On May 18, 2:20 pm, thrill_kill_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The hungarian ECQ was held last saturday. Many foreign players came to
> our event and I hope everybody had a great time. Unfortunately, Peter
> Ducai, who was number 1 at the end of the 3 rounds, was disqualified
> because he had an incorrect decklist.
Congrats to Gyula!
Thanks for an awesome event lots of fun.
Notes for self for next year:
1) Getting Sensory depped, then Temptation of greater powered, then
Pentexed does not make for a good game or tournament. :(
2) Having your host feed you something called Palinka (which is
definitely a good substitute for rocket fuel if NASA ever needs one)
at 4am before the day of the tournament is also not so good for having
a good game or tournament ;)
3) Having the NC selling cards at 1/2 price, allowing you to find all
those little gems you have been searching for in vain for ages is
freaking fantastic!
In regards to the deck list thing, the way it was handled was perfect,
no hard feelings or ruffled feathers anywhere. Peter, good on you for
ownuing up to your mistake and not putting Tibo in a tight spot.
And the irony? Unbelievable. Gyula was the person who the last time
round got disqalled due to a deck list, and Peter won. This time the
exact reverse happened. Funny stuff........
Anyway, I had a fantastic time, and will recommend to one and all to
try and make a Budapest tournament if you can. The locals are great,
the food is wonderful (especially the salami) and the level of play is
well worth it.
See you all soon!
On May 18, 8:20 am, thrill_kill_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Unfortunately, Peter
> Ducai, who was number 1 at the end of the 3 rounds, was disqualified
> because he had an incorrect decklist.
Again with the Decklist DQ? Can't you guys come up with a better plan
than disqualifying people for what is in all likelyhood an honest
mistake? Like, if you are going to have decklists and going to check
them and punish people for having wrong decks, couldn't you invent a
less severe penalty? Like, if someone doesn't match a deck list check,
they have to put their deck in the order presented in the list, and
they lose 5 pool or something? Or have to buy a round of drinks for
everyone? I mean, really, DQing a guy after 3 rounds of play due to a
random deck check? Is this really necessary?
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well after making the same point at the time, it seems that the deck
list thing has come about due to certain people (known but not to be
named) starting cheating in an extremely outrageous fashion, playing
decks completely different to what they were playing the prelim rounds
to what they played in the final.
This is to me a fairly silly reason, as you can just ask everyone they
played with what deck they were playing, and if caught out, give them
a severe penalty (kneecaps are always good for cheating ;)
if the people who caused this situation want to cheat that blatantly,
just take them out the back and beat the crap out of them. I truly
believe that anyone who wants to cheat this badly, will. So remove the
desire.
All in all though, it was an excellent event. And please do not turn
this thread into a massive pro vs against deck list argument, start a
new thread.
On May 18, 8:20 am, thrill_kill_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi!> The hungarian ECQ was held last saturday. Many foreign players came to
> our event and I hope everybody had a great time. Unfortunately, Peter
> Ducai, who was number 1 at the end of the 3 rounds, was disqualified
> because he had an incorrect decklist.
Who was the organizer?
Who are the newly qualified players?
http://www.thelasombra.com/NAC2009/nac2k9qualifiedplayers.htm[ quoted text not captured ]
The newly qualified players are:
Gyula Erdos
Stefan Ferenci
David Wittmann
Martin Weinmayer
Rudolf Edlmayer
Ferenc Vasadi
Gabor Endler
Viktor Varga
Richard Farkas
Mark Virsinger
Csaba Greguss
Laszlo Koti
And the Organizer was myself, Peter Korsos
Sorry for the missing info.
On May 18, 3:48 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:20 am, thrill_kill_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> > The hungarian ECQ was held last saturday. Many foreign players came to
> > our event and I hope everybody had a great time. Unfortunately, Peter
> > Ducai, who was number 1 at the end of the 3 rounds, was disqualified
> > because he had an incorrect decklist.
>
> Who was the organizer?
> Who are the newly qualified players?>...
And what decks did the other 4 finalists play?
Regards, Ralf
================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
On May 18, 9:18 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well after making the same point at the time, it seems that the deck
> list thing has come about due to certain people (known but not to be
> named) starting cheating in an extremely outrageous fashion, playing
> decks completely different to what they were playing the prelim rounds
> to what they played in the final.
Well, ok then. If that is the kind of stuff you are dealing with, then
I guess DQ not completely unreasonable. Although, as you note below,
you could just break knees instead.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Additionally, I would like to thank all the fellow players from
Croatia, Slovakia and Austria for coming!
The finals were played by
Stefan (Tzimisce block) -> Gyula (Anson w. magnum) -> Rudolf (Ravnos
bleed) -> Martin (Tremere block) -> David (Pascek alastor)
Before the game we tried to tell what is going to happen, half vp for
everyone or a combat fest. The latter happened:) From the start Rudi
starfted to bleed heavy, most of which landed in David, as Martin was
playing with two dozen deflections.. Gyula had a very bed draw, so he
could do minimal forard pressure, while Stefan blocked and torporized
Pascek almost each turn. After some blocks, the cc+afb caused problems
for the tremere, and after about an hour almost everyone was down to
6-8 pool and almost empty vampires. Stefan as first seed tried to
maintain the balance, but Gyula finaly drew some cards to damage his
prey, eventually ousting him. With the additional 6 pool and ashur
tablet "activation" gave him the win.
