I am going to be running a constructed tournament in September (Saturday
September 17, 1pm, Your Move Games in Somerville, MA -- email me for
details).
I plan to have a 2.5 hour final round.
But my plan also includes a sliding scale for prizes.
If the finals last 2 hours or less, the prizes will be better than if
they go over 2 hours.
Even though prize support for VTES tournaments is usually not the
primary concern, I figure that this might be good incentive to stop
people from trying to time out the table.
In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
Thoughts about this concept in general?
Jozxyqk wrote:
> In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
> system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
>
> Thoughts about this concept in general?
I certainly think it is interesting and worth tryng out, but--doesn't tthe
prize issue cross the line into "out of game considerations"?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
>>system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
>>
>>Thoughts about this concept in general?>
>
> I certainly think it is interesting and worth tryng out, but--doesn't tthe
> prize issue cross the line into "out of game considerations"?
The prizes are part of the game/final so considering them is not
out-of-game.
--
johannes walch
[ quoted text not captured ]
Uh, no, I don't agree with that.
Counter-example: Let's say that I already have ten copies of the items
being given away as first prize, but I really covet the t-shirt being
given away for second place.
If I play to win the prize I want, i.e. playing for second instead of
first, I am absolutely taking an out-of-game consideration into account
(and also not playing to win). Just because the prize is being awarded
for the game/final does not make it inherently free from issues of 'out
of game consideration'.
Prizes are not part of the final - they are awarded outside of the
final/game as a reward for results. Nowhere in the tournament rules or
rulebook will you find anything that discusses prizes as part of a VtES
game.
The consideration of specific prizes absolutely _can_ be an out-of-game
consideration.
In this specific case, however, being given a better prize for faster
play does not inherently reward a player for behaving in a way that is
contrary to the goal of the game. The tournament rules strictly care
about "players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal
of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook", so trying to win faster
is okay - you're still trying to win.
(So long as the prizes don't overlap - if the prize for Fast-2nd is
better than Slow-1st, that could be an issue.)
> --
> johannes walch
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
> > Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > >>In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
> > >>system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
> > >>
> > >>Thoughts about this concept in general?
> > >
> > >
> > > I certainly think it is interesting and worth tryng out, but--doesn't tthe
> > > prize issue cross the line into "out of game considerations"?
> >
> > The prizes are part of the game/final so considering them is not
> > out-of-game.
>
> Uh, no, I don't agree with that.
>
> Counter-example: Let's say that I already have ten copies of the items
> being given away as first prize, but I really covet the t-shirt being
> given away for second place.
>
> If I play to win the prize I want, i.e. playing for second instead of
> first, I am absolutely taking an out-of-game consideration into account
> (and also not playing to win). Just because the prize is being awarded
> for the game/final does not make it inherently free from issues of 'out
> of game consideration'.
I would hope the tournament organizer would allow flexibility for the
winner to choose from among *any* of the prizes available for the
various places. So if you won, you could choose the 5th place prize if
you so desired because that was most valuable to you.
> Prizes are not part of the final - they are awarded outside of the
> final/game as a reward for results. Nowhere in the tournament rules or
> rulebook will you find anything that discusses prizes as part of a VtES
> game.
>
> The consideration of specific prizes absolutely _can_ be an out-of-game
> consideration.
>
> In this specific case, however, being given a better prize for faster
> play does not inherently reward a player for behaving in a way that is
> contrary to the goal of the game. The tournament rules strictly care
> about "players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal
> of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook", so trying to win faster
> is okay - you're still trying to win.
>
> (So long as the prizes don't overlap - if the prize for Fast-2nd is
> better than Slow-1st, that could be an issue.)
My impression of this idea was that if the table finished under 2
hours, that every finals participant might get an extra pack of cards
while if they went longer than 2 hours, they would forfeit said pack.
That way they all have the exact same motivation to finish on time
without any consideration given to placement. In this scenario, there
is no disincentive to play quickly unless the table evolves such that
you think you need the extra time to improve your position in the
overall game.
Jeff
John Flournoy wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
> > Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > >>In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
> > >>system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
> > >>
> > >>Thoughts about this concept in general?
> > >
> > >
> > > I certainly think it is interesting and worth tryng out, but--doesn't tthe
> > > prize issue cross the line into "out of game considerations"?
> >
> > The prizes are part of the game/final so considering them is not
> > out-of-game.
>
> Uh, no, I don't agree with that.
>
> Counter-example: Let's say that I already have ten copies of the items
> being given away as first prize, but I really covet the t-shirt being
> given away for second place.
>
> If I play to win the prize I want, i.e. playing for second instead of
> first, I am absolutely taking an out-of-game consideration into account
> (and also not playing to win). Just because the prize is being awarded
> for the game/final does not make it inherently free from issues of 'out
> of game consideration'.
