (I assume the bragging was made when the other players were already arranged at their tables, and that the account of the moment is accurate.) Just as a side note, even though I agree with Josh that this issue could've been debated in private for a better overall result, I also believe that the whole thread was very instructive nonetheless. For example, we usually have sealed + draft events here, not draft only; most event organizers believe people will feel better and happier if they get a starter + 3-4 boosters instead of straight 7-8 boosters for roughly the same amount of money - so if we want a Limited event to have enough attendance, the former event type is always preferrable, or so it seems. Since the draft portion itself just adds some flavour to a starter in these events, 99% of the time players pick up the Rare first in each booster they draft - it's not like they left too much good common/uncommon cards out of their decks anyway. I believe the only time I let a Rare pass away to get another card I badly needed was during the Gehenna pre-release event when I saw some random Crusade but picked up Zillah's Valley (I was playing a Harbingers wall deck with Slaughterhouses and some aggravated weapons). So Rare drafting was not an issue and no one would bother to brag about what they've got, since they'd get one or two extra Rares at most - and even then probably crappy ones. It never caught my attention how unfair it would be for the other players if someone did what player X did, and I believe it will be considered if we ever run a pure draft event in the future. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Jozxyqk wrote: > It was the followup loud bragging by "Player X", which was entirely > uncalled for, that really bothered me (and many others). Hi, [ quoted text not captured ]

Let's make what happened clear. I went to tell Josh that my group was leaving. Most of the other players were off in different areas making their decks. Our group wasn't 100% sure if we leaving but after checking the weather we found out that a snow storm was going to hit Maine. The decided that the sooner we left the batter the drive would be. I was going to Josh to tell him were were leaving, NOT to brag to other players. Some people asked me about the draft and I told them that by primary reason for drafting was to get some rares I was missing. I called it a Pirate draft because I liked the idea of coining my own term. I guess I got the idea from how Wigu's Jeff Rowland came up with his own word. Someone asked me how many rares I got and I said that I managed to get 21. I'm sorry if I came off like I was bragging but I only came back to tell Josh I was leaving. If Josh insisted that we stay for one round, or mentioned that there was a rule about leaving I could have pulled a deck together. There is no way anyone could draft all rares. That's foolish. As Fabio Sooner mentioned, many people pull rares that they want outside of the event. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Is what I did bragging? If it came off that way, please know that it was never my intent. I guess next time I speak with a judge I'll do so in complete privacy. And this was well before tables were set up. -Player X

<Cora...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1138912223.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Let's make what happened clear. I went to tell Josh that my group was > leaving. Most of the other players were off in different areas making > their decks. Our group wasn't 100% sure if we leaving but after > checking the weather we found out that a snow storm was going to hit > Maine. The decided that the sooner we left the batter the drive would > be. I was going to Josh to tell him were were leaving, NOT to brag to > other players. Some people asked me about the draft and I told them > that by primary reason for drafting was to get some rares I was > missing. ... > As Fabio Sooner mentioned, many people pull > rares that they want outside of the event. There is nothing wrong with > that at all. Here's the place I think you were in the wrong. If you drafted, you entered a tournament. I've never heard of anyone holding a draft just for the sake of drafting. (I suppose you could do it; I've just never heard of it.) So you entered a tournament, period. The primary purpose of entering a tournament is to compete with other players and attempt to win that competition. No one should be entering tournaments with any other primary purpose in mind. Secondary purposes are reasonable enough: testing an experimental deck against good compeition, occupying time, social interaction, and, yes, getting some good rares in a draft is fine. But the expection and common (unspoken) agreement) is that everybody is primarily trying to win the tournament or the whole concept of tournaments as competition breaks down. If you were entering and attempting to win the NEQ and you'd heard that another group of players was entering for some non-competitve reason, I think you might mind too. Let's say a bunch of guys decided they wanted to affect NEQ tables with enough events to play Fall of the Sabbat and Fall of the Camarilla just for the pure giggle factor - to have fun screwing up the strategy of the other competitors. They had no intent to compete for or win any qualifying spots, let alone the championship of the NEQ? How would you feel about that? It's not just an issue of breaking a rule in a technical sense or something. And it's not about whether you were "bragging" or not. (I respectfully disagree with Josh Feuerstein about that.) It's really, REALLY important in a competition that all competitors be competing at all times. It's a question of treating other game players the way you would like to be treated. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > The primary purpose of entering a tournament is to compete with other > players and attempt to win that competition. No one should be entering > tournaments with any other primary purpose in mind. Yes, this is true in an imaginary ideal world. It's not the case when it comes to this planet and this reality. > If you were entering and attempting to win the NEQ and you'd heard that > another group of players was entering for some non-competitve reason, > I think you might mind too. Let's say a bunch of guys decided they > wanted to affect NEQ tables with enough events to play Fall of the > Sabbat and Fall of the Camarilla just for the pure giggle factor - to > have fun screwing up the strategy of the other competitors. They > had no intent to compete for or win any qualifying spots, let alone > the championship of the NEQ? How would you feel about that? Oh, so you mean like if a player who was already qualified for a particular years continental championship played in another qualifier? Wait, that's not against the rules and it's encouraged. Oh, so you mean when people bring sub-par decks to a qualifier just to mess with the table? Wait, you can still legally do that. Oh, so you mean when a player makes a table deal that obviously doesn't benefit their position at all? Wait, that's called deciding you can't get anymore VP's and thus allowing yourself to legally take spiteful actions or even transfer out. I could go on and on. The point is that all players ideally hope everyone who plays in a tournament is there to play their best deck, play their A game, make no mistakes and win. But I guarantee you the things that actually happen are far less ideal, and still V:EKN legal at the same time. So if someone enters a draft with the intent to leave early, so be it. If someone enters a qualifier with no intent to qualify, so be it. Sure you'll probably be upset about it, but what can you do? You can always do what I now choose to do, just stay home. [ quoted text not captured ]

