The so-called Top Seed Curse

WHO WON THE FINAL? Top seed: 22 TIES: 6 2nd seed: 10 3rd seed: 8 4th seed: 8 5th seed: 11 So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

Glad to see my 9 appearances/0 wins are helping to bring down the top seed curse myth.

On Jul 17, 6:17 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > WHO WON THE FINAL? > > Top seed: 22 > TIES: 6 > > 2nd seed: 10 > 3rd seed: 8 > 4th seed: 8 > 5th seed: 11 > > So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) So based on these numbers, you got: -Top Seed Wins: 34% -Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57% -Game Ends in a Tie: 9% Well, there you go. As surmised, the Top Seed has a better than 20% chance of winning, but still is considerably less likely to win than not. Thanks Kevin! -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> WHO WON THE FINAL? >> Top seed: 22 >> TIES: 6 >> >> 2nd seed: 10 >> 3rd seed: 8 >> 4th seed: 8 >> 5th seed: 11 >> >> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) > > So based on these numbers, you got: > -Top Seed Wins: 34% > -Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57% > -Game Ends in a Tie: 9% No, no. There are no ties in a final. I meant to show the number of times that a Top Seed won a tied-final. So, it's really: - Top Seed Wins: 37% - Someone Else Wins: 63% So: - it's a straight 20% in a final for each player to win - final-ties are about 10% of the games - in those final-ties, the Top Seed wins 25% of the time And, most importantly: - nearly doubling your chance to win the final is a pretty damn good reason to try to achieve Top Seed [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 17, 6:17 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > WHO WON THE FINAL? > > Top seed: 22 > TIES: 6 > > 2nd seed: 10 > 3rd seed: 8 > 4th seed: 8 > 5th seed: 11 > > So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) Not so fast. First off, all other things being equal (which they are not) we would expect any given player in a 5-player game to win 20% of the time -- NOT COUNTING TIES! So to simplify our analysis, the first thing to do is eliminate the ties from consideration, which gives us: 1st seed: 16/53 = 30% 2nd seed: 10/53 = 19% 3rd seed: 8/53 = 15% 4th seed: 8/53 = 15% 5th seed: 11/53 = 21% Next thing we must take into consideration is that all things are not equal. The best players with the best decks will tend to win more often, as well as end up with the top seed more often. We would expect that, based on skill alone, the top seed would win more than 20% of non-tied final games.. How often the top seed SHOULD win non-tied games, based on the skill factor alone, is anyone's guess, but it could conceivably be as low as (say) 25%, or as high as (say) 35% or more. So we still don't really know if the seating ceremony is increasing a top seed's chances of victory (due to the seating advantage) or reducing it (because the ceremony paints a big fat target on his forehead).

In article <i1tpqh$v9i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > So based on these numbers, you got: > > -Top Seed Wins: 34% > > -Someone Other Than Top Seed Wins: 57% > > -Game Ends in a Tie: 9% > > No, no. There are no ties in a final. I meant to show > the number of times that a Top Seed won a tied-final. Oh, yeah--duh. > So, it's really: > - Top Seed Wins: 37% > - Someone Else Wins: 63% > > So: > - it's a straight 20% in a final for each player to win > - final-ties are about 10% of the games > - in those final-ties, the Top Seed wins 25% of the time > > And, most importantly: > - nearly doubling your chance to win the final is a pretty > damn good reason to try to achieve Top Seed That sounds good enough to me. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:393292e9-753f-409f...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > > So we still don't really know if the seating ceremony is increasing a > top seed's chances of victory (due to the seating advantage) or > reducing it (because the ceremony paints a big fat target on his > forehead). Perhaps this is what we call the swings balancing out the roundabouts? J

On Jul 17, 3:17 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > WHO WON THE FINAL? > > Top seed: 22 > TIES: 6 > > 2nd seed: 10 > 3rd seed: 8 > 4th seed: 8 > 5th seed: 11 > > So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) Kevin, this is great data. Thanks for posting. Just to clarify, I believe you are showing the results of 22 + 10 + 8 + 8 + 11 tournaments = 59 tournaments. Of those 59 tournaments, 22 were won by the top seed. Of those 22, 6 of them were due to a tie. Is that correct? Also, could you confirm the min, average, and max number of players in these 59 tournaments? If these are all 10 person tournaments, I think that would be good to know. Also, could you give the date range for these tournaments - what is the oldest and newest tournament in this data set? Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4 years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone being a sufficient reward for top seed. If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game more similar to all the qualifying games.

In article <7436d5e4-f050-44fe...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4 > years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person > tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone > being a sufficient reward for top seed. Well, unless the Top Seed won those 22 games (instead of the expected, say, 10 games) due to the seat picking advantage. At which point, removing the seat picking advantage significantly impacts the end results. > If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed > up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game > more similar to all the qualifying games. I mean, I certainly see where you are coming from, but I can't imagine that seat picking for the final lengthens the tournament by more than a couple minutes at most. And scouting should be a complete non issue--assume people scout, assume people share information, and don't worry about it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 20, 2:12 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <7436d5e4-f050-44fe-8834-4cac37011...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last 3-4 > > years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person > > tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks alone > > being a sufficient reward for top seed. > > Well, unless the Top Seed won those 22 games (instead of the expected, > say, 10 games) due to the seat picking advantage. At which point, > removing the seat picking advantage significantly impacts the end > results. I didn't write, "Irrefutable proof of The Truth(tm)." I just wrote "very convincing," which obviously has the caveat "in my opinion." Perhaps you disagree with me and aren't convinced. Personally, when I look at the data Kevin posted, it convinces me. > > If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would speed > > up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make the final game > > more similar to all the qualifying games. > > I mean, I certainly see where you are coming from, but I can't imagine > that seat picking for the final lengthens the tournament by more than a > couple minutes at most. And scouting should be a complete non > issue--assume people scout, assume people share information, and don't > worry about it. The seat picking ritual often lengthens the tournament by 5-10 minutes, which certainly isn't a big deal, but it's also not 0. Regarding scouting, I definitely disagree with your conclusion of "complete non issue." I agree with you that it happens, but it's an issue. Players should not be rewarded for scouting, or penalized for not scouting. It would also be nice if players who finish their games early could be allowed to watch games in peace, without other players feeling bad that they're being scouted. Ira

In article <f9065296-742f-4ea9...@x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't write, "Irrefutable proof of The Truth(tm)." I just wrote > "very convincing," which obviously has the caveat "in my opinion." > Perhaps you disagree with me and aren't convinced. Personally, when I > look at the data Kevin posted, it convinces me. Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties. I think if you remove the seat choice, Top Seed may or may not go back to the same chance of winning as anyone else. Which might be what you are looking for. But it certainly would be significantly different. > Regarding scouting, I definitely disagree with your conclusion of > "complete non issue." No, no. It *should* be a complete non issue. Scouting should not be an issue. We should assume that people scout. And share information with each other about what decks they run into. As trying to prevent that is way too much work to be worth it. So assume everyone is going to scout to the best of their ability. And don't worry about it. > I agree with you that it happens, but it's an > issue. Players should not be rewarded for scouting, or penalized for > not scouting. It would also be nice if players who finish their games > early could be allowed to watch games in peace, without other players > feeling bad that they're being scouted. I agree with this--that people should be able to watch games in peace without other players feeling bad that they are being scouted. As people shouldn't feel bad that they are being scouted. 'Cause scouting should not be an issue that people are worrying about. But I don't think that making the final round random will have any impact on this one way or the other. Even if your seating is random in the final, you gain a lot, and lose nothing, but finding out as much information as possible about the decks that you are sitting at the final table with, picking seats or no. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 20, 6:42 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that > looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins > about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having > seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties. I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final preliminary round. > I think if you remove the seat choice, Top Seed may or may not go back > to the same chance of winning as anyone else. Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone. > No, no. It *should* be a complete non issue. Scouting should not be an > issue. We should assume that people scout. And share information with > each other about what decks they run into. As trying to prevent that is > way too much work to be worth it. So assume everyone is going to scout > to the best of their ability. And don't worry about it. This logic is circular. Yes, I agree that I should merrily accept what I cannot change. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, and all that. But in this context, we are actually discussing a change which might have some effect on scouting. And implementing this change would NOT be too much work.

On Jul 21, 12:54 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 6:42 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Hmm. I think I'm misunderstanding you. You seemed to indicate that > > looking at the data presented, where Top Seed having seat choice wins > > about twice as often as other competitors, indicated that not having > > seat choice would be just as good due to the advantage of winning ties. > > I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to > the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for > top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final > preliminary round. They're not traceable to tie-breaking advantage alone since those games might only have tied in the first place due to clever seating choice by the top seed, or due to top seed playing for time etc. With random seating the games might have ended with a non-tie victory.

[ quoted text not captured ] This is true. Lots of uncertainties here. Also, I am not sure Kevin told us how many other ties were NOT won by the top seed? Still, I am not sure it is sufficiently true to entirely negate the logic. If so many top seeds are playing for time, it can only mean that the advantage they are taking advantage of is indeed substantial.

On Jul 21, 1:32 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Still, I am not sure it is sufficiently true to entirely negate the > logic. If so many top seeds are playing for time, it can only mean > that the advantage they are taking advantage of is indeed substantial. Of course. The tie-winning part of being first seed isn't crap, I hope noone has or would say that. It's enhanced by the ability to pick seat last though, making the whole greater than the sum of it's parts and all that.

On Jul 20, 7:39 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's enhanced by the ability to pick seat > last though, making the whole greater than the sum of it's parts and > all that. I cannot honestly see why the difference would be vary much from being proportional. If the tie-breaker advantage can add 6 wins to a base of 16 (+37.5%) then it seems to me it ought to add at least 4 wins to a base of 12 (+33%). Frankly, I would be more worried about those 6 ties being a fluke.

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> WHO WON THE FINAL? >> >> Top seed: 22 >> TIES: 6 >> >> 2nd seed: 10 >> 3rd seed: 8 >> 4th seed: 8 >> 5th seed: 11 >> >> So, it appears there is no 'Top Seed Curse'. =) > > Kevin, this is great data. Thanks for posting. Just to clarify, > I believe you are showing the results of 22 + 10 + 8 + 8 + 11 > tournaments = 59 tournaments. Of those 59 tournaments, 22 were > won by the top seed. Of those 22, 6 of them were due to a tie. > Is that correct? Yes. > Also, could you confirm the min, average, and max number of players > in these 59 tournaments? I'd like NOT to go back and retrieve that data, as it's a lot of work, but I can tell you that none of those tournaments were less than 15 players, most were 18-35 players, most were 2R+F, and every tournament was standard constructed, i.e. non-draft, non-storyline. > Also, could you give the date range for these tournaments -- > what is the oldest and newest tournament in this data set? A few of these tournaments were pre-GW, i.e. most are post-GW. > Assuming this data is relatively recent (say, within the last > 3-4 years) and includes a decent size mix (not just 10 person > tournaments), I think it's a very convincing case for tie-breaks > alone being a sufficient reward for top seed. > > If so, I'd love to remove the seat-picking ritual, which would > speed up tournaments, reduce the impact of scouting, and make > the final game more similar to all the qualifying games. Yea, I'd prefer the "set" seating method we discussed a while back (3-4-1-5-2, or something equivalent) but I agree with your analysis. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And scouting should be a complete non issue--assume people scout, > assume people share information, and don't worry about it. And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > Also, I am not sure Kevin told us how many other ties > were NOT won by the top seed? No, I didn't. I only looked at the ties where the top seed won. I can't tell you how many ties there were in those 59 tounaments, but it wasnt very many. Not many more than 6...maybe 9 or 10? [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > Frankly, I would be more worried about those 6 ties being a fluke. I'm unsure what you mean by a "fluke" tie. How could this happen? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 20, 8:39 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'm unsure what you mean by a "fluke" tie. How could this happen? I am merely thinking of statistical flukes, which can occur in any small sampling.

In article <i25fbb$snb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting > matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which > removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea. Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think scouting is something that people should worry about on the grounds that people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the decks in the tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half the decks, and it is easy to compare notes and there is no way to prevent that. Making the final round randomly seated (the idea in question here) doesn't remove scouting, nor does it remove the advantage of or the incentive to scout. Knowing what your opponents is playing is just as handy if you have random seating as if you have selected seating. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <f042b36e-b05d-4032...@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought he was merely saying that six extra victories, traceable to > the tie-breaking advantage alone, is a very substantial advantage for > top seed, and, in his view, a sufficient incentive to PTW in the final > preliminary round. Ah, ok. Then I was misunderstanding him. The premise here is that the advantage that comes from winning ties as top seed is enough of an incentive/reward for being top seed. Check. > This logic is circular. Yes, I agree that I should merrily accept > what I cannot change. If you can't beat 'em join 'em, and all that. > But in this context, we are actually discussing a change which might > have some effect on scouting. And implementing this change would NOT > be too much work. How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on scouting? I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating is random? And to be clear--I think scouting is great. I have no problem at all with people looking at other folks' decks after they are ousted, trying to see what everyone else is playing, and talking to people to compare notes (assuming they are not disrupting anything while doing so). Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments. I think trying to stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly. Random final or no. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21 heinä, 05:15, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <i25fbb$sn...@news.eternal-september.org>, > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting > > matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method which > > removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good idea. > > Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think > scouting is something that people should worry about on the grounds that > people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them > out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the decks in the > tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half the decks, and it > is easy to compare notes and there is no way to prevent that. It's probably more about the necessity of scouting to stay competitive than being annoyed by other players scouting. > Making the final round randomly seated (the idea in question here) > doesn't remove scouting, nor does it remove the advantage of or the > incentive to scout. Knowing what your opponents is playing is just as > handy if you have random seating as if you have selected seating. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff That's like saying that 1 cake is just as good as 2 cakes. Being able to use your knowledge of other players' decks during a game is not "just as handy" as using that knowledge during AND before the game.