Ferenc Vasadi
(who finished 6th with 2 GWs pff :D)
f.va...@chello.hu wrote:
> On m�j. 18, 16:14, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:>> On May 18, 3:48 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On May 18, 8:20 am, thrill_kill_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>> The hungarian ECQ was held last saturday. Many foreign players came to
>>>> our event and I hope everybody had a great time. Unfortunately, Peter
>>>> Ducai, who was number 1 at the end of the 3 rounds, was disqualified
>>>> because he had an incorrect decklist.>>> Who was the organizer?
>>> Who are the newly qualified players?
>>> ...>> And what decks did the other 4 finalists play?
>>
>> Regards, Ralf
>> ================http://extrala.blogspot.com>
> Additionally, I would like to thank all the fellow players from
> Croatia, Slovakia and Austria for coming!
>
> The finals were played by
>
> Stefan (Tzimisce block) -> Gyula (Anson w. magnum) -> Rudolf (Ravnos
> bleed) -> Martin (Tremere block) -> David (Pascek alastor)
>
Love to see all that fat combat and not a single dom stealth bleeder in
the bunch. Would you say that there was a low proportion of dom S&B, or
that the S&B was neutralized in this tournament?
best -
chris
Tbh I did not see any classic s&b, which seems to be disapeared for
some time now. Tap&bleed, dom/for powerbleed, and obt/dom noctruns are
the common bleeders now.
There are lots of combat tho, usually not rushers but bruise&bleed,
and recently lots of alastors.
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:696988e1-e180-4dc3...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
How about...DECK LIST VIOLATION:
1-2 cards: it was probably an innocent mistake. Wet noodle lashes to the
wrist for sloppiness.
3-10 cards: that's too stupid. DQ.
11+ cards, esp. a completely different deck: outright cheat! Run "the
gauntlet".
On May 19, 3:37 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> How about...DECK LIST VIOLATION:
>
> 1-2 cards: it was probably an innocent mistake. Wet noodle lashes to the
> wrist for sloppiness.
>
> 3-10 cards: that's too stupid. DQ.
>
> 11+ cards, esp. a completely different deck: outright cheat! Run "the
> gauntlet".
That strikes me as completely reasonable :-)
-Peter
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:7430f8f0-00b5-4ba5...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much though
I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork mistakes.
(And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) It would be possible to take
advantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this regard even by slipping
in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your deck: the odd Malkavian
Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste Lamontagne or something of that
nature. There are probably better examples. A Sudden Reversal could make
all the difference in the world against a Week of Nightmares deck.
At least, the referee should have the discretion to DQ based on what card(s)
magically "appeared".
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much
> though I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork
> mistakes. (And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) It would be
> possible to take advantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this
> regard even by slipping in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your
> deck: the odd Malkavian Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste
> Lamontagne or something of that nature. There are probably better
> examples. A Sudden Reversal could make all the difference in the
> world against a Week of Nightmares deck.
> At least, the referee should have the discretion to DQ based on what
> card(s) magically "appeared".
All joking aside, of what nature were the mistakes in this case ? One card,
a few cards, a number miswritten, or what ?
I'm totally against the "lose some pool" solution because it will unbalance
the whole game.
But yes, when the mistake is slight and no foul play is detected, maybe a
big warning and a rectification of the deck should be enough.
Orpheus, came close to DQ more than once because left neurons at home, never
tried to cheat (but anyway checking my decklist over several times prevented
any real damage so I suggest everyone with half a zombified brain to do the
same...)
On May 19, 4:25 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much though
> I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork mistakes.
> (And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) It would be possible to take
> advantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this regard even by slipping
> in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your deck: the odd Malkavian
> Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste Lamontagne or something of that
> nature. There are probably better examples. A Sudden Reversal could make
> all the difference in the world against a Week of Nightmares deck.
Sure, but as we have beaten to death in the last time this discussion
came up, if people are really set on cheating, they'll figure out a
way to cheat. Yeah, Deck List Checks potentially stops really
egregious cheating, but if you are going to catch someone switching a
Magic Bullet into the deck before getting deck checked, what is to
stop them from slipping a Magic Bullet card into their deck *after* a
deck list check? If someone really wants to slip an extra card or two
in their deck while they are shuffling right before the game? Gonna be
easy to do. Are you then going to check the deck before the game *and*
after the game? Then I slip a Malk Dementia or a Sudden Reversal in my
deck while shuffling, play it mid game, and palm it off the table
after I play it. Who is going to notice?
> At least, the referee should have the discretion to DQ based on what card(s)
> magically "appeared".