Cora...@gmail.com wrote: > That's foolish. As Fabio Sooner mentioned, many people pull > rares that they want outside of the event. There is nothing wrong with > that at all. Sure. Mind you, I'm unconvinced that this situation is one that is worth getting het up about--sometimes people draft just to get the rares (heck, on draft I was in I ended up with 20+ rares out of 9 packs completely by accident). But it is certainly arguably ethically dubious to enter a draft tournament with no intention of playing in the event just to rare draft and dash, if for no other reason than it is compromising how the draft pods operate, especially if some of the people in the pod are paying attention to what cards are making it around the table. It is, as Fred mentioned, simply an issue of treating folks how you want to be treated--rare drafting and dashing kind of screws up the event for everyone (kind of like playing like a "crazy malkavian" in a constructed event). Again, I'm hardly real concerned about this sort of thing. It happens. But it would be nice if it didn't. -Peter

bspaul wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > > If you were entering and attempting to win the NEQ and you'd heard that > > another group of players was entering for some non-competitve reason, > > I think you might mind too. Let's say a bunch of guys decided they > > wanted to affect NEQ tables with enough events to play Fall of the > > Sabbat and Fall of the Camarilla just for the pure giggle factor - to > > have fun screwing up the strategy of the other competitors. They > > had no intent to compete for or win any qualifying spots, let alone > > the championship of the NEQ? How would you feel about that? > Oh, so you mean like if a player who was already qualified for a > particular years continental championship played in another qualifier? > Wait, that's not against the rules and it's encouraged. Unsportsmanlike conduct is independent of whether someone qualified before or not - the players that I've seen show up even though they've already qualified play wackier, slower, more tricky decks, but I've never seen anyone play one that just spited the table for the sake of it. > Oh, so you mean when people bring sub-par decks to a qualifier just to mess with > the table? Wait, you can still legally do that. Yes, this is exactly what I think he means. And I didn't see any mention of illegality in his post, just him wondering how you would feel about it, and whether you think it should be encouraged. > Oh, so you mean when a player makes a table deal that obviously doesn't > benefit their position at all? Wait, that's called deciding you can't get > anymore VP's and thus allowing yourself to legally take spiteful actions or > even transfer out. I could go on and on. Sure, all legal, and as few tournaments as I've been in, when I've seen conduct like this the person in question generally gets a load of grief from everyone else at the table - often even the person at the table that benefits directly from their actions. > are far less ideal, and still V:EKN legal at the same time. So if > someone enters a draft with the intent to leave early, so be it. If > someone enters a qualifier with no intent to qualify, so be it. Sure > you'll probably be upset about it, but what can you do? > You can always do what I now choose to do, just stay home. Or you can do what people here are doing, and talk about it in a public forum to see if other players agree or disagree on the subject. Find out whether others thing players getting upset is reasonable (you seem to think it is, since you say all of these things will probably upset someone, but there's nothing that can be done). You can discuss what a good way to deal with the situation is when someone behaves like this. This includes ways for a well-intentioned person, who finds out that they have no choice but to leave, to minimize the impact to the other players.