>
> Prizes are not part of the final - they are awarded outside of the
> final/game as a reward for results. Nowhere in the tournament rules or
> rulebook will you find anything that discusses prizes as part of a VtES
> game.
Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
However, that does not, in any sort of explicit language, exempt
players from having to play to win the game as best as they are able.
And I agree that a lot of the time, that's an impossible-to-judge
issue.
But if I sit at a table and say (without it being part of a deal) that
I'm going to play for 2nd place because I prefer the 2nd place prize
and proceed play accordingly, I deserve to get penalized, because I am
clearly not playing to win - I'm playing for the prize, not for winning
the game, and that is contrary to the goal of the game (get the most
VP, not 'get the cool prizes'.)
> > johannes walch
-John Flournoy
On 30 Aug 2005 11:06:01 -0700, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Prizes are not part of the final - they are awarded outside of the
>> final/game as a reward for results. Nowhere in the tournament rules or
>> rulebook will you find anything that discusses prizes as part of a VtES
>> game.>
> Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
>
> And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
Interesting. So out of the following two scenarios:
A "I'll give you a booster if you give me the table win"
B "I'll give you a booster from amongst those I win, if you
give me the table win"
Option A is cheating, and option B is not? ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:15:45 -0500, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd say, scrap it, and go for a "full victory" vs. "normal victory"
approach.
Full victory equals winning the final table by getting the GW. In
particular, this is a game win adhering to, in every way, the
conditions that are present for judging preliminary round GW-s.
Normal victory is winning the final table without fulfilling the above.
Make the prize significantly less, and the final table won't likely time
out.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> > Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> > Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
> >
> > And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> > deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> > against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
>
> Interesting. So out of the following two scenarios:
>
> A "I'll give you a booster if you give me the table win"
> B "I'll give you a booster from amongst those I win, if you
> give me the table win"
>
> Option A is cheating, and option B is not? ;)
Strictly speaking by the wording of the tourney/judge rules, yes, you
are correct. Which is why some people would like to see that rules
and/or terminology changed - since a lot of the prize support is
booster packs, the following also is accurate:
"I'll give you 5 boosters out of the prize support for the win" (legal)
"I'll give you 15 bucks for the game win, and you can use it
immediately to buy 5 boosters up front at the counter" (not legal).
(Both of these scenarios assume the deals are otherwise legal, in terms
of 'play to win' considerations.)
> Bye,
>
> Daneel
-John Flournoy
Daneel wrote:
> Make the prize significantly less, and the final table won't likely time
> out.
Only when you assume that everyone plays for the prizes. A lot of people
I know are not very interested in prizes beause they allready have a
shitload of cards. They want to have the rating and simply the win.
--
johannes walch
John Flournoy wrote:
>>Johannes Walch wrote:
>>>>>Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>>>>>>>In theory, it could be extended to 3, 4, even no-time-limit finals, as a
>>>>>system; the prizes get progressively worse over time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thoughts about this concept in general?>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I certainly think it is interesting and worth tryng out, but--doesn't tthe
>>>>prize issue cross the line into "out of game considerations"?>>>
>>>The prizes are part of the game/final so considering them is not
>>>out-of-game.>>>>Prizes are not part of the final - they are awarded outside of the
>>final/game as a reward for results. Nowhere in the tournament rules or
>>rulebook will you find anything that discusses prizes as part of a VtES
>>game.>
>
> Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
>
> And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
Thanks for backing me up with this. I was not quite sure if it is still
in the rules, but I thought so. A few years ago a tournament was decided
like this over here where the winner forfeited all his booster prizes
(giving them to his deal partner) to win the tournament. If that愀
desirable is a matter to discuss, but it seems that it is in the rules.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch wrote:
> >
> > Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> > Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
> >
> > And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> > deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> > against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
>
> Thanks for backing me up with this. I was not quite sure if it is still
> in the rules, but I thought so. A few years ago a tournament was decided
> like this over here where the winner forfeited all his booster prizes> (giving them to his deal partner) to win the tournament. If that´s> desirable is a matter to discuss, but it seems that it is in the rules.
As long as the deal partner was not making the deal instead of trying
to win, yes.
If the deal partner was totally giving up (without already clearly
being unable to get more VP) for the boosters, and a judge felt that
was not 'playing to win', then the deal wouldn't be legal - but the
deal partner would be penalized for not playing to win, while the guy
offering the boosters would not be penalized for offering his prize
support.
In short: By the rules, you can offer somebody part of the tourney
prize support in a deal, without penalty. You still cannot make a deal
where someone is clearly playing to not try to maximize their VP or
otherwise not 'play to win' the game; giving someone prize support does
not give them permission to play to deliberately lose.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Just want to mention a few things here: people who are playing to win,
will not necessarily care about the prizes.
Hence, they will not necessarily adapt their way of playing to the
prizes dealt out accordingly.
But it *is possible* that they do so.