On 21 heinä, 05:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on > scouting? It would remove one incentive to scout. > I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even > if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the > world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my > buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating > is random? Roughly speaking, there are people who enjoy scouting, people who don't like scouting, people who don't like scouting but feel like they need to do it anyway because of all the advantages it provides and people who don't like scouting but feel like they need to do it anyway because of the advantage it provides when choosing seats. If seating is randomized the last group doesn't have to scout anymore. > And to be clear--I think scouting is great. I have no problem at all > with people looking at other folks' decks after they are ousted, trying > to see what everyone else is playing, and talking to people to compare > notes (assuming they are not disrupting anything while doing so). Sure. > Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments. Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing it. > I think trying to > stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly. > Random final or no. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html [ quoted text not captured ]

Suoli gave some good answers here, which I agree with, and will try not to repeat. Peter D Bakija wrote: > How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on > scouting? It will (marginally) alter the balance of power between those who do scout, and those who do not. > I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even > if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the > world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my > buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating > is random? It won't. Not for you, at any rate. But it is also true that there are some people who do not scout, and will not scout and/or will get little or no benefit from trying to scouting even if the rule is kept as is. (Somewhere in between these extremes, there might be folks on the edge, who might scout less if there were less incentive). For instance (to take an extreme example), a disabled guy in a wheelchair, with moderately poor distance vision, poor memory for faces, and lacking a network of informants, may be effectively unable to scout, but still be a very good player of the game as it is normally played. My point is not that V:tES tournaments should make special allowances for the handicapped -- but merely that tournament rules should be geared towards rewarding those who are good at the game as it is ordinarily played. > Everyone should scout all the time in all tournaments. Be careful what you wish for. "Everyone" does not scout, as it is; most that do do not scout "all the time"; and I do not think Judges would like it if they did. > I think trying to > stop, disincentivize, dissuade, or discourage scouting is just silly. > Random final or no. All we are "trying" to do is randomize seating in the finals. And there is nothing silly about that. It *might* be silly if we tried to do more than that, for all the reasons you state, but that's a whole other question. I could retort "I think trying to promote, incentivise, and encourage scouting is just silly, Random final or no, because most of the people who do it are going to do it anyway, and because some people will not bother no matter what you do." So why should we keep the current rule? Scouting skills have little or nothing to do with the game as ordinarily played.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't think > scouting is something that people should worry about [...] And yet you are worrying about it. You think it should be encouraged, that it is something "everyone" should do. > [...] on the grounds that > people will do it unless you put bags over their heads and usher them > out of the room. Conversely, there are some who will not scout, and indeed cannot scout effectively, even if you torture them with red hot irons. > And randomly you get to see half the decks in the > tournament. This is part of the game as it is ordinarily played. Most players do not design a new deck for every game, so players often play against decks having played against those decks before. Using this knowledge to choose who your predator and prey will be is NOT part of the game as ordinarily played.

On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six > extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone. And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as the top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie. Consider: As first seed, I place myself in a position where I will survive and get my prey, just like one other person. We end in a tie and I win being higher seed, which in large part is likely due to my ability to pick a predator.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> And yet people have been arguing rather vehemently that scouting >> matters, so it seems like purifying our game by using a method >> which removes scouting yet preserves everything else is a good >> idea. > > Ah, yeah, that. I think they are mistaken, but that is me. I don't > think scouting is something that people should worry about on the > grounds that people will do it unless you put bags over their heads > and usher them out of the room. And randomly you get to see half the > decks in the tournament. And randomly your buddies see another half > the decks, and it is easy to compare notes and there is no way > to prevent that. So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here. [ quoted text not captured ]

Darby Keeney wrote: > On Jul 20, 4:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting six > > extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone. > > And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as the > top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie. Do I believe that?

John Whelan wrote: > Darby Keeney wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting >>> six extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone. >> >> And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as >> the top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie. > > Do I believe that? Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really meant, and continue forward. It'll save us all lots of heartache thinking you are baiting, which I hope you aren't. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > Darby Keeney wrote: > >> John Whelan wrote: > >>> Seems rather unlikely that they will, if they are really getting > >>> six extra victories from the tie-breaking advantage alone. > >> > >> And what leads you to believe that being able to select seats as > >> the top seed isn't a contributing factor to the game ending in a tie. > > > > Do I believe that? > > Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are > wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really > meant, and continue forward. Why should I have to clarify whether I *meant* it? Surely it is clear enough that I did not SAY it. I'll tell you what I DO think, though. I think any defense of the current seating rule that depends on the premise that the rule promotes ties in the final game, is not much of a defense. I do not think that promoting ties is a good thing for a seating rule to do.

On Jul 20, 7:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > How will making the finals randomly seated have any effect at all on > scouting? I still want to know what my opponent's decks are and do, even > if I'm sitting randomly. Thus, I still have all the incentive in the > world to check out other people's decks when I can, and find out from my > buddies what people are playing. Why would this change if final seating > is random? It won't have much if any effect, and trying to prevent scouting is likely more effort than it is worth. Unless we force everyone ousted to leave the room, you can't stop it nor should you even try. V:TES remains a social game and removing part of that environment between games is not going to stop any deck discussions and will just annoy players. Choosing where you sit in the finals though can take scouting beyond what it should be and give a player an out of game advantage. If seating in finals is random, like it is in every other round, then the only advantage a scouter has going into the finals is minimal. Any player in a final who doesn't scout should be able to figure out what their pred/prey are playing fairly quickly and not be at much if any disadvantage. If choosing seating in a final is fine, then why shouldn't we allow players to choose their table positions every round? Random draw for Round 1, Round 2 and beyond every table is seated just like finals are now. It wouldn't add more than a minute or two to every round, and The Archon could be adjusted to show tournament rank on each round's table matchup so the judge could order the seating cards during a round without adding time to the event.

In article <c5a5a21c-db5f-4fbc...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > It will (marginally) alter the balance of power between those who do > scout, and those who do not. Very marginally. As people in the finals have likely seen most of the decks in the finals already anyway. > It won't. Not for you, at any rate. But it is also true that there are > some people who do not scout, and will not scout and/or will get > little or no benefit from trying to scouting even if the rule is kept > as is. (Somewhere in between these extremes, there might be folks on > the edge, who might scout less if there were less incentive). People play games vs a good number of decks that they are likely to face already anyway. So already have a lot of information about the decks in question, even without intentional scouting. > For instance (to take an extreme example), a disabled guy in a > wheelchair, with moderately poor distance vision, poor memory for > faces, and lacking a network of informants, may be effectively unable > to scout, but still be a very good player of the game as it is > normally played. Yes. That is an extreme example. If I ended up in a final with this guy, and he didn't know what all the other decks in the final were, I'd give him all the information I had. > My point is not that V:tES tournaments should make special allowances > for the handicapped -- but merely that tournament rules should be > geared towards rewarding those who are good at the game as it is > ordinarily played. Which it currently is. > Be careful what you wish for. "Everyone" does not scout, as it is; > most that do do not scout "all the time"; and I do not think Judges > would like it if they did. Why wouldn't judges like if they did? What is not to like? This is where I am most confused by all of this. Why does anyone view scouting as something that is to be avoided at all? It makes zero sense to me. We start at a wide level of information that is imperfect information--everyone sees many of the decks in a given tournament just by virtue of sitting down (in a tournament with enough people so that I play 3 games vs 4 different players every round, I'm seeing 12 different decks before the final. Which could easily be about half. Or more in a smaller event). Then you probably have some information on other decks just by virtue of knowing what some friends are playing. So even without intentionally looking at other people's decks between rounds, you likely have information on a majority of the decks anyway in all but the biggest tournaments. Why are folks so insistent on propping up the completely random disadvantage of not knowing what a couple decks in the tournament do? > All we are "trying" to do is randomize seating in the finals. And > there is nothing silly about that. I'm not quite sure why you are "trying" rather than just trying. But I meant "trying to minimize scouting" in a grand sense. > So why should we keep the current rule? Scouting skills have little > or nothing to do with the game as ordinarily played. I'm not saying that we should keep the current final rule due to scouting or the lack thereof. I'm just going off on a tangent about scouting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <2f0f022b-7143-41b0...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged > in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of > scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by > randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing > it. Fair enough. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <i25ulp$ks0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this > method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd > be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here. Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the final round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <14320c9a-35a9-49d2...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > And yet you are worrying about it. You think it should be encouraged, > that it is something "everyone" should do. I think it is something that happens, is something that can't be prevented, and isn't something that anyone should try to prevent. > This is part of the game as it is ordinarily played. Most players do > not design a new deck for every game, so players often play against > decks having played against those decks before. > > Using this knowledge to choose who your predator and prey will be is > NOT part of the game as ordinarily played. Which has nothing to do with scouting and everything to do with selecting seats for a game of VTES. So object to picking where you sit in a game of VTES on the grounds of that not being how the game is normally played, not 'cause of scouting. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > Not so sure. I don't like the idea that I'm going to be disadvantaged > in the finals because I was hungry and went to get a snack instead of > scouting between rounds. Why not reduce that potential disadvantage by > randomizing seats? It won't stop anyone who enjoys scouting from doing > it. If scouting is the concern, then I think the better solution would be to get the judge to give a brief summery of every deck before the final begins (before seats are chosen). The fact is that even with random seating, a player who takes the time to ask around and find out what the other finalists are playing will have an advantage. If you want to reduce that advantage, all you need to do is institutionalize scouting so the players need do nothing.

On 21 heinä, 09:10, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > > Instead of asking people to tell you what you believe when they are > > wrong, just tell them that they are wrong, tell them what you really > > meant, and continue forward. > > Why should I have to clarify whether I *meant* it? Because someone couldn't tell. > Surely it is clear > enough that I did not SAY it. It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant. In a polite conversation the goal is to understand and be understood. You don't get points for formally precise statements, you get them for being understood. You don't loose points for misunderstood statements if you can correct the misunderstanding. And the best part? If we're all playing in the same team everybody is a winner!

On Jul 21, 9:57 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant. Perhaps you mean to suggest that I should have said "I didn't say that" instead of "Do I believe that?". Maybe so, but you are quibbling.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > It wasn't clear enough if someone didn't understand what you meant. In > a polite conversation the goal is to understand and be understood. You > don't get points for formally precise statements, you get them for > being understood. You don't loose points for misunderstood statements > if you can correct the misunderstanding. And the best part? If we're > all playing in the same team everybody is a winner! But stating one's opinion clearly and rephrasing it upon request makes it very difficult to claim that the matter is already settled and avoid all further discussion and/or challenges to one's position!

On Jul 21, 11:40 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > But stating one's opinion clearly and rephrasing it upon request makes it > very difficult to claim that the matter is already settled and avoid all > further discussion and/or challenges to one's position! I did not understand that. Please rephrase.

[ quoted text not captured ] Glad to. "Read what I wrote" and the like is a fairly common response around here when either a lack of clarity/understanding is noted or ones core points are directly challenged. I contend that this is just a cheap bullying tactic and that anyone actually interested in having a discussion or debate should be glad to restate what was written before to ensure that all readers have a good grasp of the points being made. Or to put it another way, if one can't remake ones argument, then it likely isn't a very strong one.

[ quoted text not captured ] Forgive me, Matt, but to my eyes, the entire above post seems like a cheap bullying tactic. But I think you could have said it more succinctly. You are basically calling me a dishonest coward.

On Jul 21, 12:15 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Forgive me, Matt, but to my eyes, the entire above post seems like a > cheap bullying tactic. But I think you could have said it more > succinctly. You are basically calling me a dishonest coward. As third party, mostly uninterested observer, it seems a lot more like he is saying: It is generally a better plan to be willing to restate one's position than it is to say "go reread my position, as it is already stated". -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I didn't say anything like that and didn't refer to you by name. It does seem to me that you are less enthused about defending your points when others disagree with you. You aren't the only one. If not, then lets let bygones be bygones and you can answer this question: what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating? "Please refer to my entire volume of newsgroup posts for the answer" suggests to me that you aren't actually interested in debating it. That's the answer I got before.

On Jul 21, 12:23 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > As third party, mostly uninterested observer, it seems a lot more like > he is saying: > > It is generally a better plan to be willing to restate one's position > than it is to say "go reread my position, as it is already stated". Okay. Seriously now. Is there anyone who needs me to clarify? My original words were quoted. The misquotation was directly below it for comparison. Where is the confusion? If anyone is truly confused, I will do my best to clarify. I just pray such person is interesting in discussing Jyhad, and not my character flaws, which are indeed considerable. Yes yes. By now I fervently wish I had spend more time responding to that post. It would have saved time in the long run. But it was late at night, and I was tired.

On Jul 21, 12:27 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > It does > seem to me that you are less enthused about defending your points when > others disagree with you. I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment of my character. Seems to me my flaws run in the other direction, and that I need to better resist the compulsive urge to get sucked into pointless repetitive debates. > If not, then lets let bygones be bygones and you can answer this question: > what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating? It would be nice to get some acknowledgment that I am under no obligation to repeat and rehash my position on demand. But fine. You've nagged me enough, I guess. I'll give you a rehash tonight.