Cora...@gmail.com escreveu: > Let's make what happened clear. (...) <snip> That's why I said "if the account on the situation is accurate". That's not to say any of the people involved had any interest in providing inaccurate reports, it's just that people will always see a scene in a different way. See the whole "well, at least it's instructive and we got to know an obscure rule" general stance on my post as something utterly detached from any person involved. I'm thousands of miles away and it would be foolish to comment the case in any other perspective. As Fabio Sooner mentioned, many people pull > rares that they want outside of the event. There is nothing wrong with > that at all. I agree. But also note the context. People do this all the time in here because we play sealed + draft. I'm not sure if all players would do the same if it was pure draft. I know I would try to go for the best cards for the deck I thought of at least one time just to see what I get in the end. I simply don't have the proper experience in that area. See that part as an extrapolation of the issue. I don't think it applies to any careful analysis on the case, or an argument for any rules change proposal, per example (though I do agree with DaveZ that limited rules could be changed slighty to avoid such situations). What it seems to be from outside (and far, far away from Boston, Maine or whatever) is a very big misunderstanding that will certainly serve as an example for all involved, and all who read this thread, in some way; nothing more. > -Player X If I were you, I'd definitely adopt that as an internet moniker. Way better than "Sooner" ;) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1138916518.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> The primary purpose of entering a tournament is to compete with other >> players and attempt to win that competition. No one should be entering >> tournaments with any other primary purpose in mind. > > Yes, this is true in an imaginary ideal world. It's not the case when > it comes to this planet and this reality. I understand it's never the case perfectly, no. But players need to essentially be playing to win or the whole thing really breaks. If you disagree, then I don't understand what your understanding of tournaments and competition is. If people are diddling around trying to do something else besides win tournaments, it screws up the tournament. And it screws them up to the extent people are engaging in activity geared towards other motivations. Meaning, a tournament can sustain a little bit of imperfect motivation without hurting too bad. But guys who totally aren't trying absolutely screw things up. >> If you were entering and attempting to win the NEQ and you'd heard that >> another group of players was entering for some non-competitive reason, >> I think you might mind too. Let's say a bunch of guys decided they >> wanted to affect NEQ tables with enough events to play Fall of the >> Sabbat and Fall of the Camarilla just for the pure giggle factor - to >> have fun screwing up the strategy of the other competitors. They >> had no intent to compete for or win any qualifying spots, let alone >> the championship of the NEQ? How would you feel about that? > > Oh, so you mean like if a player who was already qualified for a > particular years continental championship played in another qualifier? > Wait, that's not against the rules and it's encouraged. I think you're missing the point. Is the guy trying to actually win the tournament or not? Qualified people should still be trying to win the tournament, even if they're already qualified. If they're not, they also screw things up - and, no, I do not believe that's encouraged. Not trying to win individual games has a specific rule dedicated to it, in fact. > Oh, so you > mean when people bring sub-par decks to a qualifier just to mess with > the table? Wait, you can still legally do that. There is no specific rule against it that I know of. But if they play to just screw the table up, they're violating the play-to-win rule. Even if they just built the deck to mess with the table but they actually try to win with the deck just to conform to the play- to-win rule, I still assert that's bad behavior. Some things are bad even when they defy creating a specific rule to outlaw. (In fact, the play-to-win rule isn't all that enforceable either because it's so much based on judgment. But I agree wholeheartedly with its intent.) > Oh, so you mean when > a player makes a table deal that obviously doesn't benefit their > position at all? Wait, that's called deciding you can't get anymore > VP's and thus allowing yourself to legally take spiteful actions or > even transfer out. I could go on and on. ...and a lot of people disagree with that, as well. There's also some complexity here due to the issue of multiplayer-game metagaming: playing one game in a non-competitive manner in order to improve one's competitive position in future games. That kind of thing is controversial and I don't want to start a debate about it here. But I would like to point out that everything that's game-legal and tournament-legal isn't necessarily moral. I consider it an unspoken tacit agreement that everyone who signs up for a tournament is in the tournament to win the tournament or do as well as they can during the rounds they can play. Otherwise, all the balance built into the game - which rests on the foundation that people using the cards are trying to win - breaks down. > The point is that all players ideally hope everyone who plays in a > tournament is there to play their best deck, play their A game, make no > mistakes and win. But I guarantee you the things that actually happen > are far less ideal, and still V:EKN legal at the same time. Sure. All of this I agree with. Making mistakes and playing sub-optimal experimental or fun decks - as long as it's done with the intent of winning in some fashion and not just screwing with the other players - are all consistent with the intent of a tournament. > So if someone enters a draft with the intent to leave early, so be it. It depends. If they intend to compete properly while they play, it's fine. That also contributes to the overall intent of the tournament, as it increases participation for some rounds, if not for all of them. > If someone enters a qualifier with no intent to qualify, so be it. Sorry. That's where I draw the line. The other competitors didn't show up to buy decks and draft cards just so other people could jump in and draft cards for no other purpose than to own them. It may not be something you can stop - which is why I agree that Eric is making too big a deal about trying to stop it. It may not be something you can write a rule about (other than the one that's already there). But you're never going to get me to agree that it's OK to do. > Sure you'll probably be upset about it, but what can you do? Maybe nothing, but that's not my point. I'm just saying I don't think you can defend the behavior. Fred

