Sitting order: Franþois Morand bleeds Nicolas Wargny (weenie PRE votes),
bleeds Christophe baltazar (!malkav bleed/Stealth/Vote/Bloat), bleeds
Denis Gerard (Nosfe/FOR), Bleeds Kamel Senni (low cap Ani/Intercept).
Franþois plays Dreams Of the Sphynx on the first turn, Nicolas plays
3 weenies on the second turn and passes a Praxis vote, Denis plays
Vermulen.
Then that starts being tight for Kamel which tries to equip with a .44
and is intercepted by Vermulen and the little soldier of Kamel goes
into torpor.
Nicolas is rather blocked by the many votes on the table. Denis continues
his effort of war and bum's Kamel's Devin Bisley, another minion in torpor.
Franþois shows the way with the first action of legendary Queen Ann...
A bleed of 9 to Nicolas, who takes it, the round after, the table considers
Franþois being very dangerous and Queen Ann becomes again simple Prince de
Londres (not legendary anymore).
On Denis' turn, Vermulen is empty and hunts, but Kamel with its last
minion Bear Paw intercepts and sends it into torpor (21 min of play).
An alliance of vote occurs between Franþois and Denis, Franþois leaves
Vermulen in torpor. Franþois is still considered dangerous and
Christophe Baltazar Kindred Spirit him for 4.
On the 36th minute of play Nicolas is at 4 pool... Franþois will make his
first VP. On the 46th minute of play Nicolas draws the card which saves
him: Dramatic Upheaval!!! It passes, he changes his place with Franþois.
New Sitting Order: Nicolas (weenie Presence 4 pool) Franþois (Ventrue B/S
votes), Christophe (!malk bloat B/S) Denis (Nosfe/FOR) Kamel (low course
ANI, 1 minion ready).
Later, Christophe, after long discussions, tries to change place with
Franþois but the table denies. Then it is the return of the weenie which
although low in pool does not have to fear the only minion of Kamel and
passes thanks to Christophe 2 Conservative of 4 on Francois, Franþois is
at two Pool.
After 1h41 of play, Nicolas makes a VP and ousts Francois, then that
deals a lot bus Kamel can withdraw and give a VP to Denis, that
deals prizes...
Finaly, Christophe falls in agreement with Denis, Christophe Kindred
Spirit Kamel and kills him giving a VP to Denis and Time Limit occurs.
Thus:
1st Nicolas Wargny (1.5 vp) who gains the Sabbat Master (the Cup and
5 Sabbat boosters, 4 Dimple custom cards, 1 Vitel, 1 Wind Dance, a CE
Booster and one Bloodlines booster)
Second, a Priscus: Denis Gerard (1.5 vp)
3rd Chistophe Baltazar (0.5 vp)
4th Kamel Senni (0 vp)
5th Franþois Morand (0 vp) but who does never move for nothing since
each time he comes to Paris it goes in final.
---
6th Jean NoÙl Jourdan (whom had a prize for missing the final so close)
Thank you all for coming, and to have attended a tournament in a good mood!
Many deals this day and especially many brokendeals, 2003 will be a year
where people will pay more attention to the deals they pass...
One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in finale...
not desirable IMHO.
--
Meshenka, Head Judge
http://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
> One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in finale...
> not desirable IMHO.
Not desirable at all and not allowed by the V:EKN tournament rules, because
it is an "out of game" consideration.
If I was the judge myself I would have told the players not to make such
deals and give them a warning for trying.
Should they continue dealing with "out of game" considerations even more
drastical measures can be applied (e.g loss of VP, game loss, redistribution
of their price ...)
johannes walch
v:ekn germany
Johannes Walch wrote:
::: One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in::: finale... not desirable IMHO.::
:: Not desirable at all and not allowed by the V:EKN tournament
:: rules, because it is an "out of game" consideration.
allowed by the current rulings, sorry.
[ quoted text not captured ]
from vekn Penalty Guide:
161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion
Definition:
A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing
the results of a game.
Philosophy:
Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered
in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following
criteria:
* No player introduces outside incentives such as cash, cards,
or other items. (For example, *splitting the prize money
would be acceptable*.)
* All players involved in all affected matches agree on
the outcome.