In article <4e36f6da-f951-408b...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay. Seriously now. Is there anyone who needs me to clarify? My > original words were quoted. The misquotation was directly below it > for comparison. Where is the confusion? I think it was more of a general comment than a specific attack on your statements. I read what Matt said, and read it as "It is good to restate one's position rather than say 'go read what I already wrote'" was like "Yaa!". Not 'cause of this discussion in specific, but 'cause of discussion in general. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this >> method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd >> be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here. > > Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the > final round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting? I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <i27hta$j4c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it. Like, I'm not trying to be argumentetive here (well, no more so than usual :-), but still, I'm not seeing how a randomized final seating will make scouting less common. I mean, yeah, if final seating is randomized, you have less to lose by not knowing what the other finalists are playing, but you still want to know what they are playing. Currently, when you get into the finals, if you are 5th or 4th seed, you already have essentially random seating. 3rd and 4th seed get slightly less, yet still pretty much, random seating. Top Seed gets to pick the seat of their choice. Yet 4th and 5th seed *still* benefit from knowing what other folks are playing, so scouting opposing decks, even if you aren't going to be top seed (heck, even if you aren't getting into the final), is worth doing. As knowing what folks are playing is helpful, even if seat choice isn't part of the equation. If I sit down in a random seat, and my predator spends his first 10 transfers getting out what is clearly an 11 cap, how I play my first 3 or 4 turns is going to be different if I know my predator is probably bringing out Arika as opposed to probably bringing out Enkidu. Knowing up front that my predator is playing Arika (or Enkidu or Malkavians or Imbued or whatever) is helpful information. Even if I'm their prey randomly as opposed to by someone's choice. Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful. All the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I brought up the issue because it seems to be a big contributing factor in turning discussions into meaningless 5+ page arguments on the newsgroup. I feel that we could have more content with less volume if we examine our own posting habits and how they affect the general quality of discussions.

John Whelan wrote: > "Matthew T. Morgan" wrote: >> It does seem to me that you are less enthused about defending >> your points when others disagree with you. > >> If not, then lets let bygones be bygones and you can answer this >> question: what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize >> final seating? > > It would be nice to get some acknowledgment that I am under > no obligation to repeat and rehash my position on demand. Obviously, you are under no obligation to repeat and/or rehash your position on demand and/or mis- or non-understanding. It's odd that you could have ever thought you were under some sort of compulsion from a bunch of people on a computer forum. But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 21, 4:01 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your > argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;) I have spent as much time rehashing this issue as anybody. Obviously, if I rehash it some more, it is possible I will convince more people. But there is a law of diminishing returns in such things.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result > of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the > foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking > final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful. > All the time. Yeah, Peter is right. Ask anybody, I say to you, anybody who has played in a lot of finals. Would randomizing seating make you less likely to want to scout? No. It is highly useful to know what you're up against and not every deck reveals it's true nature. Say I'm going 3rd and my predator influences Feo Ramos. What is it? Una? Weenie auspex? Legacy of Pander? Imagine I need to discard one of these cards: Pentex Subversion, Forgotten Labyrinth, Delaying Tactics. If I know what deck my predator has, the decision is easy. If I don't, then I'd be a fool to lose any of those.

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> But it you don't, then there will be consequences for you and your >> argument -- clearly I understand such things around here. ;) > > I have spent as much time rehashing this issue as anybody. When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single post, you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with your own question, first time around. That is where you chose the consequences. Granted, we all have styles of communication and your style of answering a question with a question is not taken as badly in a real- life setting, but if a particular group of people in a particular forum are suggesting to you that it isn't the best way to communicate with them, take the idea kindly and see if you can modify your arguments in their setting. If they say that it'll benefit you, perhaps it will. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21 heinä, 22:43, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Yes. I agree that if final rounds were random as opposed to the result > of seat choice, yeah, *not* scouting is less likely to shoot you in the > foot. But as that sort of information is *always* useful, seat picking > final or no, people still are going to want to do it. As it is helpful. > All the time. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff It could similarly be said that people should always wear sunglasses when playing because it makes reading expressions harder. Most people don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the time. I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not scouting for some players.

On Jul 21, 4:20 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single post, > you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with your own > question, first time around. We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone switches to the other. > That is where you chose the consequences. I am certainly being punished.

On 21 heinä, 23:25, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am certainly being punished. If that is what you sincerely feel I naturally apologize for contributing to what you might perceive as a witch hunt.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby > issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone > switches to the other. For the record, my grievance is that I don't think the solution matches the problem (or lack of one), but I can't really address that when nobody will say what the problem is. > I am certainly being punished. Oh your poor soul. Have a kitten!

On Jul 21, 4:45 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Oh your poor soul. Have a kitten! Thanks, Matt.

On 21 heinä, 23:45, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > For the record, my grievance is that I don't think the solution matches > the problem (or lack of one), but I can't really address that when nobody > will say what the problem is. I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more competitive vs. players who scout.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > It could similarly be said that people should always wear sunglasses > when playing because it makes reading expressions harder. Bah. That makes hypnosis nearly impossible! > Most people > don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing > sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the > time. Or because we are better without them. > I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without > randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats > reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in > such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not > scouting for some players. It still would be. I can think of no end of examples. Imagine somebody influences Nikolaus Vermulen. Is he playing Progeny? Signposts/Grapples? 2nd Traditions? Loads of Parity Shift? Just a little Parity Shift? Heavy stealth? Light stealth? Knowing the answer to these questions will greatly improve ones odds against such a deck. It's much better to know what the deck is all about before the game than to find out halfway through.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some > people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one > does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing > the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more > competitive vs. players who scout. Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for that problem though. I already proposed, but will do so again, that a more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the finalists are playing before seats are chosen. Something like: Kevin is playing filthy group 2-3 DEM bleed Peter is playing 1 cap hack Matt is playing Hazimel multi-rush (with Eye of Hazimel!) etc. Now who do you want to sit by? Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's already perfectly legal for a judge to do this. Just as it would be legal for finalists to agree to "choose" the seats which are randomly determined by a roll of a die.

On 22 heinä, 00:11, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > > > Most people > > don't because their personal advantage/effort ratio for wearing > > sunglasses isn't high enough, even when it would be helpful all the > > time. > > Or because we are better without them. What point are you making here? Are you arguing against the specifics of the example or the general principle behind it? Keep in mind that it's an illustrative example, not a proof. If it makes the example easier to understand feel free to replace "sunglasses" with placeholder X that has the property a<e, where a is advantage gained by X and b is effort required by X. > > I think we all acknowledge that scouting is useful with or without > > randomized final seats. What is being argued is that randomized seats > > reduce the advantage of scouting (or disadvantage of not scouting) in > > such a way that advantage/effort ratio would be tilted in favor of not > > scouting for some players. > > It still would be. I can think of no end of examples. Imagine somebody > influences Nikolaus Vermulen. Is he playing Progeny? Signposts/Grapples? > 2nd Traditions? Loads of Parity Shift? Just a little Parity Shift? > Heavy stealth? Light stealth? Knowing the answer to these questions will > greatly improve ones odds against such a deck. It's much better to know > what the deck is all about before the game than to find out halfway > through. We can all imagine the examples. We all know that scouting helps your game. Nevertheless, in one end of the spectrum there are people who enjoy scouting, in the other are people who don't like it and never do it even if it would be useful and somewhere in between are people who wouldn't bother with scouting if it weren't for non-random seating in the finals.

On 22 heinä, 00:16, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for > that problem though. I already proposed, but will do so again, that a > more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the > finalists are playing before seats are chosen. Not a bad idea.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > What point are you making here? No point. Just goofing around. > We can all imagine the examples. We all know that scouting helps your > game. Nevertheless, in one end of the spectrum there are people who > enjoy scouting, in the other are people who don't like it and never do > it even if it would be useful and somewhere in between are people who > wouldn't bother with scouting if it weren't for non-random seating in > the finals. Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the other four decks were before you had to pick your seat?

On 22 heinä, 00:44, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the > other four decks were before you had to pick your seat? I would scout even if there was no advantage to it. I like seeing what decks people have come up with. Someone else might rather take a smoking break or whatever.

On Jul 21, 5:16 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, suoli wrote: > > I can't speak for John Whelan but one possible problem is that some > > people might want to take a break and do whatever unrelated thing one > > does between games instead of spending that time scouting. Reducing > > the advantage gained from scouting would allow them to stay a bit more > > competitive vs. players who scout. > > Yes, I can understand that. I don't really agree this is the best fix for > that problem though. But the question here is merely whether one seating method is preferable to another. There may be other ways to reduce the incentives for scouting, but we still must choose seating, which requires a seating method. > I already proposed, but will do so again, that a > more direct fix to this would be for the judge to announce what decks the > finalists are playing before seats are chosen. > > Something like: > Kevin is playing filthy group 2-3 DEM bleed > Peter is playing 1 cap hack > Matt is playing Hazimel multi-rush (with Eye of Hazimel!) > etc. > > Now who do you want to sit by? > > Unless I'm quite mistaken, it's already perfectly legal for a judge to do > this. Just as it would be legal for finalists to agree to "choose" the > seats which are randomly determined by a roll of a die. I don't like this method. It requires too much judgment on the part of the judge, as he strains to make a fair but brief summary of every deck. I think a judge should not have such worries. If I were to try to implement a similar idea, I would suggest a rule that, before the finals begin, each player reveals 4 vampires chosen randomly from his crypt. Then they reshuffle the crypt, and begin play. (I would suggest a similar rule for the library, but libraries take longer to reshuffle). This replicates the easiest information to get via scouting: crypt information. Players that do not scout would then feel less disadvantaged. Less-hard-core scouters might decide there are better ways to use their time. But I would still want seating determined randomly.

In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1...@fnord.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > Would you bother with scouting if the judge was going to tell you what the > other four decks were before you had to pick your seat? I would. As it is helpful to know what decks people are playing before you sit down for the second round. Or the third round. Even if that seating is random. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> When Darby entered the discussion for the first time, with a single >> post, you didn't rehash anything. You confronted his question with >> your own question, first time around. > > We keep switching back and forth. Are we talking about the Darby > issue, or Matt Morgan's grievances? When I address one, someone > switches to the other. Two issues are being discussed at the same time. This is reasonable. >> That is where you chose the consequences. > > I am certainly being punished. Your so-called punishment has been quite mild, and has even tended toward constructive. You should be so lucky. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 21, 6:58 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Two issues are being discussed at the same time. This is reasonable. You and Matt can continue then. As fascinating as my sinful life may be, I think I shall return to discussing V:tES.

On Jul 21, 12:27 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > you can answer this question: > what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating? Let me first point out that you are loading the question. The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by eliminating random seating?" Random seating is the norm in V:tES, or at least, it is usual for seating to be effectively random as to decks (if not necessarily the players) because seating is almost never chosen with knowledge of what an opponent is playing. Finals seating is the exception to the rule. You are able to take the offensive only because non-random seating has somehow become a 15-year old tradition. So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and why. Let's start with a totally subjective and selfish consideration. I hate scouting. And I am terrible at it. I am one of those people who (for the most part) does not scout, and when I do I get almost nothing out of it. Unless I actually sit down and play against a person, I can rarely remember who is playing what. Thus any rule that helps scouters is not helping me -- it is only helping my opponents. Lets move to a second consideration -- also somewhat subjective, but more theoretical. I am a fan of V:tES, and by V:tES, I mean the Standard Game. For me, the Standard Game is an end in itself, and any changes thereto, for tournament purposes, require justification. I see the purpose of the tournament is to measure skill at standard V:tES. Most changes to Standard Rules, for tournament purposes, were caused by a regrettable necessity -- the time limit. V:tES, in its standard form, is a kill or be killed, eat or be eaten game. Very rarely will a completed standard game (especially a 5-player game) end in a tie, and only the most unlikely situations end with a table being split 1,1,1,1,1. But with a time limit, this can easily be achieved -- all that need happen is for two hours to pass with no-one being ousted -- or that would be the score if tournaments were scored consistently with the pattern of the standard rules (with every player who is not ousted keeping the 1 vp he brought to the table). Since ties were not in keeping with the eat-or-be-eaten "spirit of the game", time limits and ties had to be dis-incentivized in time-limited games. Surviving to time out was only given 0.5 vp as a "risk incentive". Though this distorted the standard rules, its aim was to preserve the "spirit" (rather than the letter) of the Standard Rules. (This change ultimately led to other changes, such as the discounting of the withdrawal bonus). I recognize that others (probably you among them, judging by your earlier comments) do not have this attitude. For some, the tournament rules have become an end in themselves. For such, it is irrelevant to you to what extent they accurately reflect the standard rules (spirit or letter), and to what extent they distort them. I cannot say others are wrong for this, any more than I can say you would be wrong for preferring Monopoly. I can only say that I do have a loyalty to Standard V:tES. But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory. enough for now ...

John Whelan wrote: > If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player, Not that this is the goal of a tournament, mind you. > then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- > picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight > lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory. Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills? They sure do seem to be one of the variables. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 22, 2:12 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player, > > then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- > > picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight > > lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory. > > Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills? No idea. Maybe someone wrote a post about it.

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>> If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES player, >>> then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- >>> picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight >>> lifting ability, or knowledge of legal theory. >> >> Why aren't those valid VTES tournament player skills? > > No idea. Maybe someone wrote a post about it. Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 22, 3:09 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really. What are you right about and why are you sad? If you wanted a discussion, perhaps you should have given SOME indication of having read the long post I just wrote. Disagree is you like, but don't just ask me to repeat myself.