Fred Scott escreveu: > <Cora...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > As Fabio Sooner mentioned, many people pull > > rares that they want outside of the event. There is nothing wrong with > > that at all. > > Here's the place I think you were in the wrong. If you drafted, you > entered a tournament. I've never heard of anyone holding a draft just > for the sake of drafting. (I suppose you could do it; I've just never > heard of it.) So you entered a tournament, period. > > The primary purpose of entering a tournament is to compete with other > players and attempt to win that competition. No one should be entering > tournaments with any other primary purpose in mind. Just so it's clear: people don't care about rare drafting in here exactly because everyone understands that they will pass opportunities to get a better card for their decks - they just realize that since it will make such a small impact on overall performance because it's sealed + draft (with 4 boosters for each player at most, sometimes less), it's better to go for the best balance possible between getting something to spice a sealed deck and make the best profit in terms of card collection for the money spent. The proof to this is that I've never seen anyone leave a Limited tournament in here before round 2. People understand that playing at least two rounds is part of the fun, rare drafting or not. That said: as far as I can remember, there's more than one type of draft suggested in the tournament rules, right? From that direct experience (people drafting rares first all the time), I believe that a format that allowed for Rare draft first (based on that format which involves separate draft for crypt and library cards) would not seem too difficult to manage (the Rare has been the last card on the booster for years and several sets in a row after all) and would mitigate some concerns. Not to mention it would actually make rare drafting *closer* to the deckbuilding issue. For example: during the Legacies pre-release, I picked the Rare card first in all 4 boosters - not only because I knew I would want them, but because some were also useful, such as Excellent Thirst. I was playing Guruhi, and I was told later by a fellow player that he got an Ananasi Vampirephile, even if he was playing Akunanse, because he was rare drafting too as all the others. Suppose a third player got Wise Spider and picked it, and so on. If we had opened all 4 boosters and drafted all the Rares first - specially using the crypt card draft method in some draft variant I saw once in the tournament rules, where all vampires are placed in front of everyone on the table and each chooses one - I'm sure he would get the Wise Spider, I'd take the Ananasi Vampirephile, and the third player would get whatever Rare was best for his deck. Everyone would be happy, with 4 Rares for the 4 boosters they had paid for, and with rares that would actually be used. Of course, it would make counter-drafting a little more annoying because it's made in the open, but since Rares are not usually that good for a deck, the common/uncommon draft would compensate for that. Note that this takes into consideration that most players involved do not want to make the most for their money, such as being able to get the highest number of Rares available. People do rare drafting in here just because they feel they deserve X Rares since they paid for X boosters. I know that this can seem a little odd a notion - why don't you just buy X boosters for yourself instead? - but it becomes understandable when you realise that not all players have that much money to spend in boxes regularly, and that boosters are sold for 200% more in here due to custom taxes, exchange rates etc. etc. I can let go of a Rare here and there, but I won't condemn people who feel they should get what they paid for in those conditions, as long as they *play* the tournament. Fortunately, everyone understands that playing is part of the fun. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

