[LSJ] Judging deals

Hello, Following a newsgroup discussion ( http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad... (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/0ac2af2c9036d3b5/bd4407443132f819) ), I discussed a bit with Ira about what a Judge should / could / can / musn't [ !these were are toughts! ] say, when it comes to deals. In the rest, "deals" are considered to be table-splitters, that is: someone is giving up the race for the GW. In such deals, a player gets the chance to follow the deal rather than the PTW rule, that is: she can legally play for something that isn't the GW, given that the deal is "legal"). All the rest are Ira's and my feelings. We're in the situation where A is in a bad position. She deals with her prey a 2-3 table split (where her prey gets 3). A's situation can be considered good enough that this deal isn't her best chances of getting VPs. - Ira and I agree that, as long as players aren't calling for a judge and are just talking, there shouldn't be any interference: If a player declares she's in for a deal with another player, the judge should let it be. The reason for our "inactivity" as judges here is that players are only talking. There hasn't been any non-PTW action taken at this point, so the rules haven't been enforced. - When a player calls the judge and asks openly, with all the table hearing: "Can they make such a deal ?", the answer should be "Yes", as a deal is only words. As Ira said, "the judge could add 'Players can say whatever they want. You could say you'll take 30 pool for free. That's totally fine. The only thing that the judge will stop is illegal play' ". - Suppose D calls the judge at the table and openly asks him "Will A be able to follow the deal over the PTW rule, for the rest of the game? ", Ira and I disagree about the answer. Ira says: "Answering this would require knowledge of hidden information. Whether or not the judge has that knowledge doesn't matter, what matters is that it shouldn't be given to other players than A." One of Ira's arguments is that reducing A's chances here by saying her deal isn't legal reduces A's options, whether she plans to keep her word or to backstab B later in the game. I say: "An estimation of A's chances, based on public information, can be given. If public information show clearly enough that A's situation is catastrophic, then the judge should answer 'With public information, yes', and otherwise answer 'With public information, no' ". I consider this answer should be given to all the table, and that, if A wants to involve hidden information, she can call the judge to get a review of her chances' estimation. - Suppose player A calls the judge, and asks privately "With these hidden information, is my deal valid, and can I follow it instead of the PTW rule ?", Ira and I sort of agree. We agree on the fact that the judge should give a private answer that involves knowledge of the given hidden information. However, Ira considers that if A is allowed not to follow the PTW rule per knowledge of information private to her, then she should be the only one to know that she can respect the deal over the PTW rule. I consider that, if A is playing for something else than the GW, and is allowed to do so due to a judge's estimation, then she can only do so when the estimation is known from the table. After having this discussion, I think there are two ways of judging here. The first option is to give estimations privately, though they can be given publicly. Estimations given privately prevail against estimations given publicly. The second would be to give estimations publicly, though they can be given privately. Estimations given publicly prevail against estimations given privately. Ira thinks the first is the better / more interesting, I think the second is the better / more interesting. Suppose A and B deal. My argument is that other players' game is affected by A's play. In that deal ( B 3 VPs, A 2 VPs), C is, according to plans, the next player to be ousted. C's behaviour from this point will clearly be different whether the deal is valid or not. If C's position isn't good, she might consider getting D and E in a deal, especially if A is quite likely to reduce her chances of winning (cross-table bleed, vote, rush, ...). Suppose C makes a deal with other players (D and E, for instance - E would get 1, and C and D 2). If C's position is bad enough, the deal could be valid. If C's position isn't bad enough, it isn't. The problem is that the evaluation of C's current position depends on whether A can or can't crush C. Giving these information to C would indeed be divulging a piece of information that is private to A, if it hasn't been made public. I also think that having players not know who exactly is still playing for the GW can't help. Did we get these ones correctly? Is one of us incorrect on one (or more) of the behaviours to have? Of these two options, do you think one is better? Thanks! Pascal

In my rather uninformed and irrelevant opinion, you cannot have this as a real policy. It is way too vague and will do nothing to help resolve questions in competitive play. The policy should be clear and straight, with the judge on the scene deciding how to police the situation. When people play a game, they play to win. To play to anything other than a win invites collusion, cheating, and other unacceptable play. So, as such, it should be disallowed to make deals where you split the results of a game in such a way that you lose that game. Frankly, it shouldn't be necessary to even have a judging standard for such a situation because it clearly represents poor sportsmanship, throwing a game, if it is true. Why would a player in good conscience ever even offer such a ridiculous split? A good sport receiving such an offer should laugh it off and continue play as if it had not been made, giving the person offering it the benefit of the doubt that they are not a bad sport. VTES is an odd game. It can be clearly obvious that one player will win even though the game is not over. At that point, I think it is not unreasonable for one player to just concede the remainder of the game - even from a winning position if they like, althought that is certainly odd. But a concession is not a deal. All deals are just words. Actions are the only standard that can matter. Offering a deal that amounts to collusion and that deal is then adhered to by players is, I would hope, something that judges could detect and deal with.