On Jul 22, 12:39 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the > tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard > Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant > in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator > and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of > gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the > Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES > player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- > picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting > ability, or knowledge of legal theory. I share that ground. A justification for using the current seating method is that the seating matters. In the preliminary rounds, as in the Standard Game, there is no basis on which to award seating choice priority, so the seating choice (with the corresponding advantages and disadvantages it imparts to each player) is done randomly. Similarly, choosing who sits at each table is done randomly (again having no merit basis for distinguishing the players). For the final however, there is a measure of relative performance for comparing each player to each other player. This measure is used to determine who merits a seat at the final table (rather than leaving that random) And this measure is used to determine who merits seat choice priority (rather than leaving that random) This is done in other competitions, as well, as mentioned in earlier threads (cf. short track, ski cross, etc.) Another justification is more akin to bending to the needs of the tournament (cf. time limits as you mention). In a single game (Standard Game), players have no reason no to play to win that single game. In a series-of-games setting (as in the preliminary rounds), situations may arise due to the tournament's addition of "determining who goes to the final" that may result in a player having a choice between improving xeir tournament performance and improving their single game performance. We have the sportmanship rule, the PTW portion of which dictates that the player in such a situation must sacrifice the tournament performance for the game performance, which is not a good position for the player to be in and could promote/reward cheating. As such, reducing the occurrence of such situations is warranted, so that players are put into such situations less often, if ever. Increasing the advantage of finishing 1st over finishing 2nd going into the finals arguably does some of that.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > But the question here is merely whether one seating method is > preferable to another. There may be other ways to reduce the > incentives for scouting, but we still must choose seating, which > requires a seating method. The question for me is whether the existing rule is creating an undesireable situation which can be improved by changing it. If it comes down to six of one, half dozen of the other, then I'd rather stick with the rule everybody knows. > I don't like this method. It requires too much judgment on the part > of the judge, as he strains to make a fair but brief summary of every > deck. I think a judge should not have such worries. I don't really see how it's a worry. Every tournament is always conducted at the mercy of the good judgment of the judge. This is nothing different. Any player who doesn't feel the judge will give a sufficiently good review of the decks is free to scout. > If I were to try to implement a similar idea, I would suggest a rule > that, before the finals begin, each player reveals 4 vampires chosen > randomly from his crypt. Then they reshuffle the crypt, and begin > play. (I would suggest a similar rule for the library, but libraries > take longer to reshuffle). This could be extremely misleading. Imagine the vampires revealed are 4 Panders. You think Legacy of Pander, but it turns out to be an Una deck. I'm not saying I have a huge problem with doing this. It's just that the information received would sometimes be immensely useful and other times lead one to have to guess. > This replicates the easiest information to get via scouting: crypt > information. Players that do not scout would then feel less > disadvantaged. Less-hard-core scouters might decide there are better > ways to use their time. > > But I would still want seating determined randomly. Because?

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:27 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >> you can answer this question: >> what problem are you attempting to solve by randomize final seating? > > Let me first point out that you are loading the question. Sounds good. I'll point out how I'm not. > The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as > easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by > eliminating random seating?" You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated. Currently final seating is not random, so randomizing that represents a change. I believe change should be driven by a reason, not just because somebody felt like it. > Random seating is the norm in V:tES, or > at least, it is usual for seating to be effectively random as to decks > (if not necessarily the players) because seating is almost never > chosen with knowledge of what an opponent is playing. Finals seating > is the exception to the rule. You are able to take the offensive only > because non-random seating has somehow become a 15-year old tradition. Yes, I represent the status quo in this argument. I took up that position because I would like to see any changes to vtes actually improve organized play rather than just make it different, but no better. I have inertia on my side and I should. It shouldn't be possible to just change the rules willy-nilly all the time. > So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and > why. That's not the question for me. The question is whether or not the proposed change will make for better organized play. > Let's start with a totally subjective and selfish consideration. I > hate scouting. And I am terrible at it. I am one of those people who > (for the most part) does not scout, and when I do I get almost nothing > out of it. Unless I actually sit down and play against a person, I > can rarely remember who is playing what. Thus any rule that helps > scouters is not helping me -- it is only helping my opponents. Okay, we've already talked about this. I think my counter-proposal will help you more because before you begin the final, the judge will let you know that Peter is playing weenie potence, Kevin is playing Aabbt Kindred vote, etc. Whether you pick your seat or not, this would help most players get into the right frame of mind to tackle those decks. > Lets move to a second consideration -- also somewhat subjective, but > more theoretical. I am a fan of V:tES, and by V:tES, I mean the > Standard Game. For me, the Standard Game is an end in itself, and any > changes thereto, for tournament purposes, require justification. I > see the purpose of the tournament is to measure skill at standard > V:tES. Any argument involving the standard game in regards to seating is spurious as the standard game has no rules for seating. 2.1: "Seating position can be determined by whatever method the players choose." But that's clearly not feasible in a tournament environment because the players may not agree - or one could argue that by participating in a tournament, the players have chosen to be seated according to the tournament rules. Perfectly in line with the standard game rules. [ quoted text not captured ] I see the tournament rules as an extension for the standard rulebook since the standard rulebook doesn't cover how to organize a tournament. As far as I know, the only place the two come into conflict is that tournament games can only include 4 or 5 players and tournament decks can (typically indivisibly) be 90 cards, even in a 4 player game. That and the time limit, which is clearly a necessary evil because you can't allow a single tournament round to last 11 hours. There's also a very small banned list. So I would venture to say you are seeing something that isn't there. You can retain your loyalty to the core game and participate in tournaments. Just bring an 80 card deck and don't complain about not getting to play 3 and 7 player games. > But to those with whom I do have some common ground, in believing the > tournament rules should reflect at least the spirit of the Standard > Game, I have this argument. Scouting is not a skill which is relevant > in the Standard Game. Similarly, the ability to choose your predator > and prey, using knowledge of what they are playing, in the hope of > gaining an advantage, is likewise not a skill that is relevant to the > Standard Game. If the goal of a tournament is to find the best V:tES > player, then rewarding the skill of scouting and the skill of predator- > picking makes as much sense as rewarding beauty, weight lifting > ability, or knowledge of legal theory. Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes than weight-lifting. I can understand not liking it and wanting to minimize its effect, but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate. The same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played. The same skill will remind that player that, assuming the deck hasn't changed from a prior game, it runs two Giants Blood but lacks Pentex Subversion. It will inform the player that another player frequently ousts quickly, then runs out of steam. All of these observations are relevant to vtes, whether one is playing or observing. But I'm not saying scouting should be the most important skill of a vtes player. I'm disputing your saying it isn't relevant. It clearly is. I'm all for lending a helping hand to those who don't want to spend their off time spying on other games - or for players who dramatically clean up with just seconds to spare and thus have no opportunity to view other games. That's why I proposed having the judge scout on everyone's behalf. I think this would do a better job at achieving your aim than randomizing final seating. Even with random final seating, scouting is still hugely important and those who don't/can't/won't do it will be disadvantaged.

John Whelan wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Wow. Guess I was right about you. Sad, really. > > What are you right about and why are you sad? > > If you wanted a discussion, perhaps you should have given SOME > indication of having read the long post I just wrote. Disagree is you > like, but don't just ask me to repeat myself. I did read your post, and I was engaging you and I thought we were having a discussion about something fundamental, but all you want to do is write smart-ass posts and not engage, probably because your arguments are so incredibly weak as not to be able to withstand debate (as Matt said earlier). That's why I feel sorry for you. Bye. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 21, 3:30 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> So if a method of removing scouting became available, and this > >> method would (hopefully) change nothing else about the game, you'd > >> be against it? ;) 'Cause that's all we're talking about here. > > > Hmm. I don't think I'm understanding you. How would making the > > final round randomly seated be a method of removing scouting? > > I should've said "lessening scouting", since it clearly doesn't remove it. > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html If people want to eliminate scouting, the tournament rule should be that the Judge announces, in very general terms, what each person at the final table is playing. "He's playing !Malk stealth/bleed. She's playing Torrie breed/boon" I'm all for random seating in the finals. Robb Dudock

On Jul 22, 10:11 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as > > easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by > > eliminating random seating?" > > You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we > don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated. We may not do random finals seating, but we *do* do random seating, in virtually every game I have played for the last 15 years. Except in the finals, where we eliminate it. So my question stands. I'm not sure what the point was in your pretending you did not understand me. > I have inertia on > my side and I should. Sure. If there is a tie, you win. Still, the question is which rule would be better. We are measuring one rule against the other. > > So the question, really is, what seating method do you prefer and > > why. > > That's not the question for me. The question is whether or not the > proposed change will make for better organized play. That does not sound any different different from my intended meaning. > Any argument involving the standard game in regards to seating is > spurious as the standard game has no rules for seating. 2.1: "Seating > position can be determined by whatever method the players choose." But > that's clearly not feasible in a tournament environment because the > players may not agree - or one could argue that by participating in a > tournament, the players have chosen to be seated according to the > tournament rules. Perfectly in line with the standard game rules. I have made no argument based on any claim that the current seating method explicitly violates the letter of the Standard Rulebook > Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the > nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes > than weight-lifting. So is cheating. What's your point? > I can understand not liking it and wanting to > minimize its effect, [...] You understand me then. So why quibble? > [...] but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate. Scouting is not relevant to Standard V:tES as it is normally played. > The > same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player > recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played. A player who is good at the latter will not necessarily be equally good at the former. There may be some overlap. Still, the goal should be to measure the latter, not the former.

LSJ wrote: [snip merit argument] > This is done in other competitions, as well, as mentioned in earlier > threads (cf. short track, ski cross, etc.) Neither your merit argument nor your PTW incentive argument you offer below necessarily stands against my last objection. One can offer awards and incentives in any number of ways, and need not choose those whose value varies based on factors that are not particularly relevant to Standard V:tES. But I am still opposed to the merit argument (standing on its own and divorced from the need for incentives). I imagine that the idea, in the sports competitions you mention, is usually not to INTRODUCE imbalance and unfairness to the final competition. Rather the idea is that some unfairness is already inherent in the competition, and, if such unfairness MUST be assigned to someone, it might as well be assigned on the basis of previous merit. If you assign the best start position to just anyone, folks might say “the only reason he won was because he had the best start position.” But if you assign the best start position to the top seed, folks are more likely to say, “Oh well, he was the most likely to win anyway, since he did best in preliminary rounds, so the ultimate outcome would probably have been the same.” People are more likely to feel that, despite unavoidable flaws, the competition has probably served its purpose – finding the best player. It is far less likely that such competitions will deliberately introduce unfairness not already inherent. For instance, I have never heard that, in the 100 meter dash, the lower-seeded players are forced to carry five-pound weights. Such measures would only reduce our confidence that the best player really has won. Some such “inherent” unfairness can be found in V:tES, in terms of order of play. For instance, it is universally agreed that going fifth is a disadvantage. I would have less objection to assigning such “inherent” unfairness of the basis of previous merit. For instance, one might have random seating, but still have a rule that the fifth seed’s prey (whoever that is) goes first, or it could be the rule that (after relative seating is chosen, but before decks are cut) the top seed decides who goes first. Once you separate the “who goes first” question, I see no basis for the idea that there is ANY inherent unfairness in the random assigning of predator-prey relationships. If, in Short Track, you randomly assign starting positions, someone always gets lucky and someone always gets the short end of the stick. But no claim can be made that this is necessarily true of random predator-prey assignments in V:tES. Why cannot such a result be “fair”? It is possible that, after such random assignment, some of the players (perhaps all of them) can imagine that a different arrangement could have been more advantageous to them. But it does not necessarily follow from this that anyone has been given an “unfair” advantage, or an “unfair” disadvantage. In fact, it is hard to imagine by what standard such “unfairness” should be measured. However, player choice may create unfairness that might not otherwise existed. Players will not choose fairness because they are not interested in fairness. They want the result that will ensure their victory. Thus top-seed seating choice may be more analogous to forcing lower-seeded sprinters to wear 5 lb weights than it is to assigning starting positions in Short Track. For instance, a top seed with a dominate stealth bleed deck, with lost of wakes and deflections, can place himself between his non-bleed- bouncing prey and a predator who is also a dominate stealth bleeder with some wakes and deflections. In this way, he ensures that his prey will become the bleed-sink for half the table, overwhelming his defenses. (Indeed, if he knows or suspects he will be top seed, he can even throw a bunch of extra deflections in his deck for precisely this purpose. This is totally cheating, of course, but who’s to know? I was only ever in one tournament where I was asked to provide a deck- list in advance). > Another justification is more akin to bending to the needs of the > tournament (cf. time limits as you mention). [snip ] > As such, reducing the occurrence of such situations is warranted, so > that players are put into such situations less often, if ever. > Increasing the advantage of finishing 1st over finishing 2nd going > into the finals arguably does some of that. I have more sympathy for this argument (the PTW-incentive argument) than for the merit argument. I am unsure that anything more than the tie-breaker advantage is necessary, or that anything beyond that would be helpful in preventing unsportsmanlike behavior, but if it is, there may be other ways of creating such incentive. But the current seating rule has potential to cause trouble too. It is never good, IMHO, for a player to be able to predict, in advance of seating, who and what his predator and prey and cross-table buddy will be. Such advance knowledge gives him the opportunity to make pre- seating deals (as in the story Jay Kristoff reported), and may even create too much temptation and incentive to illegally tweak his deck.