I personally think this way of handing out prizes is very explicitly
favoring certain decktypes/playstyles, which can very well have quite a
large impact on the metagame you're creating.
I think you need to consider this very very well before putting it into
effect.
Compare this to awarding a great prize for say.. the first oust in a
given round, or for the first succesful diablerie or whatnot.You're
actively influencing the game / decks played/way of playing with this..
Also, from experience I can tell you that no-time limit finals are a
very, very very bad idea(ye, 6 hour finals do exist..).
And last but not least, IMHO for finals that would time out anyway:
bright players will just make a general withdraw before your 2 hour
limit.
so personally, I don't tink it's a good idea.
But that's just my 0.5 eurocents
/jo
John Flournoy wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>>>>Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
>>>Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
>>>
>>>And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
>>>deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
>>>against 'Cheating: Bribery'.>>
>>Thanks for backing me up with this. I was not quite sure if it is still
>>in the rules, but I thought so. A few years ago a tournament was decided
>>like this over here where the winner forfeited all his booster prizes>>(giving them to his deal partner) to win the tournament. If that愀>>desirable is a matter to discuss, but it seems that it is in the rules.>
>
> As long as the deal partner was not making the deal instead of trying
> to win, yes.
>
> If the deal partner was totally giving up (without already clearly
> being unable to get more VP) for the boosters, and a judge felt that
> was not 'playing to win', then the deal wouldn't be legal - but the
> deal partner would be penalized for not playing to win, while the guy
> offering the boosters would not be penalized for offering his prize
> support.
>
> In short: By the rules, you can offer somebody part of the tourney
> prize support in a deal, without penalty. You still cannot make a deal
> where someone is clearly playing to not try to maximize their VP or
> otherwise not 'play to win' the game; giving someone prize support does
> not give them permission to play to deliberately lose.
>
Incorrect.
Prizes are part of the final round. Period. I dislike it, but that
doesn't change it.
Pre-Succubus-Club-banning I made it clear that in order to get the
card changed/removed/whatever I'd lobby, play and report clearly in
tournaments how to build decks on that card, try to struggle into
the finals and start said final with an auction where the highest
bidder of prize-support during the mid-game would receive all my
vamps, cards and pool in exchange for prize-support.
This was disliked, but is was also clearly deemed legal.
Sten During
Johannes Walch wrote:
> They want to have the rating and simply the win.
Indicating that, in fact, there are examples of people who care about their
ratings.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125470228.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
> > [John Flournoy wrote]>
> > > Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> > > Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
> > >
> > > And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> > > deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> > > against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
> >
> > Thanks for backing me up with this. I was not quite sure if it is still
> > in the rules, but I thought so. A few years ago a tournament was decided
> > like this over here where the winner forfeited all his booster prizes> > (giving them to his deal partner) to win the tournament. If that愀> > desirable is a matter to discuss, but it seems that it is in the rules.
>
> As long as the deal partner was not making the deal instead of trying
> to win, yes.
>
> If the deal partner was totally giving up (without already clearly
> being unable to get more VP) for the boosters, and a judge felt that
> was not 'playing to win', then the deal wouldn't be legal - but the
> deal partner would be penalized for not playing to win, while the guy
> offering the boosters would not be penalized for offering his prize
> support.
Hmm, well, while it's true that if the judge rules against you, you can't do
it, LSJ's rulings in the past have suggested that judges shouldn't usually
have a problem with prize-splitting "not playing to win" deals in the
finals.
See:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/09736db282060da8
and:
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9c9c6ec0ab516897
for specifics.
I don't think it's particularly good for the game to allow deals for the win
in finals in this way, but that argument has probably sailed. :-)
Josh
waiting for my argument to come in
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125470228.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Johannes Walch wrote:
> > If the deal partner was totally giving up (without already clearly
> > being unable to get more VP) for the boosters, and a judge felt that
> > was not 'playing to win', then the deal wouldn't be legal - but the
> > deal partner would be penalized for not playing to win, while the guy
> > offering the boosters would not be penalized for offering his prize
> > support.
>
> Hmm, well, while it's true that if the judge rules against you, you can't do
> it, LSJ's rulings in the past have suggested that judges shouldn't usually
> have a problem with prize-splitting "not playing to win" deals in the
> finals.
*Citations of LSJ's previous commentary snipped*
I certainly agree that LSJ has suggested that it shouldn't be a problem
in the past - however, the actual tournament rules as printed state
otherwise.
If LSJ wants prize-splitting deals to ignore play-to-win, the rules
provided to judges should not be worded in such a way that play-to-win
still applies.
> I don't think it's particularly good for the game to allow deals for the win
> in finals in this way, but that argument has probably sailed. :-)
>
> Josh
-John Flournoy
Sten During wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
> > Johannes Walch wrote:
> >
> >>>Let me amend this - prizes as part of a game _is_ mentioned in the
> >>>Judge's rules (ex-Penalty rules.)