Certainly, having the judge being able to use judgement is a good
plan. But if your deck check results in your deck being 89 cards
('cause you lost one in your deck box and never noticed) or 91 cards
('cause you picked up a Haven Uncovered or Disarm by accident at some
point) or has Master A swapped out of Master B ('cause you changed
your deck right before the event and forgot to change your deck list),
people shouldn't be getting DQ'ed for this kind of thing. I mean,
yeah, ok, if someone has some really egregious deck discrepancies,
like they have 10 different cards in their deck, or all their Master
Skill Cards were swapped out for Sudden Reversals in a final with a
Week of Nightmares deck, yeah, ok, probably cheating.
-Peter
On May 19, 4:41 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
> I'm totally against the "lose some pool" solution because it will unbalance
> the whole game.
That wasn't really a serious suggestion, any more than the "break
knees" suggestion. But there is likely a viable penalty for having a
slightly irregular deck that does not result in being DQed from the
tournament--losing VPs or Game Wins or something like that.
-Peter
On May 19, 5:23 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 4:25 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much though
> > I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork mistakes.
> > (And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) It would be possible to take
> > advantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this regard even by slipping
> > in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your deck: the odd Malkavian
> > Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste Lamontagne or something of that
> > nature. There are probably better examples. A Sudden Reversal could make
> > all the difference in the world against a Week of Nightmares deck.
>
> Sure, but as we have beaten to death in the last time this discussion
> came up, if people are really set on cheating, they'll figure out a
> way to cheat. Yeah, Deck List Checks potentially stops really
> egregious cheating, but if you are going to catch someone switching a
> Magic Bullet into the deck before getting deck checked, what is to
> stop them from slipping a Magic Bullet card into their deck *after* a
> deck list check? If someone really wants to slip an extra card or two
> in their deck while they are shuffling right before the game? Gonna be
> easy to do. Are you then going to check the deck before the game *and*
> after the game? Then I slip a Malk Dementia or a Sudden Reversal in my
> deck while shuffling, play it mid game, and palm it off the table
> after I play it. Who is going to notice?
If it's as blatant as Malkavian Dementia, I bet someone'd notice.
-witness1
On May 19, 10:41 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much
> > though I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork
> > mistakes. (And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) It would be
> > possible to take advantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this
> > regard even by slipping in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your
> > deck: the odd Malkavian Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste
> > Lamontagne or something of that nature. There are probably better
> > examples. A Sudden Reversal could make all the difference in the
> > world against a Week of Nightmares deck.
> > At least, the referee should have the discretion to DQ based on what
> > card(s) magically "appeared".
>
> All joking aside, of what nature were the mistakes in this case ? One card,
> a few cards, a number miswritten, or what ?
1 Fiendish tongue and 2 deep song left out I think
On May 19, 5:30 pm, jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> If it's as blatant as Malkavian Dementia, I bet someone'd notice.
Well, sure. But an extra Sudden Reversal? When you already have some
in the deck? Or whatever? If people are going to cheat, they are going
to cheat, and they'll do it in whatever way gets around the safeguards
the exist to prevent cheating.
-Peter
> How about...DECK LIST VIOLATION:
>
> 1-2 cards: it was probably an innocent mistake. Wet noodle lashes to the
> wrist for sloppiness.
>
> 3-10 cards: that's too stupid. DQ.
>
> 11+ cards, esp. a completely different deck: outright cheat! Run "the
> gauntlet".
1 - DQ.
You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.
If people can't be arsed to do that one tiny thing to prevent most of
the half-hearted cheat attempts cold in the water, they can blame only
themselves. Honestly, it takes 5 minutes to aska friend check your
list. Or do it yourself.
Sure, sometimes someone gets an extra Disarm or loses one to a
previous deck they played against. Those are honest mistakes, which,
infact *can* and often do happen to some people. To some more often
than others, but I digress. Anyway, sure, it's up to the judge where
he wants to draw the line with such matters.
With the broad strokes, though, it's 1 or none at all.
". Are you then going to check the deck before the game *and*
after the game?"
No.
Before the final, check all the five decks and remain in the judge
table.
Than when the players make the seating order, the judge give it back
to their decks.
Simple procedure.
On May 20, 2:42 am, Brendon <interzo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No.
> Before the final, check all the five decks and remain in the judge
> table.
Which does nothing to stop people from changing their decks in the
preliminary rounds, if they are so inclined.
-Peter
On Tue, 19 May 2009 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 4:25ï¿œpm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> Actually, on further reflection, that may still have a problem - much
>> though
>> I'd like to trust people and not be DQing anyone for paperwork mistakes.>> (And easy-to-make paperwork mistakes at that.) ï¿œIt would be possible to
>> take
>> ï¿œadvantage of a forgiving penalty structure in this regard even by>> slipping
>> in one or two "magic bullet" cards into your deck: the odd Malkavian
>> Dementia or (for a werewolf deck) Celeste Lamontagne or something of
>> that>> nature. ï¿œThere are probably better examples. ï¿œA Sudden Reversal could>> make
>> all the difference in the world against a Week of Nightmares deck.>
> Sure, but as we have beaten to death in the last time this discussion
> came up, if people are really set on cheating, they'll figure out a
> way to cheat. Yeah, Deck List Checks potentially stops really
> egregious cheating, but if you are going to catch someone switching a
> Magic Bullet into the deck before getting deck checked, what is to
> stop them from slipping a Magic Bullet card into their deck *after* a
> deck list check? If someone really wants to slip an extra card or two
> in their deck while they are shuffling right before the game? Gonna be
> easy to do. Are you then going to check the deck before the game *and*
> after the game? Then I slip a Malk Dementia or a Sudden Reversal in my
> deck while shuffling, play it mid game, and palm it off the table
> after I play it. Who is going to notice?