Penalty:
Disqualification without Prize.
so penalty is Disqualification AND it is allowed as the example state
to split prize, so it is allowed
--
TzimisceLord
http://myvtes.free.frhttp://sabbatinfrance.free.fr
> so penalty is Disqualification AND it is allowed as the example state
> to split prize, so it is allowed
You are right. damn, should have reread the rules before :-).
Anyway. It is not desireable :-)
Imagine mighty Metusalehs arguing about 10 booster packs. Make me laugh.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> a écrit dans le message de news:
at4oa0$nab$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net...
> > One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in finale...
> > not desirable IMHO.
>
> Not desirable at all and not allowed by the V:EKN tournament rules,
because
> it is an "out of game" consideration.
I'm afraid, that's allowed in the current penalty guidelines, here is an
extract:
161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion
Definition:
A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the results of a
game.
Philosophy:
Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
a.. No player introduces outside incentives such as cash, cards, or
other items. (For example, splitting the prize money would be acceptable.)
b.. All players involved in all affected matches agree on the outcome.
Penalty:
Disqualification without Prize.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Johannes Walch wrote:
>> so penalty is Disqualification AND it is allowed as the example state
>> to split prize, so it is allowed>
> You are right. damn, should have reread the rules before :-).
> Anyway. It is not desireable :-)
> Imagine mighty Metusalehs arguing about 10 booster packs. Make me laugh.
400% agree, hope vtes staff will change this part of the penalty guide
to disallow it. It's definitely not wanted.
>
> johannes walch
> v:ekn germany
>
>[ quoted text not captured ]
The Tzimisce Lord <Tzimis...@NOSPAM.seclogd.org> wrote in message news:<3df5bfa0$0$14005$afc3...@news.easynet.fr>...
>
> Then that starts being tight for Kamel which tries to equip with a .44
> and is intercepted by Vermulen and the little soldier of Kamel goes
> into torpor.
I've played the combo Terror Frenzy carrion crows aid from bats (10
times in the deck....). With a lots of intercept (6 forced awakening,
cat's guidance, 4 falcon's eye, 7 raven's spy, Mr winthrop, tabloid
newspaper, KRCG...). Devin was, during two games, with four raven's
spy on her...
But Denis played, each time he blocks, drawing out te beast.. Arggg.
And each time i block except one time, he'd done the same, and i
didn't have any direct intervention (six in my deck...).
An awful final...at least for me lol.
<snip>
> One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in finale...
> not desirable IMHO.
Surely illegal under VEKN rules - under "out of game considerations"?
Prizes are not an element of the game, they are outside the game...
whereas VP are part of the game. It is possible to optimise your
points score, but if an integral (indeed deciding) part of a deal is
"I will give you some of my prize if I win" (or whatever), surely this
is NOT a valid in-game deal?
Pelase elaborate on what you mean by "prize deals in the finale".
DH
[ quoted text not captured ]
hum from 161 the example state that splitting prize is legal in the
final of a tournament.
my opinion is that it's illegal in previous round but legal in final
round.
i cant' find reference in Tournament rules and penalty guide of
"out of game consideration".
LSJ ?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Tzimisce Lord wrote:
> hum from 161 the example state that splitting prize is legal in the
> final of a tournament.
>
> my opinion is that it's illegal in previous round but legal in final
> round.
>
> i cant' find reference in Tournament rules and penalty guide of
> "out of game consideration".
>
> LSJ ?
You seem to have it well covered there, with citations and everything.
I'm not sure there are prizes for anything but the final round.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
>> One also sees emerging the practice of the prize deals in finale...
>> not desirable IMHO.>
>Not desirable at all
Why?
I find the concept fairly interesting. I'm not sure it would work well, but
then, I'm not aware of any evidence one way or the other for this game. Seems
to work just fine for Magic.
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021210153454...@mb-cb.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Remember, the Magic rules allow dealmaking for prizes ONLY when EVERY other player currently involved in the tournament is in
agreement. That is why you don't have dealmaking until there are only 2-4 players left.
If there are only 2 Methuselahs left at the final VTES table, they STILL probably can't make any deals, unless they make a deal to
end up 1st and 2nd, since the person currently in 2nd or 3rd has the ability to rightly object.
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
>> hum from 161 the example state that splitting prize is legal in the
>> final of a tournament.
>>
>> my opinion is that it's illegal in previous round but legal in final
>> round.
>>
>> i cant' find reference in Tournament rules and penalty guide of
>> "out of game consideration".