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > ...she can call the judge to get a review of her chances' estimation. I feel confident even with my extremely limited understanding of competitive VTES play that I will almost always be able to turn any situation you consider good or bad into the reverse by playing through a turn or two. There is way too much unknowable information to make any serious call of chances - that is an entirely subjective and almost arbitrary call. Do you really want games called by judges or settled by the rules?

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > Hello, > > Following a newsgroup discussion ( http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad... (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/0ac2af2c9036d3b5/bd4407443132f819) ), I discussed a bit with Ira about what a Judge should / could / can / musn't [ !these were are toughts! ] say, when it comes to deals. > > In the rest, "deals" are considered to be table-splitters, that is: someone is giving up the race for the GW. In such deals, a player gets the chance to follow the deal rather than the PTW rule, that is: she can legally play for something that isn't the GW, given that the deal is "legal"). And note that such deals are only "legal" for the player giving up the race for a GW if that player is already out of the race for a GW: that is, that player has no reasonable chance of getting a GW at the time the deal is made (and indeed has no reasonable chance of getting more VPs at the table than he or she will get from honoring the deal). > All the rest are Ira's and my feelings. > > We're in the situation where A is in a bad position. She deals with her prey a 2-3 table split (where her prey gets 3). > A's situation can be considered good enough that this deal isn't her best chances of getting VPs. > > - Ira and I agree that, as long as players aren't calling for a judge and are just talking, there shouldn't be any interference: > If a player declares she's in for a deal with another player, the judge should let it be. The reason for our "inactivity" as judges here is that players are only talking. There hasn't been any non-PTW action taken at this point, so the rules haven't been enforced. Correct. Although there can be a request for the judge to note the game state at the time of the deal so that the judge will know (or at least, be able to make the best judgment) as to the legality of the deal (for future reference, when it comes time for some otherwise non-PTW activity to be made on the part of the deal-makers). > - When a player calls the judge and asks openly, with all the table hearing: "Can they make such a deal ?", the answer should be "Yes", as a deal is only words. With full explanation of exactly what the rationale is for saying so (ensuring that no one is confused about the "ruling" the judge is making at the time). > As Ira said, "the judge could add 'Players can say whatever they want. You could say you'll take 30 pool for free. That's totally fine. The only thing that the judge will stop is illegal play' ". > > - Suppose D calls the judge at the table and openly asks him "Will A be able to follow the deal over the PTW rule, for the rest of the game? ", Ira and I disagree about the answer. > Ira says: "Answering this would require knowledge of hidden information. Whether or not the judge has that knowledge doesn't matter, what matters is that it shouldn't be given to other players than A." Assuming that the answer does indeed require acces to hidden information, then: Correct. The judge should not divulge hidden information, even indirectly. If the public state of the game suffices to show that the player can reasonably do better than the deal, then the judge is free to point that out. Likewise, if the public state of the game suffices to show that the player has no reasonable path to getting a better result than the deal, then the judge is free to point that out. > One of Ira's arguments is that reducing A's chances here by saying her deal isn't legal reduces A's options, whether she plans to keep her word or to backstab B later in the game. Revealing (indirectly) hidden information to A's detriment is not fair to A, clearly. > I say: "An estimation of A's chances, based on public information, can be given. If public information show clearly enough that A's situation is catastrophic, then the judge should answer 'With public information, yes', and otherwise answer 'With public information, no' ". I consider this answer should be given to all the table, and that, if A wants to involve hidden information, she can call the judge to get a review of her chances' estimation. Also correct. The only part that isn't correct is the assertion that you and Ira disagree. In fact, you seem to simply be talking at cross purposes. > - Suppose player A calls the judge, and asks privately "With these hidden information, is my deal valid, and can I follow it instead of the PTW rule ?", Ira and I sort of agree. > We agree on the fact that the judge should give a private answer that involves knowledge of the given hidden information. Only the private information that is known to that player. > However, Ira considers that if A is allowed not to follow the PTW rule per knowledge of information private to her, then she should be the only one to know that she can respect the deal over the PTW rule. > I consider that, if A is playing for something else than the GW, and is allowed to do so due to a judge's estimation, then she can only do so when the estimation is known from the table. > > After having this discussion, I think there are two ways of judging here. > > The first option is to give estimations privately, though they can be given publicly. Estimations given privately prevail against estimations given publicly. > > The second would be to give estimations publicly, though they can be given privately. Estimations given publicly prevail against estimations given privately. It's pretty straightforward: The judge can and should give any ruling based on information to any parties privy to that foundational information and only to those people. The judge can and should explain to all players how such rulings are given. Nothing mystical there. > I think the second is the more interesting for the game. > > Suppose A and B deal. > My argument is that other players' game is affected by A's play. In that deal ( B 3 VPs, A 2 VPs), C is, according to plans, the next player to be ousted. C's behaviour from this point will clearly be different whether the deal is valid or not. C's situation is always dependent on information hidden from C, assuming there's any hidden state left in the game. This is nothing new. In this case, as in all the others, C has to do the best C can based on the information available to C. > If C's position isn't good, she might consider getting D and E in a deal, especially if A is quite likely to reduce her chances of winning (cross-table bleed, vote, rush, ...). > Suppose C makes a deal with other players (D and E, for instance - E would get 1, and C and D 2). If C's position is bad enough, the deal could be valid. If C's position isn't bad enough, it isn't. The problem is that the evaluation of C's current position depends on whether A can or can't crush C. No. C's "current position" (vis-a-vis C's play decisions) depends on C's knowledge of the game state, as always. > Giving these information to C would indeed be divulging a piece of information that is private to A, if it hasn't been made public. > > I also think that having players not know who exactly is still playing for the GW can't help. > > Did we get these ones correctly? Hard to tell: you don't give your position on the last one. If it involves directly or indirectly revealing information, then no. If not, then yes. > Is one of us incorrect on one (or more) of the behaviours to have? > > Of these two options, do you think one is better? What two? 1) Interfering in the game by needlessly revealing hidden information and 2) not ? Two.