Kevin M. wrote: > I did read your post, and I was engaging you and I thought > we were having a discussion about something fundamental, > but all you want to do is write smart-ass posts and not engage, Sorry if I offended. But I don't really understand where you expected the discussion to go. A discussion requires some common ground to serve as its basis. Otherwise we each have nothing more than our arbitrary preferences. I cannot criticize the tournament rules without some OTHER standard by which they can be judged. If the tournament rules are thought of as self justifying, the "debate" is over. > probably because your arguments are so incredibly weak as > not to be able to withstand debate (as Matt said earlier). If you like. At least, I have no argument to give to one who does not share the starting premise I proposed.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > On Jul 22, 10:11 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >>> The question is a choice between two seating methods. I could just as >>> easily ask you, "What problem are you attempting to solve by >>> eliminating random seating?" >> >> You could ask that or any other number of non-sequitors. Currently we >> don't do random final seating, so it can't be eliminated. > > We may not do random finals seating, but we *do* do random seating, in > virtually every game I have played for the last 15 years. Except in > the finals, where we eliminate it. So my question stands. I'm not > sure what the point was in your pretending you did not understand > me. Well, that's sort of a wide interpretation of "elminate" but okay. So why do we do it? Because such is how the rules were written long ago. I don't have to justify not changing something because it isn't changing. If you want to divert the Mississippi River so it passes through Maine, I don't need to provide reasons not to. The default is to leave it. Now if there's a good reason, then fine, let's change it. I'm just looking for that good reason. So far all I really see is "I want it this way" which isn't a good reason. >> I have inertia on >> my side and I should. > > Sure. If there is a tie, you win. Still, the question is which rule > would be better. We are measuring one rule against the other. That doesn't seem like a very useful exercise to me. It's better to look directly at a rule change and see if the game would be improved by it. We could find that rule X is better than rule Y but still not improve vtes by implementing rule Y. >> Scouting directly relates to vtes. It is the ability to determine the >> nature of a deck on casual observation. That is far more relevant to vtes >> than weight-lifting. > > So is cheating. What's your point? Only to directly contradict you where you said "Scouting is not a skill which is relevant in the Standard Game." >> I can understand not liking it and wanting to >> minimize its effect, [...] > > You understand me then. So why quibble? Because (like I've already said a half-dozen times) I don't believe your fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. >> [...] but to say it's not relevant is just inaccurate. > > Scouting is not relevant to Standard V:tES as it is normally played. However the same skills that apply to scouting do. Scouting employs the very same ability to quickly grasp the game state, measure opponents and mentally assemble deck lists that is extremely useful during a game of vtes. I'm not trying to glorify scouting here. I'm just saying that the skill does directly relate. It's silly to say it doesn't. And all of those things remain important regardless of how finals are seated. How important? All the way important. My suggestion doesn't really fix things either because a judge is going to say "Kevin is playing group 2-3 Kindred Spirits" not "Kevin is playing group 2-3 Kindred Spirits with no reaction cards and a crap-ton of stealth. He's unlikely to bleed anyone other than his prey and doesn't really want to gab a lot. He's very focussed on gaining VPs quickly. He may listen to a deal, but you need to make your case quickly....etc, etc." With that in mind, if we really care about scouting and the effect it has on vtes, Peter's suggestion (embrace and encourage scouting) is the only one that makes any kind of sense. Either that or pop vtes players into isolation tanks between rounds. >> The >> same skill that makes a player good at scouting will also let that player >> recognize the relative danger of a deck after only a few cards are played. > > A player who is good at the latter will not necessarily be equally > good at the former. There may be some overlap. Still, the goal > should be to measure the latter, not the former. According to whom? How are these skills different exactly? What are the important vtes skills to you?

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > The default is to leave it. Agreed before. Ties you win. > Now if there's a good reason, then fine, let's change it. I'm just > looking for that good reason. So far all I really see is "I want it this > way" which isn't a good reason. If that really is your summary of my argument, then you can hardly blame me for not wanting to waste my time on a discussion with you. > Only to directly contradict you where you said "Scouting is not a skill > which is relevant in the Standard Game." What I meant by that ought to be clear enough, if you are trying to understand me, and not straining to create a straw man. The goal of the tournament should be to find the best Standard V:tES player present, not the second-best Standard V:tES player who happens to be a great scouter (thereby making him the best "tournament V:tES player" per current rules). II feel no need to argue with your point that the second-best Standard V:tES player needs to be a good V:tES player in order to be a good scouter. It does not change my point that a rule that rewards scouting tends to sabotage the purpose and function of the tournament as I have defined it. > [...] I don't believe your > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove a rule that rewards it. And obviously, since the rule has some potential to be decisive, it has some potential to take the prize from the player who would otherwise be proved the best Standard V:tES player present. > With that in mind, if we really care about scouting and the effect it has > on vtes, Peter's suggestion (embrace and encourage scouting) is the only > one that makes any kind of sense. Either that or pop vtes players into > isolation tanks between rounds. Not at all. There is a third choice: Don't throw players into isolation tanks, but don't reward scouting either (for instance, change the current seating rule, which rewards it). Nobody is forced to choose between your two extremes. > > Still, the goal > > should be to measure the latter, not the former. > > According to whom? According to me for starters. Others on this NG have supported the proposition. > How are these skills different exactly? It is obvious to me that they are different, because I am the worst scouter in the world, but not quite the worst V:tES player in the world. Mostly, it is that my mind works a bit differently. Distance vision, also, is clearly a factor. Some people have sharper eyes than others. Vision that may be adequate when sitting at a table, may not be as adequate when viewing from further back. I have met V:tES players for whom mobility is a factor. They cannot move around the room as easily as some. Obviously, some players have more informants then others. How is a network of informants relevant to a game of standard V:tES? More importantly, why are you asking me to repeat myself.

On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > [...] I don't believe your > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove > a rule that rewards it. I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible, enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive. Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter argument: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e55a51e05197a8 So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable, so any incentive from final seating is redundant. The premise of your argument for randomizing finals seating is false. -- John McGlynn no one wins on usenet

John McGlynn wrote: > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Randomizing the seating of the > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. Clearly it will. Perhaps you meant to say it won't ELIMINATE the value of scouting. > It's binary (even > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. As others here have argued, the presence of those on both sides, who will or won't "no matter what", does not eliminate the possibility of people in the middle, who could go either way, if incentives are varied. Your idea that NO such people exist is entirely contrary to common sense. Why do you assume there is a sharp divide, and not a continuum? But none of this is relevant to my argument, which is merely that ideally the crown should go to the best Standard V:tES player. A rule that increases the chance such person's crown will be stolen by the third-best Standard V:tES player because of a scouting advantage is a Bad Thing for this reason alone, regardless of whether changing the seating rule would actually alter player behavior. > Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created > additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the > finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's > comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter > argument: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e55a51e05197a8 I've already addressed the Short Track example, and need not repeat myself. I wish only to add, to what I said before, that the "inherent unfairness" distinction I applied earlier is rendered minimally relevant in a game where randomness is accepted as part of the game. In any game where randomness is accepted as a proper part of the game, any "inherent unfairness" in starting positions can be equalized by assigning such unfairness randomly. If this solution is not deemed acceptable in Short Track, it is no doubt only because randomness is not regarded as a proper part of that game. > So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable, [...] True. > [...] so any incentive from final seating is redundant. Does not follow. > The premise of your > argument for randomizing finals seating is false. I'm not sure what "premise" you are referring to, but in any even: You fail!

Howdy, On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > [...] I don't believe your > > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. > > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove > > a rule that rewards it. > > I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of > opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible, > enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive. John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his argument. > Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created > additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the > finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's > comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter > argument:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e5... This argument has already been made/suggested, including by LSJ himself, I believe. It seems possible that the tie breaker is incentive enough to keep people playing to win in late rounds. > So at the risk of repeating myself: scouting is inherently valuable, > so any incentive from final seating is redundant. The premise of your > argument for randomizing finals seating is false. I don't think that you've comprehended his argument, as I don't think that that's a premise of his argument. > John McGlynn > no one wins on usenet Indeed. For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting. Hope that helps, Alex

On Jul 26, 3:47 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > John McGlynn wrote: > > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Randomizing the seating of the > > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. > > Clearly it will. Perhaps you meant to say it won't ELIMINATE the > value of scouting. > > > It's binary (even > > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively > > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. > > As others here have argued, the presence of those on both sides, who > will or won't "no matter what", does not eliminate the possibility of > people in the middle, who could go either way, if incentives are > varied. Your idea that NO such people exist is entirely contrary to > common sense. Why do you assume there is a sharp divide, and not a > continuum? That is a cool trick, cutting my paragraph in half to insert snark. Now it looks like I didn't follow that statement up with supporting statements. Anyway, I don't see the continuum in scouting because the incentive is winning, which is binary. It's impossible to measure how much "win" you're getting for scouting. Where the continuum lies is the amount of information you get per time actively scouting. Arguably, the more you scout the better your chances of winning. But you either win or you don't -- who's going to scout less because they might not be able to pick their seat? What if choosing one's seat had never been an option? Isn't increasing one's chances of winning enough? You might counter that winning in preliminary rounds gives a seating order advantage, so scouting information in preliminary rounds somehow multiplies the advantage. Yet the goal of each game is to win -- a player does not require any more incentive to reach top seed! That's why I say seating order is a redundant incentive for scouting. > > The premise of your > > argument for randomizing finals seating is false. > > I'm not sure what "premise" you are referring to, but in any even: > You fail! Pretty sure you fail at reading. But maybe you were too busy being snarky to follow context so I'll post the quote I was originally responding to: On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 26, 3:47 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > But none of this is relevant to my argument, which is merely that > ideally the crown should go to the best Standard V:tES player. A rule > that increases the chance such person's crown will be stolen by the > third-best Standard V:tES player because of a scouting advantage is a > Bad Thing for this reason alone, regardless of whether changing the > seating rule would actually alter player behavior. > > > Now if you were to argue that choosing final seating created > > additional benefit to the top seed *above and beyond* what is due the > > finalist, you might have some sympathetic ears. However I think LSJ's > > comparison to Short Track competition is a convincing counter > > argument:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/60e5... > > I've already addressed the Short Track example, and need not repeat > myself. I wish only to add, to what I said before, that the > "inherent unfairness" distinction I applied earlier is rendered > minimally relevant in a game where randomness is accepted as part of > the game. In any game where randomness is accepted as a proper part > of the game, any "inherent unfairness" in starting positions can be > equalized by assigning such unfairness randomly. If this solution is > not deemed acceptable in Short Track, it is no doubt only because > randomness is not regarded as a proper part of that game. Randomness in seating is not part of the game. Rulebook, section 2.1: "Seating position can be determined by whatever method the players choose." You might respond to that by asserting that random seating is "accepted" so there is still a distinction. However, randomness is *accepted* in casual games; it is also *accepted* in the preliminary rounds of a tournament; but rank-based seating is the *accepted* method of seating in a tournament final. That much is clear based on a long history of tournaments being run with the tournament rules. It might help for you to view the preliminary rounds not as a series of casual games, but as a way of randomly seeding the tournament in lieu of any predetermined ranks. I split this off from my other response because we're talking about two slightly different things here. -- John McGlynn

On Jul 26, 4:06 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > [...] I don't believe your > > > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. > > > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove > > > a rule that rewards it. > > > I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the > > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even > > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively > > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of > > opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible, > > enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive. > > John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of > scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any > effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of > scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not > arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even > necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his > argument. I'm responding only to the quoted text. I reject the assertion that choosing one's seat for the final provides additional incentive. Scouting helps one win, and winning is the way to become top seed, which was the goal anyway. There's nothing "marginal" about it because you want to win and the more you know about the other decks the greater your chances of winning, no matter the seat. > For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are > seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that > strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while > I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with > deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an > advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting. To be honest, I wonder why the finals were seeded in the first place. But I think after reading the other thread and the Short Track comparison there's no urgent need to change tournament rules because they're not broken. -- John McGlynn pretty sure I understood what he was saying, does he?

John McGlynn wrote: > That is a cool trick, cutting my paragraph in half to insert snark. John, the guy you are responding to has demonstrated that he is uninterested in discussion. He's a troll and you're his tool. Stop responding to him and he'll go away again. Hopefully for a good, long time. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, On Jul 26, 3:56 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 4:06 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2:16 pm, John McGlynn <john.mcgl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 1:54 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > > [...] I don't believe your > > > > > fix addresses the observed problem. Scouting remains just as important. > > > > > Obviously, it becomes at least marginally less important if we remove > > > > a rule that rewards it. > > > > I think you're at a dead end here. Randomizing the seating of the > > > final round won't diminish the value of scouting. It's binary (even > > > though the amount of information can vary) -- either you actively > > > scout other decks at the tournament or you don't. Since knowledge of > > > opponents' decks is always valuable, there is no (feasible, > > > enforceable) way to eliminate the incentive. > > > John W's point is that random final seating would reduce the impact of > > scouting, in that the results of scouting would no longer have any > > effect on finals seating. No one is disputing that 'level of > > scouting' impacts finals seating choices, AFAIK. John W. is not > > arguing that random final seating would eliminate scouting, or even > > necessarily reduce it. Your analysis appears to me to miss his > > argument. > > I'm responding only to the quoted text. I reject the assertion that > choosing one's seat for the final provides additional incentive. It seems foolish to argue that it _doesn't_ provide additional incentive (to anyone), as it clearly does to some people. (For example: John W. & me) You can certainly argue that it _shouldn't_ provide additional incentive, and perhaps it shouldn't, if everyone is equally motivated to win and gains as much advantage from scouting. > Scouting helps one win, and winning is the way to become top seed, > which was the goal anyway. There's nothing "marginal" about it > because you want to win and the more you know about the other decks > the greater your chances of winning, no matter the seat. > > > For the record, I agree both 1) that it is strange that the finals are > > seated differently than every other round, and in a manner that > > strongly rewards good individual (or team) scouting, and 2) that while > > I love observing other players' games, I'm really uncomfortable with > > deliberately scouting with an eye towards giving someone else an > > advantage (either myself or a 'friend'). It doesn't seem sporting. > > To be honest, I wonder why the finals were seeded in the first place. > But I think after reading the other thread and the Short Track > comparison there's no urgent need to change tournament rules because > they're not broken. > > -- > John McGlynn > pretty sure I understood what he was saying, does he? I don't think you did, but I guess I'll stop trying to present John W's arguments for him and just give you my take: I'm not really concerned with the impact of finals seating on scouting; I'm interested in the impact of scouting on finals seating. If randomized finals seating were to decrease scouting, I'd be fine with that, and see it as positive. But what seems much more important to me is restricting the impact of scouting to the in-game portion of the finals, i.e. keeping it from impacting the pre-game (seating), which, to me, is where the impact of scouting can be truly disproportionate, and where it creates the widest divergence from the 'usual' V:tES game experience. And to that extent I appear to agree with John W., who has argued for making the rounds and final of a tournament as similar as reasonable to a 'standard' game. In a an isolated game, with people who are unfamiliar with each other and each other's decks, scouting has no impact. Clearly any tournament in real life will quickly deviate from this ideal, and I'm arguing neither that scouting can or should be prevented, that it isn't a useful a skill, nor that it can't have a big impact. I'm just advocating for trying to contain its impact to the in-game portion of the game. I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system. Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information? Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in reverse) _solving_ a problem? Matt's (and others') 'if it was good enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent 'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism? Sure, the advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things out of hand? Lame. Of course, I'm afraid John W's, errr..., 'prickliness' is not helping him advance his arguments either, but I do think that he has some points. Hope that helps, Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] It might seem foolish, but I believe the perceived incentive is irrational. Like I said before, scouting is already a way to help you win. It would be cool to see some scientific studies because as I'm sure you realized, we can't take you or Mr. Whelan's word for it as we're all quite biased (and how do you measure it? Time spent scouting? Number of informants? /headexplode). I'm happy to agree to disagree here because obviously people don't always act rationally, but in the context of trying to win the tournament, come on, you want to know what everyone is playing! (snorp) > I'm not really concerned with the impact of finals seating on > scouting; I'm interested in the impact of scouting on finals seating. > > If randomized finals seating were to decrease scouting, I'd be fine > with that, and see it as positive. But what seems much more important > to me is restricting the impact of scouting to the in-game portion of > the finals, i.e. keeping it from impacting the pre-game (seating), > which, to me, is where the impact of scouting can be truly > disproportionate, and where it creates the widest divergence from the > 'usual' V:tES game experience. > > And to that extent I appear to agree with John W., who has argued for > making the rounds and final of a tournament as similar as reasonable > to a 'standard' game. In a an isolated game, with people who are > unfamiliar with each other and each other's decks, scouting has no > impact. Clearly any tournament in real life will quickly deviate from > this ideal, and I'm arguing neither that scouting can or should be > prevented, that it isn't a useful a skill, nor that it can't have a > big impact. I'm just advocating for trying to contain its impact to > the in-game portion of the game. (snep) I think you have a point here. For what it's worth, I think there is a benefit to scrapping final round seating. But I also believe the Short Track comparison was fair, and balances out the pros of both types of seating. Given there's a small cost in changing the tournament rules and communicating to all event organizers from now on, the cons of both types of seating balance out. In that light, Morgan's inertia argument doesn't seem all *that* out of whack. -- John McGlynn hahaha I said "out of whack"