> >>>
> >>>And in that Judge's guidelines, it specifies that players that make
> >>>deals including prizes are not, specifically, violating the rules
> >>>against 'Cheating: Bribery'.
> >>
> >>Thanks for backing me up with this. I was not quite sure if it is still
> >>in the rules, but I thought so. A few years ago a tournament was decided
> >>like this over here where the winner forfeited all his booster prizes> >>(giving them to his deal partner) to win the tournament. If that´s> >>desirable is a matter to discuss, but it seems that it is in the rules.
> >
> >
> > As long as the deal partner was not making the deal instead of trying
> > to win, yes.
> >
> > If the deal partner was totally giving up (without already clearly
> > being unable to get more VP) for the boosters, and a judge felt that
> > was not 'playing to win', then the deal wouldn't be legal - but the
> > deal partner would be penalized for not playing to win, while the guy
> > offering the boosters would not be penalized for offering his prize
> > support.
> >
> > In short: By the rules, you can offer somebody part of the tourney
> > prize support in a deal, without penalty. You still cannot make a deal
> > where someone is clearly playing to not try to maximize their VP or
> > otherwise not 'play to win' the game; giving someone prize support does
> > not give them permission to play to deliberately lose.
> >
>
> Incorrect.
Actually, my statement is absolutely correct: _by the wording of the
current set of tournament rules_, it's not a legal deal. Which has
nothing to do with the rest of your statement, which asserts that
judges have ruled that such deals are okay.
> Prizes are part of the final round. Period. I dislike it, but that
> doesn't change it.
> Pre-Succubus-Club-banning I made it clear that in order to get the
> card changed/removed/whatever I'd lobby, play and report clearly in
> tournaments how to build decks on that card, try to struggle into
> the finals and start said final with an auction where the highest
> bidder of prize-support during the mid-game would receive all my
> vamps, cards and pool in exchange for prize-support.
> This was disliked, but is was also clearly deemed legal.
I'm not at all arguing that people have not been deemng it as a valid
deal, or that it hasn't been common practice for a while (supported by
LSJ on occasion.)
My point is: The actual tournament rules do currently say it should be
handled in a different, specific way - a way that goes against the way
LSJ has apparently suggested it be handled (and the way judges do tend
to handle it).
And that's a problem that needs fixing, one way or another.
> Sten During
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
> I'm not at all arguing that people have not been deemng it as a valid
> deal, or that it hasn't been common practice for a while (supported by
> LSJ on occasion.)
>
> My point is: The actual tournament rules do currently say it should be
> handled in a different, specific way - a way that goes against the way
> LSJ has apparently suggested it be handled (and the way judges do tend
> to handle it).
The rules match the suggested handling.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
play to lose?'
If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
If this is not the case, then a lot of people have been handling this
wrongly.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > John Flournoy wrote:
> > > I'm not at all arguing that people have not been deemng it as a valid
> > > deal, or that it hasn't been common practice for a while (supported by
> > > LSJ on occasion.)
> > >
> > > My point is: The actual tournament rules do currently say it should be
> > > handled in a different, specific way - a way that goes against the way
> > > LSJ has apparently suggested it be handled (and the way judges do tend
> > > to handle it).
> >
> > The rules match the suggested handling.
>
> Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
> if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
> play to lose?'
>
> If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
If you are offered a portion of the prize support and that offer is the
best you can reasonably expect to do, then playing toward that "best"
is not playing to lose, it is playing to win.
LSJ wrote:
> > > The rules match the suggested handling.
> >
> > Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
> > if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
> > play to lose?'
> >
> > If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
>
> If you are offered a portion of the prize support and that offer is the
> best you can reasonably expect to do, then playing toward that "best"
> is not playing to lose, it is playing to win.
I can agree with that, with one giant caveat: "The best", according to
the tournament rules, is not "the best prize you can get", but the most
VPs, i.e. (quoting the rules directly) "the goal of the game as stated
in the V:TES rulebook."
Let me be clear: I certainly agree that in a case where you would be
legally making a deal anyway (i.e. you're not cutting your own throat
to make it), prize support can be bandied about as much as you like.
There's lots of cases where making a deal is in your best interest
_regardless_ of whether or not what you get in return includes prizes,
and the rules clearly allow prizes to be part of a legal deal.
But in cases where a player would be deliberately losing a game in such
a way that it's _clear_ to a judge that he is playing to lose in terms
of VP, the rules as written don't permit this because you agree to give
that player prize support.
Details:
The Judge's guidelines clearly state that the exceptions to "Cheating:
Collusion" ("Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise
illegally establish the results of a game.") are:
"Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements
should not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet
the following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items.
No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside of
the current game.
No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the winner.
The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN
Tournament Rules."