Tangent: players who choose to keep a deal instead of winning the game are stupid. So are the players who make the deal in the first place and actually expect their opponent to keep the deal.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Tangent: players who choose to keep a deal instead of winning the game are stupid. So are the players who make the deal in the first place and actually expect their opponent to keep the deal. Incorrect. Trustworthy players buy 50 game wins by giving the king maker a vp. Stupid players trade their trustworthiness for 1 game win.

Honoring a deal when you could win the game instead means that you're playing a different game. And expecting someone to give up the win is irrational -- we're not talking about some quid pro quo, I-rescue-you-you-rescue-me deal. You should expect the backstab when the game is on the line.

> Rulemonger wrote: > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > Is one of us incorrect on one (or more) of the behaviours to have? > > > > Of these two options, do you think one is better? > What two? a) Having rulings given privately take precedence over rulings given publicly b) Having rulings given publicly take precedence over rulings given privately Example: A is in a bad situation. From public information, the situation isn't that bad: A could still get the GW. With hidden information (number of Deflections left in deck, no wakes in hand, etc), A clearly can't fight for the GW anymore. A and B discuss about a deal. They reach an agreement, where B gets 3 VPs and A gets 2. Player D calls the judge and publicly asks: "With public information, is this deal legal?" Judge comes at the table and answers one of the following: (i) - "I can't answer this without giving away private information" (ii) - "The deal is not legal, since A can, from public information, get the GW." My assumptions, so far, were that the judge should answer that question with either "yes" or "no" (and perhaps some more about how this decision was taken). In this case, I'd go with (ii) above. Would you do the same? Then, right after hearing the judge's answer, player A calls the judge and shows / gives hidden information. With it, it is clear that A is in a position bad enough to justify the 2-3 deal. Of course, I guess the judge can only have one answer here, "The deal is valid, and you can follow it instead of the PTW rule." Later in the game, A performs an action that clearly follows the deal, and clearly doesn't follow PTW. D calls the judge and explains the situation. A decision has to be taken here: that's option a) or option b) I mentioned above. These options are not compatible. (Also: I'm pretty sure the answer is the same, whether A asks before or after D) Following strictly your answer in your post, I guess the judge's answer, when D asks the question, should be "This probably requires access to private information. Thus, I can't answer your question." (that is, option (i) above) This extends to: A judge should not give rulings regarding deals publicly. I guess this is also Ira's opinion. For the reasons I mentionned above (impossibility to give a player a ruling about her deal, even with private information), I think it limits some possibilities. I agree declaring that a player is in a situation bad enough that she can forfeit the GW is divulging private information. However, the reason that makes the situation bad enough should, of course, not be made public.