>>
>> LSJ ?>
>You seem to have it well covered there, with citations and everything.
>I'm not sure there are prizes for anything but the final round.
Hmmm...in some tournaments, there may be special prizes for fulfilling certain
conditions. For example, I've heard of Hazimel tournaments where someone who
ends the game with control of the Eye gets an extra copy of the Eye. Other
tournaments might offer minor prizes for getting a Table Win. And specially
themed tournaments might have prizes for pulling off interesting combos or
certain conditions (i.e. having a Hell Hound torporize 3 vampires or somethin).
Biggest bleed or biggest strike are also common so maybe someone trying to deal
the most damage with a hand strike might make a deal with his opponent to split
the prize if the guy doesn't prevent it?
Halcyan 2
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DF64321...@white-wolf.com>...
> The Tzimisce Lord wrote:
> > hum from 161 the example state that splitting prize is legal in the
> > final of a tournament.
> >
> > my opinion is that it's illegal in previous round but legal in final
> > round.
> >
> > i cant' find reference in Tournament rules and penalty guide of
> > "out of game consideration".
> >
> > LSJ ?
>
> You seem to have it well covered there, with citations and everything.
> I'm not sure there are prizes for anything but the final round.
Disagree.
For reference:
"161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion
Definition:
A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the results of a
game.
Philosophy:
Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
No player introduces outside incentives such as cash, cards, or other
items. (For example, splitting the prize money would be acceptable.)
All players involved in all affected matches agree on the outcome.
Penalty:
Disqualification without Prize. "
How can prize-splitting NOT be seen as "cards or other items"? OK, it
is a prize that is implicit in the final positioning of the players,
but it is still using bribes as a deciding factor. As such, it fails
the first criteria.
This sort of play needs to be DISCOURAGED as it gives the game a bad
rep. THe more this is the accepted norm, the more the game becomes
tied into the greed ethos, which means that we become more like ickle
magic players. Sure, in the current company this is not a problem, but
these are dangerous precidents to be setting. This is why the rulings
were introduced. There should be no deals in the final other than
those that improve your chances of:
a) Survival
b) Winning
By either implication or cicumstance. This is not Vampire: The Eternal
Card Buffet. The prizes are not part-and-parcel of the game.
From the VEKN rules:
"5.2
"Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the
game as stated in the V:TES rulebook.""
Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that you should take a lesser
position in the final in exchange for boosters, sure. However, it does
say that the idea of the game is to maximise your VPs and win games.
By taking bribes and settling for a lesser positioning with a prize
split, or using prizes as an incentive in part of a deal, even if you
could do no better otherwise in normal play, is contrary to the rules
above.
I say you are wrong not to enforce this. If it is currently legal in
your eyes, tighten this up - if not for now, for later.
DH
hamdamcwa wrote:
> "161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion> No player introduces outside incentives such as cash, cards, or other
> items. (For example, splitting the prize money would be acceptable.)
> All players involved in all affected matches agree on the outcome.
>> How can prize-splitting NOT be seen as "cards or other items"? OK, it
> is a prize that is implicit in the final positioning of the players,
> but it is still using bribes as a deciding factor. As such, it fails
> the first criteria.
Prizes are not introduced by the player.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 12 Dec 2002 07:53:08 David Hammond wrote:
>This is why the rulings were introduced.
The VEKN rules on bribery/prize-splitting were just copied from the
DCI rules for Magic - they were not created especially for VTES. They
are not appropriate because Magic is usually a two-player game while
VTES is not. They might be construed to allow two rush decks to
collude to split a final table and then divide the prizes. This abuse
would not arise in Magic because you only have two players in a game.
>"Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the
>game as stated in the V:TES rulebook.""
>
>Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that you should take a lesser
>position in the final in exchange for boosters, sure.
Indeed. The rule you quote overrides the rules inherited from Magic
because it was specifically written for VTES and is intended to be a
mission statement for the players - their primary focus and goal.
Ignoring this would clearly be unsportsmanlike conduct.
Andrew
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DF8B6B6...@white-wolf.com>...
> hamdamcwa wrote:
> > "161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion
> > No player introduces outside incentives such as cash, cards, or other
> > items. (For example, splitting the prize money would be acceptable.)
> > All players involved in all affected matches agree on the outcome.