If a card changes the game, and the decklist notably misses it, people
will notice. The winning decklist gets published in every case (in some
cases the finalist decklists as well), and the judge is present during
the finals.
However, the way I did it (and it may still be how it is done in Hungary)
is to not give back the decks to the finalists after the check, only when
they sit down at the finals table. There they get time to shuffle as
much as they please - and yeah, only face down. No stacking Concealeds
behind .44s. This prevents anything but actual sleight of hand to change
the contents of the deck. And even if someone manages - the above
paragraph kicks in. If it's a game-changing card suddenly appearing,
then yeah, it will be noticed. If it's a matter of changing a
4x Conditioning 5x Threats bleed module to a 5x Conditioning 4x Threats
bleed module - yeah, probably nobody will notice. But the change isn't
significant enough to warrant taking any extra measures to prevent it.
>> At least, the referee should have the discretion to DQ based on what
>> card(s) magically "appeared".>
> Certainly, having the judge being able to use judgement is a good
> plan. But if your deck check results in your deck being 89 cards
> ('cause you lost one in your deck box and never noticed) or 91 cards
> ('cause you picked up a Haven Uncovered or Disarm by accident at some
> point) or has Master A swapped out of Master B ('cause you changed
> your deck right before the event and forgot to change your deck list),
> people shouldn't be getting DQ'ed for this kind of thing. I mean,
> yeah, ok, if someone has some really egregious deck discrepancies,
> like they have 10 different cards in their deck, or all their Master
> Skill Cards were swapped out for Sudden Reversals in a final with a
> Week of Nightmares deck, yeah, ok, probably cheating.
On the events I ran I usually kept a "conscience deck check" option open
for the players. If they were unsure that the decklist is correct, I
would check it for them, and wouldn't even penalize them for it. Of
course I didn't have to do it frequently (I for sure wouldn't have
managed the time, had everyone requested it, even with helpers), but
it did happen couple of times.
We can argue whether requesting a deck list is a good thing or not. But
I think it is a reasonable assumption that every player should be able
to assemble a legal deck and (if decklists are requested) write down
the contents exactly as they are. We are talking about potentially 102
cards, many of which can be duplicates, so the number of entries can
be less than half of that on the average.
If using decklists is considered to be good for the event, then players
should invest an effort into complying with that request (just like
they invested the effort into creating the deck, or getting the cards
they use in the deck, or earn the entry fee for the event). I'm most
specifically not discussing here whether requesting decklists is a
good thing or not; my point is that assuming decklists are needed,
players should be expected to write them accurately.
That said, nobody here will penalize anyone for an obvious mistype (e.g.
writing 3x Ingrid Russo in a pure Gangrel deck that has 3x Ingrid
Rosslers and has no real use for Ingrid Russo will be definitely
considered as a typo and result in maximum a Warning). Having
functional changes, e.g. 8 x Majesty becoming 12 x Majesty is a
different story.
--
Regards,
Daneel
"Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f909e91-a148-4c8c...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > How about...DECK LIST VIOLATION:
> >
> > 1-2 cards: it was probably an innocent mistake. Wet noodle lashes to the
> > wrist for sloppiness.
> >
> > 3-10 cards: that's too stupid. DQ.
> >
> > 11+ cards, esp. a completely different deck: outright cheat! Run "the
> > gauntlet".
>
> 1 - DQ.
>
> You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
> If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
> that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.
Sorry, buster. I can be convinced by reasons. That's just bluster.
"Don't-make-a-mistake-or-ELSE" doesn't justify why there needs to be
this mistake-prone mechanic that jeopardizes everyone's tournament.
> If people can't be arsed to do that one tiny thing to prevent most of
> the half-hearted cheat attempts cold in the water, they can blame only
> themselves. Honestly, it takes 5 minutes to aska friend check your
> list. Or do it yourself.
I'm telling you, trying to do that without *EVER* making a mistake would
not happen for me. If I participated in such tournaments, sooner or later
I'd make a mistake. It's just too much minutia for the law of averages
not to catch up with me sooner or later. That may not be the case for
you. But everybody's different about it.
Fred
On 21 touko, 00:54, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message>> > 1 - DQ.
>
> > You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
> > If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
> > that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.
>
> Sorry, buster. I can be convinced by reasons. That's just bluster.
> "Don't-make-a-mistake-or-ELSE" doesn't justify why there needs to be
> this mistake-prone mechanic that jeopardizes everyone's tournament.
>
Yeah, but I'm an asshole, so I really don't need to reason.
If I'd feel like I wish to reason, though, I'd propably go with the
"See Frank overe there, Frank who won last three tournaments playing
Gangrel or was it Ventrue, or whatever the fuck it was between rounds.