And 5.2 says "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the
goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking
certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall
tournament standing, etc.)."
The goal of the game as stated in the rulebook is "Your goal is to
accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by
rival Methuselahs." There's no mention in the rulebook's goal of the
game "Get the best prize support possible", or any mention of prizes.
In order for a player to follow 5.2, they must play to get VPs, not
play for prize support.
The rules also state that philosophically, for Cheating: Bribery:
"Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be
acceptable.)"
However, this 'splitting the prizes is acceptable' is only listed as an
acceptable exemption for 'Cheating: Bribery' - not for collusion, not
for violating 5.2, not for anything other than 'it's something you can
legally offer as consideration'.
I can theoretically offer at the start of a game to get down on my
hands and knees and kiss every card in your deck in alphabetical order,
if you'd only deliberately lose the game to me. That's a completely
legal _bribe_ - but I'm still colluding with you, because I'm asking
you to violate 5.2's 'Players must not play toward goals that conflict
with the goal of the game as stated'.
And the tournament rules, as written, do not make any exception to 5.2.
Now, I fully agree that determining whether a potential deal is 'the
best you can do' in terms of getting VPs is a highly subjective one,
open to a lot of interpretation. I'm not disputing that at all, nor am
I disputing how judges currently rule that.
But 'the best you can do', per the tournament rules, does not include
'the best loot you can get offered' without any attempt to win the
game.
Which is why I'm saying that as written, the rules insist that you must
play to win the game - by getting VPs - even if someone offers you a
(legal) prize-support bribe not to. Because if you are _clearly,
definitely_ playing to lose as part of a deal, you have colluded, and
the rules call that cheating no matter what you were offered in return
(even prize support).
Which would mean that offering a player:
"Concede to me now and I'll give you all the boosters"
is no different than:
"Concede to me now and I'll give you nothing"
..taken strictly in terms of determining 'are these players colluding
to determine the game result in violation of 5.2'.
If they'd be considered colluding in the second case, the existence of
the bribe in the first case does not change the illegal deal to a legal
one, because prize support is not part of the "best you can reasonably
expect to do" by the current tournament rules.
-John Flournoy
Hopefully this won't be double-posting; google seems to have eaten my
first try.
John Flournoy wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > > > The rules match the suggested handling.
> > >
> > > Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
> > > if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
> > > play to lose?'
> > >
> > > If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
> >
> > If you are offered a portion of the prize support and that offer is the
> > best you can reasonably expect to do, then playing toward that "best"
> > is not playing to lose, it is playing to win.
I'll add this:
In the course of this discussion (both here and off the newsgroup),
people have given lots of anecdotal evidence of judges' rulings and/or
quoted LSJ posts saying that it's okay for a player to deliberately,
clearly play to lose a game (and I do mean _clearly_ get less VPs than
they could) as long as they're offered prize support in compensation in
a final, because getting prize support counts for 'playing to win'.
But if that is the commonly accepted practice, it doesn't match what
the rules specify as written, and that's a problem.
A judge should not have to pre-emptively search googlegroups archives
to learn where common practice/LSJ's rulings are in contradiction to
the rules judges are given to go by - especially for a specific rule
like 'is a player cheating when he does X'. (And he has to pre-empt it
so that he can make the correct ruling on the spot - he shouldn't go
back two weeks later and say 'hey, I was told that I ruled it wrong,
you were actually cheating and can't do that'.)
Either the rules should be amended to reflect common practice/LSJ's
statements on the issue, or people need to follow the existing rules;
having a discrepancy between the printed Judge's rules and how judges
are _supposed_ to adjudicate things is a problem that should be fixed.
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > > > The rules match the suggested handling.
> > >
> > > Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
> > > if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
> > > play to lose?'
> > >
> > > If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
> >
> > If you are offered a portion of the prize support and that offer is the
> > best you can reasonably expect to do, then playing toward that "best"
> > is not playing to lose, it is playing to win.
>
> I can agree with that, with one giant caveat: "The best", according to
> the tournament rules, is not "the best prize you can get", but the most
> VPs, i.e. (quoting the rules directly) "the goal of the game as stated
> in the V:TES rulebook."
I'll add this: In the course of this discussion, there's been lots of
anecdotal stories of judges' rulings and quoting of LSJ posts that says
that in practice, it's okay to obviously play to lose in exchange for
prize support. (And I do mean OBVIOUSLY play to lose, not just 'make a
deal to let someone win'.)
But since the rules as written don't permit that, it's a problem.
Judges should not have to pre-emptively search googlegroups to discover
that something that is contrary to the rules given to Judges is
actually acceptable.
Either the rules need to be amended to reflect current practice, or
current practice needs to change to follow the actual rules, but there
should not be a discrepancy between the printed rules and general
practice on something like 'is a player cheating when he does X'.