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote: > I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some > of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system. > Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are > all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information? > Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in > reverse) _solving_ a problem? Peter wasn't offering that as a solution that should be written in to the v:ekn rules. He was just saying that he's happy to volunteer information to level the playing field and was encouraging others to do that. What's wrong with that? I'm appalled that you're appalled. He's just trying to help out. > Matt's (and others') 'if it was good > enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent > 'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism? Oh please. I never said that at all. I have maintained that I don't think the propose fix addresses the perceived problem. I even offered an alternate solution, so don't paint me as someone who is afraid of change. > Sure, the > advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do > need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying > there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things > out of hand? Lame. I didn't deny there was any problem or that there could be a better way. I just don't like this one. I don't see it as having the effect you're after. I don't see it as doing anything other than reducing the rewards for good performance. Lame right back at you. I'm not really sure why you think it's helpful to John for you to come along and offer up these straw men.

Howdy, On Jul 27, 8:41 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote: > > I probably shouldn't add, but will, that I'm kind of appalled at some > > of the arguments being trotted out in favor of the current system. > > Peter's suggestion that differences in scouting ability or network are > > all taken care of by other finalists just volunteering information? > > Really? House rules and or an equivalent of 'social pressure' (in > > reverse) _solving_ a problem? > > Peter wasn't offering that as a solution that should be written in to the > v:ekn rules. He was just saying that he's happy to volunteer information > to level the playing field and was encouraging others to do that. What's > wrong with that? I'm appalled that you're appalled. He's just trying to > help out. I understand that Peter was just trying to be helpful. I understand that he wasn't trying to amend the rules. I'm pointing out that normally, if/when someone notes a problem with the game, we (the newsgroup in general) tend to frown on house rules or social pressure as a solution to that problem. Fixing the rules or the card, or the person's understanding of the same, sure. But creating optional/ customary variants? Yech. > > Matt's (and others') 'if it was good > > enough for our ancestors its good enough for us' and/or the equivalent > > 'if it ain't broke (enough), don't fix it' traditionalism? > > Oh please. I never said that at all. I have maintained that I don't > think the propose fix addresses the perceived problem. I even offered an > alternate solution, so don't paint me as someone who is afraid of change. Perhaps I have mischaracterized your position. It seemed to me that at base your argument was that nothing was broken enough to need fixing. There was a long stretch, though, where people were refusing to restate or clarify their arguments, so I may have gotten you wrong. If so, I'm sorry. There certainly have been people in the 'it ain't broke, so don't fix it' camp. > > Sure, the > > advantages and disadvantages of the current system and any fixes do > > need to be weighed against each other, as does any change, but denying > > there is any problem or that there could be a better way to do things > > out of hand? Lame. > > I didn't deny there was any problem or that there could be a better way. OK. I misunderstood you. > I just don't like this one. I don't see it as having the effect you're > after. I don't see it as doing anything other than reducing the rewards > for good performance. What effect is it that you think I'm after? I'm after precisely taking scouting out of finals seating. Full stop. Which, yes, reduces the rewards for good performance, which I think are excessive. And possibly reduces the incentive to scout, which, as noted, I would consider positive as well. I don't see how making finals seating random would not remove the impact of scouting on finals seating. > Lame right back at you. I'm not really sure why you think it's helpful to > John for you to come along and offer up these straw men. As I noted, I've given up trying to clarify John W's positions and am now stating my own. If you could point out the straw men - other than my perhaps accidentally misrepresenting your position, which I have already acknowledged - I will gladly withdraw them, as I had no intention to erect them. I hate formal 'debate' and find that debate tactics generally simply obfuscate matters; I'm not trying to 'win' this 'debate'. I favor an engineering approach where we try to enumerate advantages and disadvantages and then make an informed choice among options. Hope that helps, Alex

On Jul 27, 2:55 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > What effect is it that you think I'm after? I'm after precisely > taking scouting out of finals seating. Full stop. Which, yes, > reduces the rewards for good performance, which I think are > excessive. And possibly reduces the incentive to scout, which, as > noted, I would consider positive as well. I don't see how making > finals seating random would not remove the impact of scouting on > finals seating. Why not just propose that all tournaments become multi-deck? Then all scouting info becomes moot, and selecting seating for the final round is arbitrary so it might as well be random. Of course, the downside is that it assumes all players bring 3 or 4 decks with them, and any newbie who can only afford 1 is at a severe disadvantage for being scouted against.

On Jul 27, 4:23 pm, Haze <headlessr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not just propose that all tournaments become multi-deck? Then all > scouting info becomes moot, and selecting seating for the final round > is arbitrary so it might as well be random. > > Of course, the downside is that it assumes all players bring 3 or 4 > decks with them, and any newbie who can only afford 1 is at a severe > disadvantage for being scouted against. Its not a terrible idea from the perspective of avoiding the scouting issue but I personally feel it detracts from the meta gaming of choosing a deck and seeing where it goes. The newbie is not terribly disadvantaged because it gives him the flexibility to modify his deck between rounds. "that didn't work the way I thought it did". It does however dramatically change the tournament experience. People who might want to play their deck against an opponents certain deck may never get that opportunity, and finals could be well decided by who guesses what the other players are playing better. Multideck IMO is better left where it is: for small tournaments only where playing the same opponents multiple times in preliminary rounds makes for a boring tournament. John P. Winnipeg

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote: > Perhaps I have mischaracterized your position. It seemed to me that > at base your argument was that nothing was broken enough to need > fixing. There was a long stretch, though, where people were refusing > to restate or clarify their arguments, so I may have gotten you > wrong. If so, I'm sorry. There certainly have been people in the 'it > ain't broke, so don't fix it' camp. In the heat of battle sometimes something can be lost in translation. I am in the "IF it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp, which is why I asked both John and Daneel to explicitly state the problem they are trying to fix. It's important to identify the problem. >> I just don't like this one. I don't see it as having the effect you're >> after. I don't see it as doing anything other than reducing the rewards >> for good performance. > > What effect is it that you think I'm after? I'm after precisely > taking scouting out of finals seating. Full stop. Which, yes, > reduces the rewards for good performance, which I think are > excessive. And possibly reduces the incentive to scout, which, as > noted, I would consider positive as well. I don't see how making > finals seating random would not remove the impact of scouting on > finals seating. Well, okay you have me there. I don't really get how scouting for final seating is worse than scouting for knowing what the competition is up to. In other words, I don't really see a problem being solved. I don't see the need for scouting to be any less urgent or for it to be any less of a handicap for one to under-scout. In practice almost every tournament in which I play has what I'd characterize as "light scouting." Most of the players know one another at least a little bit. The tournaments tend to be small enough that it's fairly likely to have already played against another finalist. I don't see anyone sneaking around taking meticulous notes or anything. We don't take it that seriously. But people will watch games after having completed theirs. I think we generally do it because we like vtes, not to gain an advantage. Here's why I like seating based on rank: Top seed is the guy to beat. He or she wins on a tie. If you are not top seed and are not working out how to kill the top seed, then you don't have your head in the game. 4th and 5th seeds have no choice and will lose ties (except 4th to 5th, of course, but that hardly ever happens). They have nothing to lose. The lack of seating choice fits with the desperate nature of their position. The choice that the higher seeds gets fits with the position and the winning on ties. All five finalists have roles to play. While "oust prey" and "don't die" are the obvious goals, "don't let that lucky bastard win on a tie" is right up there with the rest. Makes the game more interesting for me. But I wouldn't consider that reason enough to change to seating based on rank if we weren't doing that already. Just as I don't consider making one tiny facet of the world of scouting irrelevant reason enough to change to random final seating.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Haze wrote: > Why not just propose that all tournaments become multi-deck? Then all > scouting info becomes moot, and selecting seating for the final round > is arbitrary so it might as well be random. > > Of course, the downside is that it assumes all players bring 3 or 4 > decks with them, and any newbie who can only afford 1 is at a severe > disadvantage for being scouted against. Noobs are already disadvantaged for being noobs. No real need to scout them. The problem with multideck is that it deprives us of a tried-and-true deck to celebrate at the end of the tournament. Appreciating a really good deck is a big part of what makes vtes fun (for me and many others).

On Jul 27, 3:55 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > I favor an engineering approach where we try to > enumerate advantages and disadvantages and then make an informed > choice among options. Current seating system (vs. random seating) DISADVANTAGES Rewards those with superior scouting skills, thereby incorporating a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game standards, will not win. Seat-picking (based on performance against OTHER players) directly incorporates a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game standards, will not win. Discourages PTW: Seating ceremony paints a big fat bullseye-target on the top seed, thereby providing a DISINCENTIVE to play his best in the last round of the tournament if he already has 2 GWs. ADVANTAGES Encourages PTW: Top-seed seating choice provides an INCENTIVE to play one's best in the last round of the tournament, even if one already has 2 GWs. Requires no dice, cards, or other random generating method. Players completely handle process, with no judicial input. Cheating or hanky- panky not an issue or reasonable possibility. STRAW MEN It does not cause / encourage scouting - folks would scout anyway.

In article <62f42312-27f2-4e6b...@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > I understand that Peter was just trying to be helpful. I understand > that he wasn't trying to amend the rules. I'm pointing out that > normally, if/when someone notes a problem with the game, we (the > newsgroup in general) tend to frown on house rules or social pressure > as a solution to that problem. At no point am I suggesting house rules or social pressure as a solution to a problem. As the judge of a tournament, I can freely hand out information to the participants as to what kind of decks people are playing in the final. Which is neither a house rule or social pressure. As a player in a tournament, I can freely hand out information to the participants as to what kind of decks people are playing in the final. Which also is neither a house rule or social pressure. The VEKN tournament rules in no way indicate that you can't do this. Thus, doing it is neither a house rule or a social pressure of any kind. Sure, I'd rather see it codified into the rules (as per the suggestion floating around that the Judge specifically hand out this kind of information by policy). But suggesting that I'm trying to enforce either some kind of house rule or social pressure solution to a problem is bordering on absurd. > Fixing the rules or the card, or the > person's understanding of the same, sure. But creating optional/ > customary variants? Yech. Where is anyone creating an optional/customary variant? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <b2fb6204-4052-4ca5...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > STRAW MEN > > It does not cause / encourage scouting - folks would scout anyway. This is no more or less of a straw man than "random seating would discourage scouting". As it would not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 28, 11:49 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <b2fb6204-4052-4ca5-8255-2beb60236...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, > John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > STRAW MEN > > > It does not cause / encourage scouting - folks would scout anyway. > > This is no more or less of a straw man than "random seating would > discourage scouting". As it would not. Straw Man = Non-Issue. I am not disputing the point. I am merely saying it is not one of the advantages nor one of the disadvantages. I labeled it as a "straw man" specifically in the hopes that no-one would insist on arguing the point. It is NOT one of the advantages / disadvantages on the list I provided.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > Current seating system (vs. random seating) > > DISADVANTAGES > > Rewards those with superior scouting skills, thereby incorporating a > factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby increasing the > chance that the best player, by standard game standards, will not win. > > Seat-picking (based on performance against OTHER players) directly > incorporates a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby > increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game > standards, will not win. I'll give you these, but it's really a matter of taste, isn't it? I don't mind that tournament finals are different than the standard game. Obviously there's more at stake. > Discourages PTW: Seating ceremony paints a big fat bullseye-target on > the top seed, thereby providing a DISINCENTIVE to play his best in the > last round of the tournament if he already has 2 GWs. I very much disagree with this. I challenge you to find me a player who's not infrequently seen in finals who would admit to the temptation to throw a game to not be top seed. It is totally worth it to be top seed, bullseye or no. I would never give up a GW because I was worried about a bullseye. This is just absurd. In any tournament that actually has good players, EVERYBODY has a bullseye. I'm not going to sit at a final with Ben Peal and go "whew, he isn't top seed, so I guess I don't have to worry about him." Forget it. That's just plain nuts. > ADVANTAGES > > Encourages PTW: Top-seed seating choice provides an INCENTIVE to play > one's best in the last round of the tournament, even if one already > has 2 GWs. This I agree with. > Requires no dice, cards, or other random generating method. Players > completely handle process, with no judicial input. Cheating or hanky- > panky not an issue or reasonable possibility. I'd add that an advantage of the current system is that everyone knows it and it requires nothing of anyone to continue to use it. > STRAW MEN > > It does not cause / encourage scouting - folks would scout anyway. I agree with Peter on this one.