Yeah, go ask him why everyone else needs to suffer. Here's a baton,
while you're at it."
People cheat. Opportunity creates a thief. Reduce opportunities, and
only the real sleazeballs end up cheating.
> > If people can't be arsed to do that one tiny thing to prevent most of
> > the half-hearted cheat attempts cold in the water, they can blame only
> > themselves. Honestly, it takes 5 minutes to aska friend check your
> > list. Or do it yourself.
>
> I'm telling you, trying to do that without *EVER* making a mistake would
> not happen for me. If I participated in such tournaments, sooner or later
> I'd make a mistake. It's just too much minutia for the law of averages
> not to catch up with me sooner or later. That may not be the case for
> you. But everybody's different about it.
>
> Fred
That's why I ask friends to doublecheck after me.
[ quoted text not captured ]
OT, but funny. There was a 1000 man LAN party in SA. In the entry form
the penalties for cheating were set out very VERY *VERY* clearly. Some
moron tried to cheat. The hilarious bit was when the organisers
confiscated his PC, threw the PC Box of the 12 story of the building,
and then had a competition for who could break his monitor using
nothing but boots....
Cheat. Die.
Simple, really.
I say bring back the guillotine. You cheat, your deck gets guillotined.
Oko wrote:
> On 21 touko, 00:54, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> "Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message>>>> 1 - DQ.
>>> You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
>>> If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
>>> that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.>> Sorry, buster. I can be convinced by reasons. That's just bluster.
>> "Don't-make-a-mistake-or-ELSE" doesn't justify why there needs to be
>> this mistake-prone mechanic that jeopardizes everyone's tournament.
>>>
> Yeah, but I'm an asshole, so I really don't need to reason.
>
Now see, that's a reasonable argument.
> People cheat. Opportunity creates a thief. Reduce opportunities, and
> only the real sleazeballs end up cheating.
>
I do agree with this more than the opposing statement of "if people want
to cheat they will, so we don't need any safeguards against it".
best -
chris
I am in favour of something like the following:
When you register you should have one shuffled deck ready and present
it to the organizers who take it and put it away at a safe place.
When everyone is seated, all decks are returned to each respective
player.
Between each round each deck is returned to the organizers (and kept
safely stored).
Same goes for final, decks are returned to the finalists.
There is only one problem with this in my opinion and that is the
logistics. How many people to collect and deal out the decks between
each round etc.
Apart from that, it has to be one of the better ways of making sure
players do not cheat.
Archie
On May 22, 12:07 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> I do agree with this more than the opposing statement of "if people want
> to cheat they will, so we don't need any safeguards against it".
No, no, it's "so we don't need any draconian, irrational, and
ineffective safeguards against it."
Different idea all together.
-Peter
On May 22, 4:30 am, Oko <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 touko, 00:54, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > "Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > 1 - DQ.
>
> > > You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
> > > If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
> > > that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.
>
> > Sorry, buster. I can be convinced by reasons. That's just bluster.
> > "Don't-make-a-mistake-or-ELSE" doesn't justify why there needs to be
> > this mistake-prone mechanic that jeopardizes everyone's tournament.
>
> Yeah, but I'm an asshole, so I really don't need to reason.
> If I'd feel like I wish to reason, though, I'd propably go with the
> "See Frank overe there, Frank who won last three tournaments playing
> Gangrel or was it Ventrue, or whatever the fuck it was between rounds.
> Yeah, go ask him why everyone else needs to suffer. Here's a baton,
> while you're at it."
> People cheat. Opportunity creates a thief. Reduce opportunities, and
> only the real sleazeballs end up cheating.
See this creates a gigantic dis-incentive (i.e. a reason not to) to
traveling to European tournaments for me. I play combat and combat
has lots of cards that go on other players vampires (Disarm, Pulled
Fangs, etc). I can't imagine traveling 4000+ miles then getting to
the finals of one of these massive tournaments only to spend 6+ hours
to get to the finals then get DQ'd for Joe Bob not giving me my Pulled
Fangs back.
"Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:500a8952-63cb-46ae...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 21 touko, 00:54, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "Oko" <Oko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > 1 - DQ.
> >
> > > You draw a line, and you keep it. No pussyfooting around it, once set.
> > > If you decide to force decklists, make damn certain everyone *KNOWS*
> > > that there will be no mistakes. Or else. Really, OR ELSE.
> >
> > Sorry, buster. I can be convinced by reasons. That's just bluster.
> > "Don't-make-a-mistake-or-ELSE" doesn't justify why there needs to be
> > this mistake-prone mechanic that jeopardizes everyone's tournament.
> >
>
> Yeah, but I'm an asshole, so I really don't need to reason.
Fine. Then there's no reason for anyone to listen to you.
> If I'd feel like I wish to reason, though, I'd propably go with the
> "See Frank overe there, Frank who won last three tournaments playing
> Gangrel or was it Ventrue, or whatever the fuck it was between rounds.
> Yeah, go ask him why everyone else needs to suffer. Here's a baton,
> while you're at it."