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > Example: > A is in a bad situation. From public information, the situation isn't that bad: A could still get the GW. > With hidden information (number of Deflections left in deck, no wakes in hand, etc), A clearly can't fight for the GW anymore. > > A and B discuss about a deal. They reach an agreement, where B gets 3 VPs and A gets 2. > > Player D calls the judge and publicly asks: "With public information, is this deal legal?" Judge comes at the table and answers one of the following: > (i) - "I can't answer this without giving away private information" > (ii) - "The deal is not legal, since A can, from public information, get the GW." i) shows a lack of understanding of the question asked. The question is "based solely on public info,..." and so the answer is either: yes or no (with "maybe" being pretty much "no" once you factor in "reasonably"). ii) demonstrates an omission: "The deal, D, is not legal as far as you know, D, since based on the information available to you, it seems as if A can reasonably do better. However, the deal may be legal for A if, given all the information available to A, no other option for A can reasonably do better than this deal."

> Rulemonger wrote: > "The deal, D, is not legal as far as you know, D, since based on the information available to you, it seems as if A can reasonably do better. However, the deal may be legal for A if, given all the information available to A, no other option for A can reasonably do better than this deal." That was exactly what I was looking for :) I still need to think about the part where a "counter-deal" is made, but this part is perfect. Thanks !

I ran into situations like this during a WoW Miniatures tournament. People were making deals to concede in order to split prizes they might lose otherwise. I was told this was accepted because it was hard to police if done covertly. This infuriated me to no end. If you enter a tournament, you should play to win. If winning is impossible, you should play to place yourself as closely as possible to winning. Anything else is bullshit and unfair to the rest of the players.

Let's see what happens when we apply this to actions rather than deals: A and B have a deal. It is clear that, if the deal is legal, C will be ousted before her next turn. It is C's turn. C can either perform some stuff that is clearly not PTW, but would keep her alive at least 1 extra turn if A and B's deal is legal (perhaps rush A, or spend all resources on trying to oust A), or perform a regular PTW action (bleed D). C chooses to perform the non-PTW-unless-deal-is-legal stuff. B calls the judge, and asks whether C's actions are legal. If they are not, then C has to be informed, and cannot do these actions. If they are legal, then the actions can be conducted. The answer to this question is the same as the one to the "Is A and B's deal legal ?" question. However, if C asks the question "Is A and B's deal legal?", the judge will answer "That might rely on private information you have no knowledge of (information privy to A). Thus, I'm not giving you a yes/no answer." . And when C attempts the action, if the action is illegal, it has to be roll-back'd (rollen-back?). What would be the right answer to B's call ? Should a judge correct illegal play if that involves revealing hidden information?

Already answered: > Rulemonger wrote: > C's situation is always dependent on information hidden from C, assuming there's any hidden state left in the game. This is nothing new. That is, C's decisions are always based on and only on information C has.

> Rulemonger wrote: > Already answered: > > > Rulemonger wrote: > > C's situation is always dependent on information hidden from C, assuming there's any hidden state left in the game. This is nothing new. > That is, C's decisions are always based on and only on information C has. I'm not sure I see how this one applies. C made a decision, based on information only she has. So far, I thought the information taken in consideration could involve estimations on what the other players might have in their hands, and on other privy things (Do I think A is going to hold on to the deal, or is she going to / will she be keen to backstab B at some point ?) [I'm not sure someone could ask a player not to calculate odds of prey having a deflection, or similar] I consider these estimations as information C has - that she might share, but that at least she has. Now, the question is: Is the state of the game legal, or is it not? The only way for it to be legal would be that A and B's deal is legal. The only way for it not to be legal would be that A and B's deal is not legal (that is: that A couldn't forfeit the GW when the deal was made). In C's opinion, clearly, their deal is legal. But this estimation shouldn't allow non-PTW acts, unless it is correct. Since the PTW rule might be violated here, the judge is called. The answer to "Is this move legal, PTW-wisely ?" has to be either "Yes" or "No" - there's no "Let's see how things go, and we'll reverse, if necessary." C made a decision, but her estimation might be incorrect, leading the game to an illegal state that should be corrected.

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > C made a decision, based on information only she has. This describes each of C's decisions in every game, inherently. > So far, I thought the information taken in consideration could involve estimations on what the other players might have in their hands, and on other privy things (Do I think A is going to hold on to the deal, or is she going to / will she be keen to backstab B at some point ?) [I'm not sure someone could ask a player not to calculate odds of prey having a deflection, or similar] > I consider these estimations as information C has - that she might share, but that at least she has. Yes. There can be no other take on the situation. > Now, the question is: Is the state of the game legal, or is it not? The state of the game is merely the state of the game. The activity C attempts based on the state of the game is legal if the activity doesn't violate any rules. The activity doesn't violate the play-to-win part of the sportsmanship rule if from C's position, based on all the information C has available, it represent the activity that leads to the best finish (GW or as many VPs as reasonably possible) for C. > The only way for it to be legal would be that A and B's deal is legal. ... from C's position, right. That is, if the deal seems legal based on the information C has available. As we covered above.