> >
> > How can prize-splitting NOT be seen as "cards or other items"? OK, it
> > is a prize that is implicit in the final positioning of the players,
> > but it is still using bribes as a deciding factor. As such, it fails
> > the first criteria.
>
> Prizes are not introduced by the player.
Yes, but prizes being distributed in any means other than the
organisers intent or the advertised manner as part of a deal is an
abstract introduced by the player, therefore just as bad.
The game should be the sole element for discussion when making a deal
in the final. If a player starts saying "If you help me win, I can fix
it so that you come 3rd as opposed to last AND I'll give you half my
prize", then he is making an element extranious to the game-in-hand a
factor in deciding the deal. Surely it should be good enough that he
is offering a better position alone - if he is NOT offering a better
position, the deal is illegal.
I think that, as a point of order, I would have no problem if the
winner did the same deal as above WITHOUT the prize offer, and then
after the event gave the other player some cards anyway. My objection
is for players using stuff outside the game to influence deals in the
game.
And whatever you say, prizes ARE outside the game - Are they used to
play the game? No. Are prizes mentioned in the current V:TES rulebook?
No. Prizes are not even mentioned as explicit in the VEKN floor rules
(only some minor mentions, usually in the penalty guidelines). The are
NOT of the game. The closest thing to prizes that have ever appeared
in the rules are Ante... and funnily enough it's the Ante cards that
are all banned.
I am having what appears to be a one-man campaign to close this
"loophole" in the rules (yes, I know it is technically not a loophole,
but it just feels wrong and with some clarification it could be
stopped). If the game ever gets a player base (and prizes to match)
level to even half that of "that other game" then prize splitting
will cause HORRIBLE problems. Currently, it just provokes bad feeling.
This in itself is not a great thing, as not all players are of the
consistently high moral calibre that we almost take for granted on
this group. It could lead to newer players being exploited and being
turned off the game by perceived sleaziness. I know I feel VERY
uncomfortable with this, and a few others have already spoken out
about it.
Let's just make it clear to people that OFFICIALLY it's the taking
part that counts (i.e. throughout the game and in all "in game" deals)
and UNOFFICIALLY we have fabulous prizes to be won, without blurring
the two.
DH
On 13 Dec 2002, hamdamcwa wrote:
> I am having what appears to be a one-man campaign to close this
> "loophole" in the rules (yes, I know it is technically not a loophole,
> but it just feels wrong and with some clarification it could be
> stopped). If the game ever gets a player base (and prizes to match)
FWIW, I'll add my voice to your side of the issue. Dealing based on prize
splitting should not be allowed. I haven't really been able to spend a
lot of time recently on the newsgroup, so I'll admit I've come in
mid-thread and I haven't read LSJ's input on this issue, but if I've
inferred correctly that he supports this kind of thing, then I wish he'd
reconsider his position. Apologies in advance if I've misconstrued
something.
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham, NC
hamdamcwa wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DF8B6B6...@white-wolf.com>...> > Prizes are not introduced by the player.
>
> Yes, but prizes being distributed in any means other than the
> organisers intent or the advertised manner as part of a deal is an
> abstract introduced by the player, therefore just as bad.
All deals are "abstracts introduced by the players" by definition.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On 12 Dec 2002 07:53:08 David Hammond wrote:
>
> >This is why the rulings were introduced.
>
> The VEKN rules on bribery/prize-splitting were just copied from the
> DCI rules for Magic - they were not created especially for VTES. They
> are not appropriate because Magic is usually a two-player game while
> VTES is not. They might be construed to allow two rush decks to
> collude to split a final table and then divide the prizes. This abuse
> would not arise in Magic because you only have two players in a game.
The current DCI MtG rules prohibit it [DCI UTR 25].
[ quoted text not captured ]
>The game should be the sole element for discussion when making a deal
>in the final. If a player starts saying "If you help me win, I can fix
>it so that you come 3rd as opposed to last AND I'll give you half my
>prize", then he is making an element extranious to the game-in-hand a
>factor in deciding the deal. Surely it should be good enough that he
>is offering a better position alone - if he is NOT offering a better
>position, the deal is illegal.
>
>I think that, as a point of order, I would have no problem if the
>winner did the same deal as above WITHOUT the prize offer, and then
>after the event gave the other player some cards anyway. My objection
>is for players using stuff outside the game to influence deals in the
>game.
So, you aren't opposed to people throwing games, just people doing it for good
reasons?