> People cheat. Opportunity creates a thief. Reduce opportunities, and
> only the real sleazeballs end up cheating.
Sure. The point is, you can stop people cheating without DQing them
for paperwork/brain-fart errors.
> > > If people can't be arsed to do that one tiny thing to prevent most of
> > > the half-hearted cheat attempts cold in the water, they can blame only
> > > themselves. Honestly, it takes 5 minutes to aska friend check your
> > > list. Or do it yourself.
> >
> > I'm telling you, trying to do that without *EVER* making a mistake would
> > not happen for me. If I participated in such tournaments, sooner or later
> > I'd make a mistake. It's just too much minutia for the law of averages
> > not to catch up with me sooner or later. That may not be the case for
> > you. But everybody's different about it.
>> That's why I ask friends to doublecheck after me.
In the long run, that's not a practical answer. You go to tournaments, you
know how it is. It's always rush-rush-this, rush-rush-that. "Get your deck
shuffled and your 30 counters counted out and get going! We're all ready!"
People don't really want to take time to do decklists in the first place;
most people sure as hell aren't going to take time to doublecheck their friends'
list. And if they do, you know what? My friend will probably miss the error.
Then what?
It's much easier to find a policy that doesn't go there ('there' meaning 'DQ')
in the case of a simple unintended mistake.
Fred
On May 22, 12:59 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 12:07 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
> > I do agree with this more than the opposing statement of "if people want
> > to cheat they will, so we don't need any safeguards against it".
>
> No, no, it's "so we don't need any draconian, irrational, and
> ineffective safeguards against it."
To be fair, Peter, reading the first 80% or so of most of your posts
doesn't give that impression (it's what threw me off earlier, at
least).
Not that people should be responding to just the first 80%, but when
it looks like a ramble about how [some] cheaters are always going to
get away with it, it looks like I'm not the only one who managed to
skimm over the part where you conclude that we should use totally
reasonable safeguards against blatant cheating but avoid harsh
penalties for people who probably aren't and not worry if someone
really did get away with some tiny infraction like adding one computer
hacking to his deck between rounds.
Which is to say, people who still think Peter's against any
enforcement whatsoever could go back and read like the last sentence
or two of each paragraph he's posting. (And maybe Peter could work on
reducing the amount of energy we expend getting there, but whatever).
-witness1
In article
<5b2ba22c-c4cd-4874...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Seirhune <seir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To be fair, Peter, reading the first 80% or so of most of your posts
> doesn't give that impression (it's what threw me off earlier, at
> least).
What, the ones where I indicate that I don't like decklists? It's true.
I don't like decklists. I don't think they are particularly helpful,
indications are that they cause more damage than they solve, and I have
never been to a tournament in my life where they were necessary or I
felt they should be necessary. All of this is true. I also said "If you
wanna use deck lists, go nuts."
> Not that people should be responding to just the first 80%, but when
> it looks like a ramble about how [some] cheaters are always going to
> get away with it,
Where have I ever said "some cheaters are always going to get away with
it?"
I said "if someone wants to cheat, they are going to cheat". Which is
true. And deck lists don't prevent this. Yes, deck lists can help
prevent one particular kind of cheating. But they don't prevent a
multitude of others. But in the mean time, they *do* often irrationally
punish people for innocent mistakes. Which is a problem.
Ya know what the best option is for preventing cheating? Say "Don't
cheat". And as a judge, be on the look out for people cheating. And when
you catch someone cheating, deal with them at that point.
> it looks like I'm not the only one who managed to
> skimm over the part where you conclude that we should use totally
> reasonable safeguards against blatant cheating but avoid harsh
> penalties for people who probably aren't and not worry if someone
> really did get away with some tiny infraction like adding one computer
> hacking to his deck between rounds.
And yet you are doing a good job here of articulating it, so it can't be
that difficult to suss out :-)
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
<f397f1a6-7a2c-4726...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Archibald Zimonyi <ar...@aranzo.netg.se> wrote:
> There is only one problem with this in my opinion and that is the
> logistics. How many people to collect and deal out the decks between
> each round etc.
Well, that, and you have to give your deck to some random yahoo who
might drop/lose/mangle it while you are eating lunch. And then one guy
is responsible for the personal possessions of a few dozen people. And
the logistics involved are completely unrealistic.
> Apart from that, it has to be one of the better ways of making sure
> players do not cheat.
Are the judges also going to dole out everyone's pool, and move
everyone's pool counters, and shuffle everyone's decks, and play
everyone's cards too?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> In article
> <f397f1a6-7a2c-4726...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Archibald Zimonyi <ar...@aranzo.netg.se> wrote:>> There is only one problem with this in my opinion and that is the
>> logistics. How many people to collect and deal out the decks between
>> each round etc.>
> Well, that, and you have to give your deck to some random yahoo who
> might drop/lose/mangle it while you are eating lunch. And then one guy
> is responsible for the personal possessions of a few dozen people. And
> the logistics involved are completely unrealistic.
>>> Apart from that, it has to be one of the better ways of making sure
>> players do not cheat.>
> Are the judges also going to dole out everyone's pool, and move
> everyone's pool counters, and shuffle everyone's decks, and play
> everyone's cards too?