On Jul 28, 12:31 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > I very much disagree with this. I challenge you to find me a player who's > not infrequently seen in finals who would admit to the temptation to throw > a game to not be top seed. It is totally worth it to be top seed, > bullseye or no. I would never give up a GW because I was worried about a > bullseye. This is just absurd. I merely listed a PTW disincentive, to be weighed against the PTW incentive that I also listed. I expressed no opinion on which was greater, or upon how it balances out. Probably you are right, but I don't know how it would be tested or measured. It is, at least, a factor tending to reduce the PTW incentive that the seating privilege grants.

On Jul 28, 12:31 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, John Whelan wrote: > > Current seating system (vs. random seating) > > > DISADVANTAGES > > > Rewards those with superior scouting skills, thereby incorporating a > > factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby increasing the > > chance that the best player, by standard game standards, will not win. > > > Seat-picking (based on performance against OTHER players) directly > > incorporates a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby > > increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game > > standards, will not win. > > I'll give you these, but it's really a matter of taste, isn't it? Yes. Liking (standard) V:tES is a matter of taste.

On Jul 28, 10:11 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seat-picking (based on performance against OTHER players) directly > incorporates a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby > increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game > standards, will not win. No. At worst (i.e., when the OTHER comes out in full force with the result that the seeding into the finals is completely arbitrary among the finalists), it has no effect on the chances that the best player will not win, since the best player is just as likely to be top seed as any of the finalists. By the same argument, it could be that five players faced 16 total cream puffs and sailed to easy 3GW sweeps while the best player faced actual competition and would up with 3GW but only 9VPs. So by having a cut-off for the finals, you're increasing the chance that the best player will not win (by not allowing the best player to play). In practice, though, the seeding results are not completely random, and better players, on average, are seeded more highly more often (even if minutely so). > Discourages PTW: Seating ceremony paints a big fat bullseye-target on > the top seed, thereby providing a DISINCENTIVE to play his best in the > last round of the tournament if he already has 2 GWs. I've heard this in this thread, but I don't think it holds water. #2 wants to beat #1 while achieving tie-or-better vs. #3-#5. #3 wants to beat #1-#2 while achieving tie-or-better vs #4-#5. #3 doesn't have any incentive to wreck #1 for #2 to win.

Howdy Peter, On Jul 28, 8:46 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <62f42312-27f2-4e6b-a867-678b403eb...@h25g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I understand that Peter was just trying to be helpful. I understand > > that he wasn't trying to amend the rules. I'm pointing out that > > normally, if/when someone notes a problem with the game, we (the > > newsgroup in general) tend to frown on house rules or social pressure > > as a solution to that problem. > > At no point am I suggesting house rules or social pressure as a solution > to a problem. > > As the judge of a tournament, I can freely hand out information to the > participants as to what kind of decks people are playing in the final. Right, sure, you have that _option_. And if your playgroup agrees that it will do this in all of its tournaments to solve the problem of scouting's impact on final seating, that would be a _custom_ or _house rule_ of your playgroup, constituting a _variant_ of the canonical rules. If some of your players didn't want to go along, but you as judge (or just playgroup member) said, "That's how we do it here," then that would be using _social pressure_ as there are no formal rules requiring compliance. > Which is neither a house rule or social pressure. As a player in a > tournament, I can freely hand out information to the participants as to > what kind of decks people are playing in the final. And you can, as a player, of course, lie. If you've formalized this as a solution to the problem, though, you can't lie. > Which also is > neither a house rule or social pressure. The VEKN tournament rules in no > way indicate that you can't do this. Thus, doing it is neither a house > rule or a social pressure of any kind. The VEKN rules not indicating you can't do it, and it not being a house rule or social pressure are unrelated concepts. There are all sorts of things that aren't explicitly against the rules that your group could agree to do - play with a 4CL, for instance - that would constitute house or variant rules (and/or social pressure). > Sure, I'd rather see it codified into the rules (as per the suggestion > floating around that the Judge specifically hand out this kind of > information by policy). But suggesting that I'm trying to enforce either > some kind of house rule or social pressure solution to a problem is > bordering on absurd. > > > Fixing the rules or the card, or the > > person's understanding of the same, sure. But creating optional/ > > customary variants? Yech. > > Where is anyone creating an optional/customary variant? See above. Perhaps you have different definitions of these words or concepts, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems quite clear to me that that is exactly what you are doing? I appreciate that you are trying to solve the problem, and I agree that if this solution were formalized into the rules, it might be good, but as an ad hoc solution it creates a variation in play that can have significant impact. If I go to a tournament in Seattle, no one is going to help me out in finals seating. If I go to a tournament in Ithaca, perhaps someone will. If I go to Origins, who knows? Will people start publishing in tournament announcements whether or not 'state sponsored scouting' will be available to finalists? Hope that helps, Alex

In article <2b76bd98-762a-4d41...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Straw Man = Non-Issue. I am not disputing the point. I am merely > saying it is not one of the advantages nor one of the disadvantages. Ah, see, that isn't what "straw man" means. (from Wiki, as it is the easiest to grab): A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. So you don't mean "straw man", you mean "neither an advantage or a disadvantage". > I labeled it as a "straw man" specifically in the hopes that no-one > would insist on arguing the point. That doesn't work if you use the term "straw man". [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3b508194-934f-482f...@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > Right, sure, you have that _option_. And if your playgroup agrees > that it will do this in all of its tournaments to solve the problem of > scouting's impact on final seating, that would be a _custom_ or _house > rule_ of your playgroup, constituting a _variant_ of the canonical > rules. If some of your players didn't want to go along, but you as > judge (or just playgroup member) said, "That's how we do it here," > then that would be using _social pressure_ as there are no formal > rules requiring compliance. Well, no, as the canonical rules say nothing about the issue. As a judge, I can do anything I want in regards to this without saying "that's how we do it here". As a player, I can do whatever I want in regards to this without making any statement at all. The official rules make no statement on this issue. Me (or anyone) doing this at any time is neither creating a variant or attempting to use social pressure to do anything. > And you can, as a player, of course, lie. If you've formalized this > as a solution to the problem, though, you can't lie. Sure. But other people can, as players, call me on that lie. So it is a losing proposition to do anything other than tell the truth as best you know it. > The VEKN rules not indicating you can't do it, and it not being a > house rule or social pressure are unrelated concepts. There are all > sorts of things that aren't explicitly against the rules that your > group could agree to do - play with a 4CL, for instance - that would > constitute house or variant rules (and/or social pressure). Sure. But would require agreement of the participants. Giving out information on player's decks requires no such agreement from anyone. As a judge, I can give out information all I want. As a player, I can do the same. No variants are created. No rules are changed. No social pressure is being engineered. > See above. Perhaps you have different definitions of these words or > concepts, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems quite > clear to me that that is exactly what you are doing? As a judge, I see handing out general information on finalist decks to people who don't otherwise have it as fixing a flaw in the tournament system (that information regarding finalists decks is random). But me doing so, again, is in no way creating a variant rule. It is just me talking. The same as if I am a player. Someone stands at the table to pick their seat and says "Uh, anyone know what Bill is playing?" and if I do, I'll tell them. Again, this isn't creating a variant rule. Or applying social pressure on anyone. > but as an > ad hoc solution it creates a variation in play that can have > significant impact. If I go to a tournament in Seattle, no one is > going to help me out in finals seating. Unless I'm there too. Or someone else is who will do this. > If I go to a tournament in > Ithaca, perhaps someone will. If I go to Origins, who knows? Will > people start publishing in tournament announcements whether or not > 'state sponsored scouting' will be available to finalists? No. As it is unnecessary. You seem to be thinking that me saying "I'll tell people what other people playing" is some sort of suggestion for a solution to something. Which I'd never claim that it is. It simply is what happens. And is a response to "but scouting is hard!" I'd like to see an actual solution to this issue (i.e. have the Judge hand out this information, for example, as a codified rule). But random seating isn't that solution. As it doesn't make this information any less useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Jul 28, 10:11 am, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Seat-picking (based on performance against OTHER players) directly > > incorporates a factor not relevant in the standard game, thereby > > increasing the chance that the best player, by standard game > > standards, will not win. > > No. At worst (i.e., when the OTHER comes out in full force with the > result that the seeding into the finals is completely arbitrary among > the finalists), it has no effect on the chances that the best player > will not win, since the best player is just as likely to be top seed > as any of the finalists. I’m not sure what we are disagreeing about here. I am perfectly willing to concede that the top seed is MORE likely to be the best player than any other finalist. He has an opportunity to prove this by winning the final game. Even if he were given no top-seed advantages, I imagine he would win the (non-tied) final game more than 20% of the time, simply by virtue of the fact that he has a somewhat more than even chance of being the better player. What I don’t understand or agree with is the idea that we should beg the question by HELPING him win. I don’t agree with allowing the prediction that he is more likely to win the final game to become a self-fulfilling prophesy. > By the same argument, it could be that five players faced 16 total > cream puffs and sailed to easy 3GW sweeps while the best player faced > actual competition and would up with 3GW but only 9VPs. So by having a > cut-off for the finals, you're increasing the chance that the best > player will not win (by not allowing the best player to play). I don’t see how it is the “same argument”. Being in the top five, versus not being in the top five, is roughly analogous to the idea of being within a “margin of error” as opposed to being outside that “margin of error”. Margins of error are rarely absolute and usually somewhat arbitrary, and there is usually a theoretical possibility that the truth may lie outside it. This margin is particularly arbitrary, and is dictated by the need for five players. Still, there is an excellent chance that the “best player” will indeed be among those top five (and this chance is far greater than the chance that the best player is the top seed). If the best player IS among the top five, then the preliminary rounds have served their purpose. Now we get a chance to find out which of the top five IS the best player, and the best way to do that is to give them all an even playing field. They are being now measured against eachother, perhaps for the first time. But one might argue that the final game by itself, fairly played, is not by itself the BEST indication of who the best player is. Perhaps we should give a bit more weight to the results of preliminary rounds. Maybe. But that in itself does not require us tweak the results of the final game, to unfairly help one player win it. All we need do is give more weight to the results of preliminary rounds in computing the “tournament winner” (as distinct from the winner of the final game). We have managed to gather together 5 of the most talented and most evenly matched players we could find. Why would we want to give them anything other then an even playing field? > > Discourages PTW: Seating ceremony paints a big fat bullseye-target on > > the top seed, thereby providing a DISINCENTIVE to play his best in the > > last round of the tournament if he already has 2 GWs. > > I've heard this in this thread, but I don't think it holds water. > #2 wants to beat #1 while achieving tie-or-better vs. #3-#5. > #3 wants to beat #1-#2 while achieving tie-or-better vs #4-#5. > #3 doesn't have any incentive to wreck #1 for #2 to win. All I am saying is that it is not good to be regarded as the biggest threat on the table. If #1 wins, everyone else loses.

On Jul 28, 5:17 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Ah, see, that isn't what "straw man" means. > > (from Wiki, as it is the easiest to grab): A straw man argument is an > informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. > To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a > proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker > proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having > actually refuted the original position. > > So you don't mean "straw man", you mean "neither an advantage or a > disadvantage". Okay. Perhaps I should have just labeled the final category as "Weak issue / Non-issue so don't try to make a big deal out of it."