I wrote in message news:IbwEf.17281$JT.3711@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] Bleh. Here, I missed a nuance of Ben's text: "no intent to qualify" so let me add some stuff: I'm actually not sure what point you're making here. The point of using the example of a CQ tournament was not to get bogged down in the alternative motivation of qualifying, since there's the championship of a prestigious tournament that is also on the line and that is really supposed to be the main motivator, not the qualification. I understand that a lot of guys care more about the latter than the former and that's OK - to a point. The point is the issue of how they behave after they're assured of qualification. They're still supposed to be trying to win the tournament and it's important that they do try. And even if you don't care about qualifying, you are definitely supposed to be trying to win the tournament. It's true of CQs that a dual motivation exists and this makes it more complex than a mundane sanctioned tournament. But that has nothing to do with why I raised it as an example. I was just trying to point at another tournament that, perhaps, Player X was serious about in order to make my point that non-competing players are problematic in a competition. Fred

"Player X" wrote: >...This was all a mistake. It wasn't anything > intentional, like agreeing to split a table _before_ the round even > started. It was overheard that Eric made a deal and gave the table to > his co-conspirator. That is something that is truly repugnant and > unsportsmanlike. I spoke with one player who was really frustrated when > Eric did little more than influence out vampires and then roll over for > his predator. Oh really? I happen to have been the predator that was thusly overrun, so I'd be interested in the specifics of whatever was overheard--so long as people are publicly pointing fingers at each other. > However, an interesting theme that has come out of their responses is a > suspect behavior by Eric Chiang. Several of the players relay the same > story as listed in Player X's comments. They recall that during the > actual Qualifier, Eric admitted to having made a deal with a fellow > player (before the event) to assist one another throughout the event. > Even to the extent of not playing to win or trying to maximize VP's. > As I was not there, I do not know. But when I have more than a couple > of the players telling me this story (all independently via separate > emails or phone calls), it seems like it's more than just a > fabrication. Feel free to form your own conclusions. I personally do not remember hearing Eric talk about having agreed to a table split before the game, but such a deal was certainly carried out. It strikes me as interesting that Eric has chosen not to respond to this particular accusation, though perhaps he has not had the oppurtunity yet to do so.

bspaul wrote: > Fred Scott wrote: > >>The primary purpose of entering a tournament is to compete with other >>players and attempt to win that competition. No one should be entering >>tournaments with any other primary purpose in mind. > > > Yes, this is true in an imaginary ideal world. It's not the case when > it comes to this planet and this reality. It is true in this civilized reality. And the rules reinforce this, as well. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> I was just making a silly joke, as you now see. Sorry if that was not clear. > Actually, I'm sorry that it was not funny :) It was funny to me. :) I laughed out loud. Laughter is the best medicine, Ira

Player X writes: > I called it a Pirate draft because I liked the idea of coining > my own term. ...and then writes: > Is what I did bragging? If it came off that way, please > know that it was never my intent. Y'see, that's the problem. Your choice of words when you explained everything was terrible. Calling it a "Pirate draft" was very poor judgement, and it did a lot to give everyone else the impression that you were pulling a fast one. I do believe that you meant no harm and didn't mean to brag. I do believe that there really wasn't any harm done - one could rare draft and play anyway, and what you'd actually gain by rare drafting is minimal. Heck, we were playing for a fruitcake. :) I do believe you're a good guy - I've been happy to play with you before, and I'll be just as happy with play with you again. - Ben Peal

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message news:1138925034.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > "Player X" wrote: > >>...This was all a mistake. It wasn't anything >> intentional, like agreeing to split a table _before_ the round even >> started. It was overheard that Eric made a deal and gave the table to >> his co-conspirator. That is something that is truly repugnant and >> unsportsmanlike. I spoke with one player who was really frustrated when >> Eric did little more than influence out vampires and then roll over for >> his predator. > > Oh really? I happen to have been the predator that was thusly overrun, > so I'd be interested in the specifics of whatever was overheard--so > long as people are publicly pointing fingers at each other. > > It seems that you have to be talking about our second round game in the qualifier, since that's the only one that could have involved both you & Eric. If I am correct in this assumption, then none of the statements above apply to our game. Eric and I did not make any sort of deal before the game started. The table was as follows: Chris - Gangrel with Dominate preying on Pat (me) - Pander vote preying on Jesse (CthuluKitty) - Animalism with Dominate preying on Eric - Brujah princes with Theo preying on Chun - Alexandra & support minions Eric most certainly did not "roll over for his predator." He earned 3 VP & a GW as follows: I made a fast start against your Animalism weenies with my Pander sleaze, but I ground to a complete halt once Chun brought out Alexandra, Chris brought out Stanislava, and you got a Raven Spy. That deck wins fast or it dies, so I was not looking good once the table stabilized. I was about to be overrun by Chris's Protean/Dominate minions, against whom I had no defense at all. I couldn't block them, I couldn't bounce them, and I couldn't pass Con Boons consistently to out-bloat that much bleed. So I had to whore out my KRC damage to either Eric or Chun to get votes through. I chose to ally with Eric, because he had Theo on the table, who would have completely lunched my minions if I had started doing damage to Eric. He had Constanza and Volker, so his sitting votes equalled Chun's. I ousted Chun cross-table with KRCs and then Jesse shortly thereafter (same turn, I think). I got Eric's votes in return for this, and gained a VP, as did Eric, of course. After it was down to Chris, Eric, and me, I saw no hope for ousting Eric. Either he would get Chris and me both, or Chris would get me. So I offered to assist him with killing Chris in return for a withdrawal VP. He agreed, and the game ended quickly with mutual withdrawal after Chris was ousted. Eric 3 VP, Pat 2 VP. >> However, an interesting theme that has come out of their responses is a >> suspect behavior by Eric Chiang. Several of the players relay the same >> story as listed in Player X's comments. They recall that during the >> actual Qualifier, Eric admitted to having made a deal with a fellow >> player (before the event) to assist one another throughout the event. >> Even to the extent of not playing to win or trying to maximize VP's. >> As I was not there, I do not know. But when I have more than a couple >> of the players telling me this story (all independently via separate >> emails or phone calls), it seems like it's more than just a >> fabrication. Feel free to form your own conclusions. > > I personally do not remember hearing Eric talk about having agreed to a > table split before the game, but such a deal was certainly carried out. > It strikes me as interesting that Eric has chosen not to respond to > this particular accusation, though perhaps he has not had the > oppurtunity yet to do so. I'm obviously leaving out a lot of detail, debate about votes, etc., but I don't believe I have any major info wrong. If you or Eric or Chun or Chris remember this table differently, please speak up. I wasn't Eric's shadow all day, so I have no idea what he may have said to anyone else, but he & I did not make any sort of pre-round deal. - Pat I do recall him saying something along the lines of "I'm a good person to deal with" or something similar, but that could have been any time during the weekend.

> It seems that you have to be talking about our second round game in the > qualifier, since that's the only one that could have involved both you & > Eric. Yep. That's the one. > If I am correct in this assumption, then none of the statements above apply > to our game. > > Eric and I did not make any sort of deal before the game started. I'm glad to hear that. I didn't mean to make any accusations, but since one had already been made, I figured it was reasonable to request that you or Eric respond to it. I'm willing to accept you on your word.

[ quoted text not captured ] > ...and then writes: [ quoted text not captured ] > - Ben Peal I think this half of the controversy has been amicably resolved, after I've spoken to Lance. I don't truly harbor any negative feelings towards those Maine players, especially since their reasoning for leaving after drafting was partially the fault of the Head Judge (myself), and not even the US National Coordinator or Organized Play Coordinator caught the goof at the time. heh. I say "this half", because there's been an ugly backlash, an accusation that the original poster of this thread was involved in Collusion. I have to get to the bottom of these shenanigans as well, I guess... Josh hates VTES when it goes beyond "let's all have fun playing a game we love"

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:OcednbQSx-GxT3_e...@comcast.com... > I say "this half", because there's been an ugly backlash, an accusation > that the original poster of this thread was involved in Collusion. I > have to get to the bottom of these shenanigans as well, I guess... > See my post above for a refutation of the collusion charge, at least as far as it applies to the second round of the qualifier proper. > Josh > hates VTES when it goes beyond "let's all have fun playing a game we > love" Don't get too bummed about it, you did a great job as a judge, organizer, and host! - Pat

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message news:1138938334....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. I certainly agree that your question was reasonable, given everything that's been stirred up by this thread. I look forward to playing again, perhaps with a less sleazy deck next time. :) - Pat

> I say "this half", because there's been an ugly backlash, an accusation > that the original poster of this thread was involved in Collusion. I > have to get to the bottom of these shenanigans as well, I guess... Don't worry about it. I've been in touch with the two players (both from Maine) who shared the short end of the stick regarding the second round table split, and it doesn't seem like any of us have any desire to pursue an official complaint. For my part, I just wanted to hear from the players involved that collusion did not take place, since the possibility had been raised both here and in private conversations. If I'm misrepresenting anyone's feelings on this, let me know. When did Collusion acquire a capital "C"?

In message <1138945863....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, CthuluKitty <vtana...@riseup.net> writes: >When did Collusion acquire a capital "C"? It happens sometimes when people are specifically talking about collusion as it's defined by the rules. A number of players have had, over the years, an extremely unhelpful habit of referring to various play-styles and tactics they don't like as collusion (such as legitimate deal-making, which happens to benefit two players on the table immensely and exclude them), whereas collusion as defined by the tournament rules is quite significantly different. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ wrote: > It is true in this civilized reality. > And the rules reinforce this, as well. Well, My V:TES resume includes about 150 official career games, countless other non-reported games, around 6 Qualifiers, 2 NAC's and assistant Qualifier judge-I think I have the credentials to make these following statements. Feel free to believe that everyone who enters a tournament is there solely to play their best deck and play their best game with the intent to win. Feel free to think that everyone who sits down plays with the utmost sense of honor and everything they will do is in the spirit of the game. Take refuge and comfort in your V:EKN floor rules which supposedly cover all forms of illegal play and behavior and stop it from happening on a regular basis. If you believe in all of the above, enjoy your 0 GW's and 1.5 VP's. The floor rules catch a few blatant violations (such as incorrect decklists) every now and then but I can't remember the last time I saw WW actually prove and enforce some of the major rules (such as collusion and not playing to win). Perhaps it happens and I just don't hear or read about it. I can only make conclusions based on my own senses and experiences. Now just because I have such an apparently negative view of things, doesn't mean I didn't enjoy playing the game or I think that everyone cheats or breaks the rules. Obviously, I participated in the higher level events for years. Good games, good times, good players. But you will never, ever convince me that illegal play doesn't happen or that the current set of V:EKN rules does anything significant to stop it. I also find it positively absurd that anyone could also believe that a player who is already prequalified for a continental championship has the same incentive to play to win in another qualifier. But I digress into the whole prequal/qualifier argument that WW will never effectively resolve. Thus I now stay home and no longer promote or support the game. I also need to go back to lurking mode as this recent flurry of newsgroup posts kind of feels like sunlight...so nothing to see here. Continue onwards in your obviously civilized reality. [ quoted text not captured ]

To be honest, I was far more understanding of Player X's behavior until he decided to launch his own personal (not to mention, pretty misguided) attack at Eric. I've only participated in one draft and if I recall, the rares that are drafted are actually supposed to be part of the prize pool. However, if the prize was really something insubstantial, I'd chime in that it's better to just let what is apparently a misunderstanding be just that rather than actual bad blood. Furthermore, I have played with Eric, and from the few times I've dealt with him, I think he's a pretty pleasant player to sit in a table with.

Just a nit, even though I really would prefer it if this thread would die :) : Drace <Chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've only participated in one draft and if > I recall, the rares that are drafted are actually supposed to be part > of the prize pool. That's not generally true. Generally, you take home whatever rares you drafted yourself, and "rare-drafting" is frowned upon but not inherently against the rules. If your Draft Tournament Organizer decided to give away the rares as prizes, that's one way to do it, but that isnt' the standard, in my experience. Josh VTES is a game. VTES is a game. VTES is a game.