>
>
At least there wouldn't be any cheating then.
Oh wait, you could bribe a judge...
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> In article
> <5b2ba22c-c4cd-4874...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Seirhune <seir...@yahoo.com> wrote:>> To be fair, Peter, reading the first 80% or so of most of your posts
>> doesn't give that impression (it's what threw me off earlier, at
>> least).>
> What, the ones where I indicate that I don't like decklists? It's true.
> I don't like decklists. I don't think they are particularly helpful,
> indications are that they cause more damage than they solve, and I have
> never been to a tournament in my life where they were necessary or I
> felt they should be necessary. All of this is true. I also said "If you
> wanna use deck lists, go nuts."
>>> Not that people should be responding to just the first 80%, but when
>> it looks like a ramble about how [some] cheaters are always going to
>> get away with it,>
> Where have I ever said "some cheaters are always going to get away with
> it?"
>
> I said "if someone wants to cheat, they are going to cheat". Which is
> true. And deck lists don't prevent this.
This is the part Peter that I have a problem with. I don't know if
Jay-walking is illegal in Ithaca or not. But it pretty likely is (you
know, crossing the street not at the corner and not at a crosswalk).
But I bet everyone still does it, even you. It's illegal here in Santa
Barbara, but a lot of people don't do it. Why? Because when you get
caught, it's like a $75 fine.
How does this example relate to VTES and decklists? Well, in a lot of
cases, people will "cheat" if there is no big penalty. But if you
create a larger more severe penalty, then "casual cheaters" or
"opportunistic cheaters" won't cheat; while those who are "dedicated
cheaters" will.
And that's where I feel like your argument breaks down every time. You
paint a picture of black and white, good and evil, a two sided coin.
Cheater, or not cheater. However, I feel like it's more of a continuum,
and you need to have some stronger penalties to prevent people from
casually switching out a card or two.
In other words, decklists and associated *reasonable* penalties will
keep casual cheaters from so doing.
That said, an auto DQ for 1 card or even 3 cards wrong on a decklist,
that wasn't checked in previous rounds is like giving someone the death
penalty for jay-walking - clearly an overreaction (even if one is an
asshole).
So, I think we are on the same page at the end; I just don't agree that
all cheaters are created equal.
best -
chris
librarian wrote:
> This is the part Peter that I have a problem with. I don't know if
> Jay-walking is illegal in Ithaca or not. But it pretty likely is (you
> know, crossing the street not at the corner and not at a crosswalk). But
> I bet everyone still does it, even you. It's illegal here in Santa
> Barbara, but a lot of people don't do it. Why? Because when you get
> caught, it's like a $75 fine.
>
> How does this example relate to VTES and decklists? Well, in a lot of
> cases, people will "cheat" if there is no big penalty. But if you
> create a larger more severe penalty, then "casual cheaters" or
> "opportunistic cheaters" won't cheat; while those who are "dedicated
> cheaters" will.
Nah. More like it's illegal to litter. But if you happen to have some toilet
paper stuck to your shoe and it comes off while you're walking past a police
officer, the officer is permitted to use xer judgment and not fine you the $1000
that xe could (as opposed to when xe sees you tossing a bag of old shoes and
coffee grounds in the park).
> And that's where I feel like your argument breaks down every time. You
> paint a picture of black and white, good and evil, a two sided coin.
> Cheater, or not cheater. However, I feel like it's more of a continuum,
> and you need to have some stronger penalties to prevent people from
> casually switching out a card or two.
No. He's responding to the picture set up as black-and-white. To wit: any
variance between decklist and deck results in DQ.
The continuum is what he's espousing: penalty in-kind with the infraction.
> In other words, decklists and associated *reasonable* penalties will
> keep casual cheaters from so doing.
One issue may be then whether DQ for meaningless typos is reasonable.
> That said, an auto DQ for 1 card or even 3 cards wrong on a decklist,
> that wasn't checked in previous rounds is like giving someone the death
> penalty for jay-walking - clearly an overreaction (even if one is an
> asshole).
>
> So, I think we are on the same page at the end; I just don't agree that
> all cheaters are created equal.
You end saying that you agree, but you paint the agreement as an argument the
rest of the message, so I'm not really sure where your point lies.
On May 22, 7:25 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> This is the part Peter that I have a problem with.
Here is the thing. I think you are conflating two different arguments
I have made, and really, they really only have a tangental connection.
They are:
A) DQing people for minor deck list infractions is preposterous.
and
B) Deck lists aren't really something worth using in the first place.
And I realize that I have been mixing these arguments in this
discussion, as arguments tend to be fluid. And I tend to ramble. But
that still doesn't mean that argument A is directly tied to argument
B.
Yes. It is true. I don't think deck lists are worth using. And one of
the reasons I think this is 'cause I don't think that most people are
going to be cheating in the first place, and I don't think deck lists
remotely stops cheating (it only circumvents some forms of cheating).
But this is all completely irrelevant in the face of argument A--if
you *are* going to be using deck lists (and I have said multiple times
"if you wanna use deck lists, go nuts"), they should be used sanely.