Rewind a bit. There's two ways to prize split.
One is an agreement that should either player involved the agreement win, the
prizes will be split between them. Okay, that wasn't terribly specific. A
couple of feature of this are making the agreement prior to play and a sense
that no one is trying not to win.
For instance, two buddies go into a tournament with a 75-25 agreement, winner
gives 25% of the prizes to the nonwinner. The incentive is still to try and
win as the winner still gets more. But, there's also a collusion aspect as you
want to give your buddy, in this example, as good a chance at winning as
possible.
Then, there's throwing results to get what you want once it becomes clear how
events are likely to play out. It's not unusual for someone who has qualified
for a pro tour event in Magic to concede the finals to someone who hasn't for
the winner's prizes. Not only could similar things be done in V:TES with
qualifying but with storyline wins, in prelim rounds to get someone into the
finals, or just when someone really wants their deck in the TWDA.
Most of the discussion seems to be about the latter, probably for the very good
reason that it's hardly differenced from bribery, though the DCI sees it
differently. It might be interesting to ask them why they see a difference.
But, regardless, what I come back to is: why prevent people from making deals
that are clearly in their best interests? The sanctity of trying your best to
win argument doesn't fly with me because it's never existed. People have not
maximized their efforts to win for worse reasons - spite, boredom, player bias.
It very well could be that endorsing prize splitting only encourages behavior
we don't want to see. But, I'd like to see it first.
Course, I think prize distributions for multiplayer CCG tournaments should be
extremely flat to discourage putting great emphasis on winning with the idea
being that that, in turn, gives less incentive for players to cooperate to
affect results.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3DF9D7DC...@white-wolf.com...
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> >
> > On 12 Dec 2002 07:53:08 David Hammond wrote:
> >
> > >This is why the rulings were introduced.
> >
> > The VEKN rules on bribery/prize-splitting were just copied from the
> > DCI rules for Magic - they were not created especially for VTES. They
> > are not appropriate because Magic is usually a two-player game while
> > VTES is not. They might be construed to allow two rush decks to
> > collude to split a final table and then divide the prizes. This abuse
> > would not arise in Magic because you only have two players in a game.
>
> The current DCI MtG rules prohibit it [DCI UTR 25].
Ummm no, it doesn't *necessarily* prohibit it. Here's the text of [DCI UTR
25]:
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
25. Conceding Games or Matches
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following
guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding
player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the
match.
The following actions are prohibited:
. Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the concession,
drop, or draw of a match
. Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method,
such as a coin flip or die roll
Players who engage in these actions will be subject to the appropriate
provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have won as they wish, such as with
teammates, as long as any such sharing does not occur as an exchange for
concession or draw of a game or match.
Players in the final match of the single-elimination portion of a tournament
have the option not to play their match. If both players of the final match
agree not to play, one of them must agree to drop from the event (in order for
prizes to be awarded). The DCI ratings of the players will not be affected
because no match will have been played. The dropping player receives the
second-place prize, and the other finalist receives the first-place prize.
Example #1: If all players in the Top 8 single-elimination portion of a
tournament decide to split the first- through eighth-place prizes equally
among them instead of following the original distribution announced by the
organizer, they may do so as long as no matches are conceded in exchange for
the prize split.
Example #2: Two players in the final of a Pro Tour Qualifier may agree to
split the prizes (the travel award and the Pro Tour invitation), but this
agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the
event, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not
drop from the event. That player is then free to split the prizes as agreed
upon. The prizes will be sent only to the winner (that is, the finalist who
did not drop); Wizards of the Coast will not send the Pro Tour invitation to
one person and the travel award to another person.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
The relevant text here is the part about how only players in the final match
have the option not to play their match, and therefore being able to create a
prize-splitting situation (i.e. you can't do it if you are in the Top 4, or
the Top 8). Realize, too, that this rule is CONSTANTLY "stretched" to allow
prize-splitting deals within the Top 8, even at MAJOR M:tG tournaments, so the
"rule" should really read that you can split within the Top 8.
Andrew's point about this rule having been incorrectly copied from M:tG is
*not* a correct one IMHO, as the "Players in the final match of the
single-elimination portion" in the above DCI text could just be changed to
"Players in the Finals Table", and it would be exactly as fair. I don't know
why anyone would have a problem with this.