-John Flournoy
> Let me be clear: I certainly agree that in a case where you would be
> legally making a deal anyway (i.e. you're not cutting your own throat to
> make it), prize support can be bandied about as much as you like.
> There's lots of cases where making a deal is in your best interest
> _regardless_ of whether or not what you get in return includes prizes,
> and the rules clearly allow prizes to be part of a legal deal.
Hey, if prizes are allowed as part of a legal deal (with whatever caveats
are necessary). . . this means that of course you can break a deal to
shaft someone out of prizes that you've promised them. Now THAT is
hardcore. Gotta love V:TES.
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
"Got shafted by corn once."
>> Hey, if prizes are allowed as part of a legal deal (with whatever
>> caveats are necessary). . . this means that of course you can break a
>> deal to shaft someone out of prizes that you've promised them. Now THAT
>> is hardcore. Gotta love V:TES.>
> Absolutely! Just exit the tourney area out the back, quick!
And thus, we invoke the "I'll win no matter what -- either here or in the
parking lot" rules. :)
Ankur
John Flournoy wrote:
> No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
> cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be
> acceptable.)"
>
<SNIP> Just keeping relevant quote above.
>
> "Concede to me now and I'll give you all the boosters"
Is legal in the final round.
As I wrote; I don't like this, but my disliking a specific rule does not
make that rule go away.
So, yes, if we run a tournament with sizable cash-prizes then a wealthy
player could buy the win in that tournament, provided said player had
already made it to the final round by means of playing well enough
during the prelims. Bribing your opponents in the final round is ok
as long as the bribes only constitute of the prize-support.
And yes, in most every other game/sports this would get you banned or
even prosecuted if it was revealed, but this is not any of those other
games/sports. Thankfully those rules also forbid betting on the outcome
of a game :)
Sten During
Sten During wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
>
> > No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
> > cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be
> > acceptable.)"
> >
>
> <SNIP> Just keeping relevant quote above.
>
> >
> > "Concede to me now and I'll give you all the boosters"
>
> Is legal in the final round.
Is a legal _bribe_ in the final round. Not necessarily a legal deal, as
I've quoted the rules to state.
Note the rules do not say 'in the final round' - if the top ten players
get prizes, prize-splitting bribes would be legally offerable in round
1.
> As I wrote; I don't like this, but my disliking a specific rule does not
> make that rule go away.
And an exception to a specific rule does not automatically exempt you
from _all_ the rules, either.
> So, yes, if we run a tournament with sizable cash-prizes then a wealthy
> player could buy the win in that tournament, provided said player had
> already made it to the final round by means of playing well enough
> during the prelims. Bribing your opponents in the final round is ok
> as long as the bribes only constitute of the prize-support.
Bribing your opponents with prize support is ok. Bribing them with
prize support to violate 5.2 is still cheating per the rules on
Collusion (a separate offense, by the rules, than Bribery.)
> And yes, in most every other game/sports this would get you banned or
> even prosecuted if it was revealed, but this is not any of those other
> games/sports. Thankfully those rules also forbid betting on the outcome
> of a game :)
>
> Sten During
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk wrote:
> I am going to be running a constructed tournament in September (Saturday
> September 17, 1pm, Your Move Games in Somerville, MA -- email me for
> details).
> I plan to have a 2.5 hour final round.
>
> But my plan also includes a sliding scale for prizes.
> If the finals last 2 hours or less, the prizes will be better than if
> they go over 2 hours.
>> Thoughts about this concept in general?
Sounds like a nice experiment, but why not go for 3 hours?
Also, this seems like it leads to one of two scenarios:
a) When the final table finishes under 2 hours, all available prizes
are given out. When it goes over 2.5 hours, the tournament organizer
keeps a portion of the prizes for himself (not really fair, though most
people would accept it since the T.O. job is generally a tough,
thankless one).
b) When the final table finishes in over 2 hours, all "available"
prizes are given out. When it finishes under 2 hours, the T.O. has to
cough up additional prize support which may not necessarily be covered
by entry fees (not fair to the T.O.).
Perhaps the "additional" prize support would filter down to the 6th
through 10th place players (or just to the 6th place player, who would
stick around to watch the final and try to distract the others)? Or
perhaps 4th and 5th place would have better prizes if the game went
long, while 1st and 2nd place would have better prizes if the game
finished quick. Something like:
under 2 hours:
1st place - 20 boosters
2nd place - 10
3rd place - 6
4th place - 2
5th place - 1
over 2 hours:
1st place - 16 boosters
2nd place - 8
3rd place - 6
4th place - 5
5th place - 4
It's unclear, however, whether this would lead to more stalling, or if
the players in the more powerful positions would see their openings and
attempt to strike while the weaker positions try to hang on for dear
life.
Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > I am going to be running a constructed tournament in September (Saturday
> > September 17, 1pm, Your Move Games in Somerville, MA -- email me for
> > details).