Argh. I know that I should let this go, as it is now in the 'reductio ad absurdum' phase of operations with respect to the larger points and arguments, but this is really bugging me, so I'm going to have to follow up... On Jul 28, 2:31 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <3b508194-934f-482f-a7ae-deaa98f0b...@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Right, sure, you have that _option_. And if your playgroup agrees > > that it will do this in all of its tournaments to solve the problem of > > scouting's impact on final seating, that would be a _custom_ or _house > > rule_ of your playgroup, constituting a _variant_ of the canonical > > rules. If some of your players didn't want to go along, but you as > > judge (or just playgroup member) said, "That's how we do it here," > > then that would be using _social pressure_ as there are no formal > > rules requiring compliance. > > Well, no, as the canonical rules say nothing about the issue. As a > judge, I can do anything I want in regards to this without saying > "that's how we do it here". As a player, I can do whatever I want in > regards to this without making any statement at all. > > The official rules make no statement on this issue. Me (or anyone) doing > this at any time is neither creating a variant or attempting to use > social pressure to do anything. > > > And you can, as a player, of course, lie. If you've formalized this > > as a solution to the problem, though, you can't lie. > > Sure. But other people can, as players, call me on that lie. So it is a > losing proposition to do anything other than tell the truth as best you > know it. I was pointing out that this would only work as a solution to the problem if players didn't lie, which would require some sort of official sanction if players did lie. Since you were apparently not offering this as a solution, though, the point is moot. > > The VEKN rules not indicating you can't do it, and it not being a > > house rule or social pressure are unrelated concepts. There are all > > sorts of things that aren't explicitly against the rules that your > > group could agree to do - play with a 4CL, for instance - that would > > constitute house or variant rules (and/or social pressure). > > Sure. But would require agreement of the participants. Giving out > information on player's decks requires no such agreement from anyone. As > a judge, I can give out information all I want. Heh. And, as it isn't against the rules, you can also lie all you want... (Which is neither here nor there, I just thought it was funny when I noticed that.) > As a player, I can do > the same. No variants are created. No rules are changed. No social > pressure is being engineered. > > > See above. Perhaps you have different definitions of these words or > > concepts, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems quite > > clear to me that that is exactly what you are doing? > > As a judge, I see handing out general information on finalist decks to > people who don't otherwise have it as fixing a flaw in the tournament > system (that information regarding finalists decks is random). OK, so you see this (handing out general information on finalist decks...) as a solution to a problem (that information regarding...)? [* This is the part that is currently breaking my brain, making me doubt my reading comprehension skills, etc. - see below.] > But me > doing so, again, is in no way creating a variant rule. It is just me > talking. The same as if I am a player. Someone stands at the table to > pick their seat and says "Uh, anyone know what Bill is playing?" and if > I do, I'll tell them. Again, this isn't creating a variant rule. Or > applying social pressure on anyone. > > > but as an > > ad hoc solution it creates a variation in play that can have > > significant impact. If I go to a tournament in Seattle, no one is > > going to help me out in finals seating. > > Unless I'm there too. Or someone else is who will do this. > > > If I go to a tournament in > > Ithaca, perhaps someone will. If I go to Origins, who knows? Will > > people start publishing in tournament announcements whether or not > > 'state sponsored scouting' will be available to finalists? > > No. As it is unnecessary. You seem to be thinking that me saying "I'll > tell people what other people playing" is some sort of suggestion for a > solution to something. Which I'd never claim that it is. It simply is > what happens. And is a response to "but scouting is hard!" [*] Yes, I do indeed see you offering suggestions for solutions to something. I can quote the other places you've posted similar solutions if you like, but they are long (in context) and easily found (earlier in this thread and in the 'US Championships clarification' thread), so I'd rather not. In fact, I can see no other way to interpret your words in this vein, other than as solutions to problems. I even thought that they might constitute a decent overall solution, if formalized (as you apparently do as well, see your closing paragraph below). Now, where I've apparently gone wrong is in extrapolating your statements from 'I would (personally) solve this problem in this way,' to 'I think that this problem could be solved if everyone would do as I personally do.' I still think it is reasonable to have assumed that you offered your solution as an example to others, but, from your words above, I see that you were simply offering to personally assist anyone who came across your path, and not suggesting that that might form a part of a larger solution. Do you see how I would have reached that conclusion? > I'd like to see an actual solution to this issue (i.e. have the Judge > hand out this information, for example, as a codified rule). But random > seating isn't that solution. As it doesn't make this information any > less useful. Hope that helps, Alex

In article <3ded957d-3ebb-4601...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > Argh. I know that I should let this go, as it is now in the 'reductio > ad absurdum' phase of operations with respect to the larger points and > arguments, but this is really bugging me, so I'm going to have to > follow up... Well, I think the issue here is that I object to your painting of my saying "I'll tell people what other people are playing" as some sort of suggestion that this will fix everything. Which it isn't, and never was. I was never suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the finals seating issue, as someone can tell you what decks people are playing. And I was never suggesting that the flaws in the system (which are certainly there) aren't flaws, as people can do this. I was simply pointing out that people can and *will* do this, mostly in reference to John's claims that scouting is hard (or, ya know, whatever he was saying like that--I'm pretty sure this all generated out of me saying "scouting is easy and always something that is worth doing due to the way the game works, and John saying something along the lines of "but what if there is a dude with no legs who can only see at a distance of 18 inches and has a peculiar for of brain damage where he can't remember pictures that are only 2 inches across..." Which is an exaggeration. But gets the point across). > I was pointing out that this would only work as a solution to the > problem if players didn't lie, And again, I'll point out that I never claimed that this was a solution to a problem. Other than, maybe, "scouting is hard if you have no legs". > Heh. And, as it isn't against the rules, you can also lie all you > want... (Which is neither here nor there, I just thought it was funny > when I noticed that.) Sure. But again, as it is easy for people to notice that you are lying and call you on it, it is pointless. > OK, so you see this (handing out general information on finalist > decks...) as a solution to a problem (that information regarding...)? No, no I don't. I don't find it to be a solution to any problem. It simply is something that people can, and will, do. If it were codified into the rules (i.e. the judge was enabled to hand out basic information on the finalists decks before people picked seats. Which is a complicated and difficult thing to codify, so I don't expect it to happen real soon), it would be a solution to a problem (which others have suggested here). At no point have I claimed that me telling people what other folks are playing is a solution to the problems that are inherent to the finals seating system. > [*] Yes, I do indeed see you offering suggestions for solutions to > something. I can quote the other places you've posted similar > solutions if you like, but they are long (in context) and easily found > (earlier in this thread and in the 'US Championships clarification' > thread), so I'd rather not. Please do, as I don't think I have actually suggested that this is an actual solution. I'm pretty sure I suggested that it was something that people will, and can do, and mitigates the "scouting can be hard" issue that John brought up. I never, however suggested that it was a solution to the problems inherent to picking seats in general. > I still think it is reasonable to have assumed that > you offered your solution as an example to others, but, from your > words above, I see that you were simply offering to personally assist > anyone who came across your path, and not suggesting that that might > form a part of a larger solution. Do you see how I would have reached > that conclusion? I do. But I keep telling you that such a conclusion is incorrect. [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, > > OK, so you see this (handing out general information on finalist > > decks...) as a solution to a problem (that information regarding...)? > > No, no I don't. I don't find it to be a solution to any problem. I don't understand how that can be true. You snipped the statement you made which I helpfully parsed above more or less exactly into you offering a solution to a problem: "As a judge, I see handing out general information on finalist decks to people who don't otherwise have it as fixing a flaw in the tournament system (that information regarding finalists decks is random)." Note that I'm not asserting that you are offering a comprehensive solution to all cases of the problem, for all people. But to claim that you are not offering any solutions to any problems is ridiculous, as that is exactly what you are doing: fixing a flaw == solving a problem. Either that or your English doesn't function like my English, and I can't take my understanding of anything you say for granted. You've also snipped that part where I pointed out that my misunderstanding of what you meant, which led to my misrepresentation of your argument, seems to stem from what I consider to have been an entirely reasonable extrapolation of your offered solution from a personal solution to a global (if informal) solution. I'm not trying to maliciously misrepresent what you said or meant; I'm trying to figure out how I, in reading your words, failed so completely to understand what you meant. > It > simply is something that people can, and will, do. > > If it were codified into the rules (i.e. the judge was enabled to hand > out basic information on the finalists decks before people picked seats. > Which is a complicated and difficult thing to codify, so I don't expect > it to happen real soon), it would be a solution to a problem (which > others have suggested here). At no point have I claimed that me telling > people what other folks are playing is a solution to the problems that > are inherent to the finals seating system. > > > [*] Yes, I do indeed see you offering suggestions for solutions to > > something. I can quote the other places you've posted similar > > solutions if you like, but they are long (in context) and easily found > > (earlier in this thread and in the 'US Championships clarification' > > thread), so I'd rather not. > > Please do, as I don't think I have actually suggested that this is an > actual solution. I'm pretty sure I suggested that it was something that > people will, and can do, and mitigates the "scouting can be hard" issue > that John brought up. I never, however suggested that it was a solution > to the problems inherent to picking seats in general. There is no point in posting the other instances, as you will no doubt say that they are simply you 'suggesting that this is something people _will/can_ do'. Which I read as you suggesting that this is something that people _should_ do, which seemed like a reasonable way to read it, but was not, apparently, how you intended it to be read. > > I still think it is reasonable to have assumed that > > you offered your solution as an example to others, but, from your > > words above, I see that you were simply offering to personally assist > > anyone who came across your path, and not suggesting that that might > > form a part of a larger solution. Do you see how I would have reached > > that conclusion? > > I do. But I keep telling you that such a conclusion is incorrect. Well, you've certainly told me that now. What you seemed to be telling me was that you didn't say what you plainly said, and that made it difficult for me to see that you didn't mean what could be reasonably inferred from what you said. Alex

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote: > Well, you've certainly told me that now. What you seemed to be > telling me was that you didn't say what you plainly said, and that > made it difficult for me to see that you didn't mean what could be > reasonably inferred from what you said. Holy crap, dude. You'll notice that not even John or I (until now) are commenting any more. Did you write that with a crazy smirk and/or a lungfull of ganja? I sure hope so. Let me rephrase Peter: If you have failed to scout the other finalists' decks for any reason, just try asking.

Howdy, On Jul 29, 2:48 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, wumpus wrote: > > Well, you've certainly told me that now. What you seemed to be > > telling me was that you didn't say what you plainly said, and that > > made it difficult for me to see that you didn't mean what could be > > reasonably inferred from what you said. > > Holy crap, dude. You'll notice that not even John or I (until now) are > commenting any more. I had noticed that. And even prefaced one of my recent responses with a note to the effect that I really didn't think it was a good idea to keep posting. I did, BTW, greatly appreciated your response to my other postings. I almost never make the finals, so it was good to see the perspective of someone who often does. > Did you write that with a crazy smirk and/or a > lungfull of ganja? I sure hope so. No. It was with regret and serious misgivings that I wrote that, as it is just setting myself up for ridicule and to be told that I don't have the tools to participate in this forum. I can handle people being jerky, name-calling, getting off on tangents, deliberate misunderstanding/misrepresentation, etc. But in this case I have been trying my best to understand and somehow failed, which is very difficult for me to handle. If I cannot trust my own ability to read and understand other people's words and arguments, then how can I usefully participate? > Let me rephrase Peter: If you have failed to scout the other finalists' > decks for any reason, just try asking. Indeed. That might 'solve' your 'problem'. But it would not create a house rule or variant, and no one would be under any pressure to assist you, nor would it be a full solution to the general problem of scouting as it relates to finals seating. See? I (think I) understand now. Alex

In article <9f1a7c67-1016-4db0...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, wumpus <wum...@comcast.net> wrote: > Note that I'm not asserting that you are offering a comprehensive > solution to all cases of the problem, for all people. But to claim > that you are not offering any solutions to any problems is ridiculous, > as that is exactly what you are doing: fixing a flaw == solving a > problem. Either that or your English doesn't function like my > English, and I can't take my understanding of anything you say for > granted. Good lord. This has become ridiculous. Listen. Me pointing out that you can tell people stuff, and point out that I am willing to tell people stuff, and that as a judge, me telling people stuff fixes what I consider a problem does not extrapolate into me somehow suggesting that this, in a blanket sense, is the solution to all problems with the seating system is just silly. I was in no way proposing a variant to the game. Nor was I attempting to suggest that use of social pressure to solve a problem is an acceptable solution. That is all. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Let me rephrase Peter: If you have failed to scout the other finalists' > decks for any reason, just try asking. Or, to put it another way. If you cannot scout using your eyes and legs, try scouting by using your mouth and ears. Some people (like Peter) will be sporting enough to share information with you, just for asking. I have no doubt that Peter is every bit as sporting as he suggests. But I agree that, if this meant as some kind of argument against scouting being an issue, it is a very weak one. If player have some kind of vaguely implied moral obligation to share scouting information, then this implies that scouting is not legitimately part of the competition -- or at least not legitimately a COMPETITIVE part of the competition. Why should players feel some vague duty to help their opponents, in a competition? Why should judges feel some vague duty to even the playing field, in a competition? If sharing scouting information is somehow regarded as sporting, it can only because competitive scouting is somehow regarded as unsporting.

In article <718be767-90bc-443b...@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, John Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have no doubt that Peter is every bit as sporting as he suggests. > But I agree that, if this meant as some kind of argument against > scouting being an issue, it is a very weak one. It is an argument that scouting (or lack thereof) is less of an issue that some would make it out to be. Most people can wander around and look at decks between games and see what folks are playing, and really, the amount of information you need to make at least a reasonably educated seating decision if you are one of the three people in a given final who needs to make an educated seating decision, is pretty small. A snapshot of someone's deck in play (i.e. your game is done, you wander over to the game that is still going on, and seeing what Matt has on the table will probably give you enough information on what Matt is playing to be able to know if you want to sit in front of him or behind him, given the opportunity to make that choice) is usually all you need. A snapshot of someone's deck in play is easily replaced with a single sentence description (Matt is playing a Settite quick mummy deck. With dominate.) from either a friend of yours who played against it in another round or some random stranger who happens to want to tell you. I realize that there are going to be some people who: A) Are incapable of scouting for whatever reason. B) Are unwilling to scout for whatever reason. For the people who fall under (A), there are enough other people around that will probably be able and willing to fill in missing information, be them friends or random people in the room who they can ask, that in all but the most extreme and trumped up situation, if such a person gets into the final round, and is one of the top 3 players who has to pick a seat, and wasn't already in games with the other 4 players, it is likely that somehow, someone will fill them in, either before people start seating, or at the very moment that they do. For people who fall under (B), well, if you don't want to avail yourself of information available, there you go. > If player have some kind of vaguely implied moral obligation to share > scouting information, then this implies that scouting is not > legitimately part of the competition -- or at least not legitimately a > COMPETITIVE part of the competition. Why should players feel some > vague duty to help their opponents, in a competition? I don't think anyone should feel a vaguely implied moral obligation to share scouting information. But I do think there are enough people out there who *will* share scouting information, without feeling a vague moral obligation to do so, that if you can't scout on your own, and you can't get scouting information from friends in the room, and you haven't seen some of the decks in the final round that are already seated, and you are one of the top 3 players in the final round who has to make a seating decision given this incredibly large alignment of significant factors, someone will probably give you the information you need. > Why should judges feel some vague duty to even the playing field, in a > competition? They shouldn't feel a vague duty to do this. But some will do it anyway. Without feeling a vague duty. > If sharing scouting information is somehow regarded as sporting, it > can only be because competitive scouting is somehow regarded as > unsporting. If you want to look at it that way, go nuts. [ quoted text not captured ]