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
[ quoted text not captured ]
>The following actions are prohibited:
>. Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the
>concession,
>drop, or draw of a match
>. Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method,
>such as a coin flip or die roll
Hmmm...I'm a bit rusty in "that other game" but aren't there actually a lot of
cards that rely on some sort of random mechanism? So if you've reached a point
where (let's pretend) you and your opponent each have a life and you have a
card that has a 50% chance of doing damage to you and a 50% chance of doing
damage to your opponent, you cannot use that ability since it would be
"Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method."
Hmmm...
Halcyan 2
"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021214010420...@mb-mu.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Strictly speaking, you're attempting to determine the winner of a game or
match by playing a card, which is obviously legal. That the EFFECT of playing
the card induces a random state isn't relevant.
>
> Halcyan 2[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3DF9D786...@white-wolf.com...
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Dec 2002, hamdamcwa wrote:
> >
> > > I am having what appears to be a one-man campaign to close this
> > > "loophole" in the rules (yes, I know it is technically not a loophole,
> > > but it just feels wrong and with some clarification it could be
> > > stopped). If the game ever gets a player base (and prizes to match)
> >
> > FWIW, I'll add my voice to your side of the issue. Dealing based on
prize
> > splitting should not be allowed. I haven't really been able to spend a
> > lot of time recently on the newsgroup, so I'll admit I've come in
> > mid-thread and I haven't read LSJ's input on this issue, but if I've
> > inferred correctly that he supports this kind of thing, then I wish he'd
> > reconsider his position. Apologies in advance if I've misconstrued
> > something.
>
> The V:EKN rules have always supported it.
This is true. And to that extent, I agree with you that it's not
illegal in VEKN tournaments. But I think David Cherryholmes and
Dave Hammond are right that it *shouldn't* really be allowed in
VEKN tournaments, and suggest that the prize-splitting exemption
from "bribery etc" be removed in the next update.
As you say, even the DCI doesn't (exactly) allow this anymore.
:-)
Josh
'the nature of things is in the habit of concealing itself'
LSJ wrote:
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>>>On 13 Dec 2002, hamdamcwa wrote:
>>
>>>>>I am having what appears to be a one-man campaign to close this
>>>"loophole" in the rules (yes, I know it is technically not a loophole,
>>>but it just feels wrong and with some clarification it could be
>>>stopped). If the game ever gets a player base (and prizes to match)>>
>>FWIW, I'll add my voice to your side of the issue. Dealing based on prize
>>splitting should not be allowed. I haven't really been able to spend a
>>lot of time recently on the newsgroup, so I'll admit I've come in
>>mid-thread and I haven't read LSJ's input on this issue, but if I've
>>inferred correctly that he supports this kind of thing, then I wish he'd
>>reconsider his position. Apologies in advance if I've misconstrued
>>something.>
>
> The V:EKN rules have always supported it.
>
LSJ, I just checked the Judges' Guide for 2003. There seems to be a
possible conflict between 161 and 164 as 161 explicitly states that
prize-splitting is ok in the final round because "incentives outside
the current game" does not include prize splitting, but 164 equally
explicitly counts prize splitting into the cathegory of "incentives
outside the current game".
Reading the introduction it seems that 161 has been split into 161 and
164, so from january 1 2003 prize splitting is not bribery during the
final round, but prize splitting is always collusion as 164 doesn't
exclude the final round.
Could you please give an absolute ruling about which clause takes
precedence during the final round?
Sten During
Sten During wrote:
> Reading the introduction it seems that 161 has been split into 161 and
> 164, so from january 1 2003 prize splitting is not bribery during the
> final round, but prize splitting is always collusion as 164 doesn't
> exclude the final round.
>
> Could you please give an absolute ruling about which clause takes
> precedence during the final round?
Prize splitting is allowed. Deals involving prize splitting are allowed.
I've corrected the error in the Judges' Guide.
Thanks,
Scott
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 07:56:52 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Prize splitting is allowed. Deals involving prize splitting are allowed.
> >I've corrected the error in the Judges' Guide.
>> I don't understand how this squares with the play-to-win rule. Would
> you permit one player to help another to win in the final in exchange
> for a cut of his prize?
Since nothing comes after the finals (they're "final"), players are
inherently playing to win (barring collusion).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:18:06 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Since nothing comes after the finals (they're "final"), players are
>inherently playing to win (barring collusion).
A player who doesn't need the money might trade all of a cash prize
for the glory of 1st place and the title. And a player who does need
the money might cooperate for that reason. Their behaviour is
influenced by their expectations of what comes after the event - they
are arbitraging their personal desires and circumstances rather than
competing for the same goal within the pocket universe of the game. I
don't think there's much practical or moral difference between
whatever you call this and bribery. It's corrupt.
Andrew
[ quoted text not captured ]
Opinion noted.
In general such deals are not made based on expectations of what comes
after the event - they're made to maximize the players' finishing
(as measured by prize outlay).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>>>On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:18:06 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>>
>>>>>Since nothing comes after the finals (they're "final"), players are
>>>inherently playing to win (barring collusion).>>
>>A player who doesn't need the money might trade all of a cash prize
>>for the glory of 1st place and the title. And a player who does need
>>the money might cooperate for that reason. Their behaviour is
>>influenced by their expectations of what comes after the event - they
>>are arbitraging their personal desires and circumstances rather than
>>competing for the same goal within the pocket universe of the game. I
>>don't think there's much practical or moral difference between
>>whatever you call this and bribery. It's corrupt.>
>
> Opinion noted.
> In general such deals are not made based on expectations of what comes
> after the event - they're made to maximize the players' finishing
> (as measured by prize outlay).
>
Opinion only. I can foresee why, during the final round, I would prefer
to selfoust instead of getting 1 VP if I by selfousting got to gain
half of my predators prize (assuming of course that my selfousting would
indeed be the guarantee that my predator wins).
Basically, I have one Caitiff, 1 pool. My prey has zero ready minions
and 1 pool. My predator has more or less infinite resources. I roll
over and my predator gets two easy kills securing his/her win and I
take half of his/her prize. Still, getting my automatic oust would
have gained me 1 VP and at least a better placement than my prey, for
example. I'm not sure I like this, but I can't say I'm horrfied by
it neither.
Sten During
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, LSJ wrote:
> Since nothing comes after the finals (they're "final"), players are
> inherently playing to win (barring collusion).
How can this be necessarily true? For example, I've ousted my first
prey. My next prey is down to three pool and in danger of immenent
ousting. He offers me a deal: "Let me kill my prey and I will help you
carve up the rest of the table and roll over for you, giving you the rest
of the VPs" I decline, because I feel confident that I can win the
table the old-fashioned way. He looks to his left , and says to his prey
"I will never take any action to oust you this game." Something wierd
happens, and your game goes to pot. He plays the rest of the game as
Meatshield, with a snide smirk towards you, and reminds you over and over
again that you should have taken his deal. He has 7 minions, twenty pool,
a good combat deck, and his prey has one pool and one minion. He never
ousts him, citing his earlier statement as "a deal".
As you may guess, this is not entirely hypothetical. Clearly, we are in
the finals. Clearly, here is a player not playing to maximize his
VPs. Clearly there is no collusion, since my prey is acting independently
throughout. Certainly, if I were the judge, I would issue a warning, and
eventually remove the player from the game.
Please explain to me how this all can be simultaneously true, and it also
be true that players in finals are, inherently, playing to win.
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu
>How can this be necessarily true? For example, I've ousted my first
>prey. My next prey is down to three pool and in danger of immenent
>ousting. He offers me a deal: "Let me kill my prey and I will help you
>carve up the rest of the table and roll over for you, giving you the rest
>of the VPs" I decline, because I feel confident that I can win the
>table the old-fashioned way. He looks to his left , and says to his prey
>"I will never take any action to oust you this game." Something wierd
>happens, and your game goes to pot. He plays the rest of the game as
>Meatshield, with a snide smirk towards you, and reminds you over and over
>again that you should have taken his deal. He has 7 minions, twenty pool,
>a good combat deck, and his prey has one pool and one minion. He never
>ousts him, citing his earlier statement as "a deal".
First off, in this case, it really isn't a "deal" at all since he's getting
nothing in return from his prey. He simply states that he won't do anything in
that direction anymore. Even if he gets a token reward, "don't block this next
hunt action and I won't do anything to you for the rest of the game," it would
clearly sound fishy enough to warrant calling a judge.
However, speaking of prize splitting, I really don't see why everyone is so up
in arms. I've never done it myself nor have I seen anyone in any of the
tourneys I've been to, but I don't mind having the option.
Halcyan 2