> > I plan to have a 2.5 hour final round.
> >
> > But my plan also includes a sliding scale for prizes.
> > If the finals last 2 hours or less, the prizes will be better than if
> > they go over 2 hours.
> >
> > Thoughts about this concept in general?> Sounds like a nice experiment, but why not go for 3 hours?> Also, this seems like it leads to one of two scenarios:> a) When the final table finishes under 2 hours, all available prizes
> are given out. When it goes over 2.5 hours, the tournament organizer
> keeps a portion of the prizes for himself (not really fair, though most
> people would accept it since the T.O. job is generally a tough,
> thankless one).
As a Tournament Organizer/Prince, I go out of my way to keep "Prize
Support" stuff separate from my own collection. Uncollected prize
support goes back into the pool. And that's what would happen in this
case.
The difference between "prizes before 2 hours" and "prizes after 2
hours" is not going to be that steep, either way. Just a little nudge.
> Perhaps the "additional" prize support would filter down to the 6th
> through 10th place players (or just to the 6th place player, who would
> stick around to watch the final and try to distract the others)? Or
> perhaps 4th and 5th place would have better prizes if the game went
> long, while 1st and 2nd place would have better prizes if the game
> finished quick. Something like:> under 2 hours:
> 1st place - 20 boosters
> 2nd place - 10
> 3rd place - 6
> 4th place - 2
> 5th place - 1
In tournaments of the size I run, for the entry fees that I run,
nobody's getting 20 boosters!
The maximum prize support is maybe 3 or 4 boosters, and you might get
one less booster for going past 2 hours. It's not really that big of a
deal.
I'll see how this experiment goes. My gut feeling tells me that the
tournament's finals are not going to go past 2 hours anyway, and it will
all be a non-issue.
Sten During wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
>
>
> >> > "Concede to me now and I'll give you all the boosters"
>
> Is legal in the final round.
>
>
I don't see that. Both players must play to win. Are you assuming
that one player has reasonably given up on his chances to win and is in
a position to kingmake, thus open to the above offer?
Personally, any discussion like the above amounts to bribery (with out
of game items) and thus unsportsmanlike behaviour imo.
Play to win, play to place, or play as you like as the situation
warrants, but don't bribe people with out of game considerationgs.
That's just disgusting.
G
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:55:52 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com>
wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>>> They want to have the rating and simply the win.>
> Indicating that, in fact, there are examples of people who care about
> their ratings.
Which is odd, given how it obviously does not measure skill at all.
;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:tNadna0N6Nt...@comcast.com...
>I am going to be running a constructed tournament in September (Saturday
> September 17, 1pm, Your Move Games in Somerville, MA -- email me for
> details).
> I plan to have a 2.5 hour final round.
>
> But my plan also includes a sliding scale for prizes.
> If the finals last 2 hours or less, the prizes will be better than if
> they go over 2 hours.
Heh! Can the tournament organizer get penalized for delaying the
finals, then? :-)
Fred
(But right now, yes everyone is the moment you've all been waiting for; it's
time for our Stop the Film spots! As you know, the rules are very simple. We
have taken a film which contains compromising scenes and unpleasant details
which could wreck a man's career. (gasp) But, the victim may 'phone me at
any moment, and stop the film. But remember the money increases as the film
goes on, so,.... the longer you leave it, the more you have to pay!)
Daneel wrote:
> Which is odd, given how it obviously does not measure skill at all.
Correct. It measures performance. And if you care about raising your rating,
to reflect a better performance, then, well, you care about your rating.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Offering someone prize support in the final round is, according to the
tournament rules, not an out-of-game consideration as a bribe.
However, it still might or might not be colluding in an unsportsmanlike
fashion, but that is entirely a matter of 'is the deal legal without
taking the prize support into consideration' - i.e., is the player
making a deal that does not lessen the amount of VP he gets?
If you make a deal that gains you prize support, where you (for
instance) withdraw giving your opponent the game - unless that clearly
is a play that gives you less VP than you'd reasonably earn if you
played on, it's legal by the rules, and your opponent was legally
offering you a reward for your capitulation.
Yet again, strictly by the rules. You are of course completely entitled
to your own opinion about how disgusting or unsportsmanlike it is, as
well as how it SHOULD be handled.
> G
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy wrote:
>
> Offering someone prize support in the final round is, according to the
> tournament rules, not an out-of-game consideration as a bribe.
>
I can't see how you can say that.
I guess you need to give an example, because under the quotes below, it
should be pretty tricky to pull off without it being illegal.
5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the
game as stated in the V:TES rulebook ...
161. Cheating - Bribery
A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the results of a
game by offering inducements outside of the current game.
Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be
acceptable.)
All players involved in all affected games agree on the outcome.
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, talonz wrote:
>
> John Flournoy wrote:>>
>> Offering someone prize support in the final round is, according to the
>> tournament rules, not an out-of-game consideration as a bribe.