And DQing people for minor deck list errors is not using them sanely.
At that point, whether or not deck lists are a good idea in the first
place isn't an issue. They are in use. And being used inappropriately.
> I don't know if
> Jay-walking is illegal in Ithaca or not. But it pretty likely is (you
> know, crossing the street not at the corner and not at a crosswalk).
> But I bet everyone still does it, even you. It's illegal here in Santa
> Barbara, but a lot of people don't do it. Why? Because when you get
> caught, it's like a $75 fine.
Sure. But the $75 dollar fine for jay-walking does nothing at all to
stop shoplifting. Or speeding. Or running red lights. It does a
reasonable job of stopping jay-walking. But nothing else.
> How does this example relate to VTES and decklists? Well, in a lot of
> cases, people will "cheat" if there is no big penalty. But if you
> create a larger more severe penalty, then "casual cheaters" or
> "opportunistic cheaters" won't cheat; while those who are "dedicated
> cheaters" will.
Sure. Maybe they will. But I still don't think that *that* many people
are going to cheat even a little bit if they can get away with it.
'Cause cheating at VTES, even a little bit, is sad and pathetic. And
there is limited incentive to do so. And the gain from doing things
like swapping a few cards in and out of your deck tends to be so
minimal so as to not make even the small risk worth it.
Will some people cheat given the opportunity? Probably. But if you
boil down the factors, you get a really small risk for the game. You
need a situation where:
1) Someone is willing to cheat in the first place (not a huge portion
of players. Probably a reasonably small one).
2) The cheating being actually helpful (not a huge likelihood, given
how the game works--yeah, between rounds you can swap in a couple
cards that you think will help your deck, but then in the next game,
you might not sit in a seat where those cards remotely help you, and
you might not draw them).
3) The cheating not being noticed by standard means.
Unless *all* of these factors line up, the cheating isn't going to
have any impact at all, let alone happen in the first place.
So instituting invasive rules (i.e. deck lists--invasive in the sense
that it requires a not insignificant amount of extra effort on the
part of players and judges) to circumvent *one* kind of possible (and
unlikely) cheating strikes me as questionable. Will it circumvent this
one kind of cheating? Probably. But with significant added costs. That
I don't think are worth it.
But then again, this has nothing to do with whether or not people
should get DQed for minor decklist errors. If you *are* using
decklists? They should be used sanely.
> And that's where I feel like your argument breaks down every time.
Given your view of the subject, I can certainly see why you feel that
my argument (B) breaks down (should people be using decklists in the
first place). Ok. But that has nothing at all to do with my argument
(A), that people shouldn't get DQed for minor decklist infractions.
> You
> paint a picture of black and white, good and evil, a two sided coin.
> Cheater, or not cheater. However, I feel like it's more of a continuum,
> and you need to have some stronger penalties to prevent people from
> casually switching out a card or two.
Sure. That is a reasonable view. But again, I don't think *that* many
people are going to do this in the first place, even if they feel they
can get away with it. And of the people who will, how many of them
will actually benefit from it and not get caught by non decklist
means? I think the risk of this happening is small enough that it
doesn't outweigh the benefits of not having deck lists in the first
place.
-Peter
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:54:43 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> librarian wrote:>> This is the part Peter that I have a problem with. I don't know if
>> Jay-walking is illegal in Ithaca or not. But it pretty likely is (you
>> know, crossing the street not at the corner and not at a crosswalk).
>> But I bet everyone still does it, even you. It's illegal here in Santa
>> Barbara, but a lot of people don't do it. Why? Because when you get
>> caught, it's like a $75 fine.
>>
>> How does this example relate to VTES and decklists? Well, in a lot of
>> cases, people will "cheat" if there is no big penalty. But if you
>> create a larger more severe penalty, then "casual cheaters" or
>> "opportunistic cheaters" won't cheat; while those who are "dedicated
>> cheaters" will.>
> Nah. More like it's illegal to litter. But if you happen to have some
> toilet paper stuck to your shoe and it comes off while you're walking
> past a police officer, the officer is permitted to use xer judgment and
> not fine you the $1000 that xe could (as opposed to when xe sees you
> tossing a bag of old shoes and coffee grounds in the park).
Which pretty much covers the cases usually overlooked by judges (losing
a Disarm in a previous round; mistyping a card; etc.).
To use your example: how will the cop react, if he hears a thud from
behind a corner, and the next moment sees a surprised guy with a bag
of garbage dropped next to him, with noone else around?
Sure, he can conclude that the bag was dropped from above. Maybe the
guy dropped it unintentionally. Maybe the guy just looks surprised
because he didn't expect the cop.
You either issue the punishment on all transgressors or it loses its
deterrent value. Otherwise "using judgement" will be used as a
synonime for "applying the penalty when desired". So the judge's
friend has 10 minion cards difference. That other guy has 3 master
cards. Judge rules that master card difference is more severe.
It's a pretty big thing, to issue this kind of GL. Pretty radical
decision. Unless you apply it extremely consistently it will turn
far more players.
--
Regards,
Daneel