>>>
> I can't see how you can say that.
> I guess you need to give an example, because under the quotes below, it
> should be pretty tricky to pull off without it being illegal.
It's like this:
Player A is playing Kindred Spirits bleed and has 1 VP.
Player B is playing weenie Potence and has 1 VP.
Player C was playing something, but it doesn't matter because she was
demolished by Potence weenies
B makes a fateful decision to go forward and attempt to oust C, despite
being very low on pool. B torporizes all of C's minions and plays
Dragonbound. It should be just enough to oust C, then B can live through
A's bleeds and kill all the DEM bleeders and go on to win the tournament.
C unexpectedly plays Ascendance as her master and will survive the
Dragonbound damage. B despirately looks for a way to still win. She
doesn't think she can survive A's turn. "C, transfer out of the game to
give me your VP and I'll give you half my boosters when I win." It
becomes illegal when A responds with, "C, stay in the game and I'll give
you all my boosters and a brand new car!"
C, take the car. The DQ won't hurt you that badly.
Matt Morgan
talonz wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:
> >
> > Offering someone prize support in the final round is, according to the
> > tournament rules, not an out-of-game consideration as a bribe.
> >
>
> I can't see how you can say that.
> I guess you need to give an example, because under the quotes below, it
> should be pretty tricky to pull off without it being illegal.
*quotations snipped, because they're exactly part of what I've been
quoting all thread.
I'll try to explain more clearly:
Playing towards a goal contrary to getting VP (such as forfeiting
obtainable VP so you can achieve something else) is against the tourney
rules (5.2, as you quote).
Offering someone an out-of-game bribe is cheating (Bribery).
Prize support isn't an out-of-game bribe in a final round, it's a
validly offerable item.
Making a deal where you agree to play to give up obtainable VP is
cheating (Collusion), whether or not there is a bribe involved.
Keep in mind that "Cheating" covers several different issues - Bribery,
Collusion, Fraud ("They banned Govern last week, honest"), and
Stalling. It's possible to cheat in one way without cheating in
another.
Here's the example you asked for:
Let's say we're in the finals.
I have 1 minion and 20 pool. You have no minions and two pool. There's
plenty of time left, and no other players. Obviously, I can kill you in
2 turns and there's virtually nothing that can be done to prevent this.
If you say 'Concede and give me the last 2 VP', I would definitely be
violating the rules if I agree, because I'm giving up 2 certain VPs,
and that's not playing per the goal of the game. (Cheating: Collusion)
If you say 'Concede and give me the last 2 VP, and I'll give you all
the prize support', you are not illegally offering me a bribe - because
prize support in a final round isn't an illegal bribe. But this is
_still_ an illegal deal, (per Cheating: Collusion) because I'm still
giving up the 2 nigh-impossible-to-lose VP. Same outcome (we're
cheating), but I'm not violating Bribery yet.
But if _I_ say to _you_ 'I don't wanna play this out, I'd rather go
home 5 minutes faster - I'll give you one booster of the prize support
if you concede right now', nobody is violating any of the rules - I'm
offering you something that is explicitly a legal item to offer, and
you're making a deal that earns you exactly as many VP as you'd
otherwise have (0), so you're not violating 'play to the goal of the
game'. In this case, I've made you a completely legal deal offer.
And if I say to you 'I don't wanna play this out, I'd rather go home 5
minutes faster - I'll give you some of this meaty, meaty sandwich I've
conveniently wrapped in a twenty dollar bill if you concede right now',
we're still not making a deal that violates Cheating: Collusion - but I
_am_ offering you an illegal out-of-game bribe, so I'm violating the
rules per Cheating: Bribery.
(The sticky part, is that it's rarely so clear-cut when someone is
'giving up obvious VP' - as you're no doubt aware, table-splitting
deals are a very murky area. But that's a seperate issue.)
Is that clearer?
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk wrote:
>
> In tournaments of the size I run, for the entry fees that I run,
> nobody's getting 20 boosters!
> The maximum prize support is maybe 3 or 4 boosters, and you might get
> one less booster for going past 2 hours. It's not really that big of a
> deal.
>
I know. Obviously it depends on the size of the tournament and the
amount of the entry fee. It was an example, and I made the numbers
bigger because it made it easier to illustrate the point.
In any case, regardless of how you work things out, I'm interested to
hear if it makes a difference.
> And if I say to you 'I don't wanna play this out, I'd rather go home 5
> minutes faster - I'll give you some of this meaty, meaty sandwich I've
> conveniently wrapped in a twenty dollar bill if you concede right now',
> we're still not making a deal that violates Cheating: Collusion - but I
> _am_ offering you an illegal out-of-game bribe, so I'm violating the
> rules per Cheating: Bribery.
Mmmm, Filthy Lucre and Pork Products..... Delicious.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp