Food for Thought

How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard as you can when you know you can't oust them? Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? Do you do something else I haven't listed here? Which of these behaviors to you hate to see?

On Feb 11, 3:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > as you can when you know you can't oust them? Maybe. > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? Maybe, but if I "know I am going to be ousted" I am not doing this "to see if I can survive" -- which was your starting premise, I thought. > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? Maybe ... but again, given the premise, not for that reason. > Do you do something else I haven't listed here? Given the premise, I do whatever I please for whatever reason I choose. Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against, to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future.

On Feb 11, 3:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] This strongly depends on circumstance. If my prey or a crosstable player has gone out of his way to ensure my doom, I do what I can to punish that behavior. If it's just my predator doing his job really well, I'll make him work for every pool but congratulate him when he gets me. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you forgot one - do you transfer out to "show them". This is the one I hate to see. At least pool-sack FFS. best - chris

On Feb 11, 3:27 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against, > to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future. Do you think that will work? John Eno

In article <c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? I try to keep going and try to stay alive, but I'll try to not just give up on my prey if at all possible. > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > as you can when you know you can't oust them? More often than not. I mean, I'm not particularly likely to bleed my prey for 10 when I'm at 1 pool and unlikely to survive (unless the bleed of 10 looks likely to oust them), as that is just spiteful to the wrong person. But I find that I vastly prefer games where people keep their eye on the ball of "oust your prey" rather than "die last". > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? Only if it seems like it will actually do something for me. Like, if walling up and playing defensive might actually accomplish something for me, like staying alive till my super aggresive predator gets killed when my new predator will be less of a problem for me, at which point, I might be able to get back in the game, yeah, I might. But if walling up just means, in all likelyhood, that I'm still going to die with nothing, and I'll just die last? I'll keep trying to oust my prey even while playing more defensively. > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? If I think it will actually help, sure. I'm not a big fan of back ousting folks, but if doing so might actually improve my position (as opposed to me just getting killed by the next guy), I'm not completely opposed to it. > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? I'm often quietly irritated by players who, in the face of an aggressive predator, just wall up completely and do nothing to their prey ever again. Even in the grimmest situations, going forward into your prey, even a little, is worth doing. I'm often less quietly irritated by people who, in the face of impending death, spend a whole lot of time trying to con someone else at the table to help them stay alive, when it is completely counter productive to do so. All in all, I'd *much* rather die while trying to oust my prey than I would live longer as a pathetic wiggly little worm trying to keep my head above water and dying anyway. I think someone famous said something like that once, but much more eloquently... 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

[ quoted text not captured ] I hang in there till the very last second, trying to lie, bluff, threaten myself to some more time. Hoping to hold on until it can swing my way and I can oust my prey. Having played this game for many years have taught me that it can happen, which makes it annoying to see people transfer out.

[ quoted text not captured ] You forgot the completely stupidly moronic "I SELF OUST!!!1" behavior. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

On Feb 11, 4:15 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > > > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > > as you can when you know you can't oust them? > > > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? > > > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? > > > Do you do something else I haven't listed here? > > > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? > > You forgot the completely stupidly moronic "I SELF OUST!!!1" behavior. I didn't think of it. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] > I didn't think of it. :)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I try not to let anyone on the table realise that I think I will be ousted quickly unless it is so patently obvious it's rediculous. When everyone knows you're going to be ousted... Option 1: Stir up table-fear/hate and try to get my Predator crippled before they can oust me. Particularly good when there are some strong combat decks and a S-B or a "Vote passes by 27 votes - Voter Cap" deck. Option 2: "Apathy oust", you put up no fight and suck all of the emotional satisfaction out of it. It's almost like guilt-tripping them for playing such a cheese deck. But my preferred tactic is to talk like you're never going to be ousted until that last pool goes to the Blood Bank. Then drop the mask and comment about the game. If you've been talking nasty during the game this tells the players around you it was just game talk. The tactic I hate most is the "Self-defeating Prophecy" player... "I told you this thing would oust me! Didn't I tell you? You never listened... and I'm out of the game because you guys did nothing to slow this thing down..."

> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? It's a good but subjective question. If I think I have a reasonable chance of pulling off a recovery, I'll hang tough and duke it out. If I'm utterly boned by good play from my predator, I'll make him fight for every pool then die. I generally consider it poor form to throw myself against my prey, if all I'm going to achieve is soften him up for the guy who's about to kill me. If I've been ousted by cross table shennanigans, or have been the target of a spit-roast, I will throw everything I have at the guy I feel most "wronged" by. Excercising the spite impulse is cathartic. :) > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? I hate to see an almost ousted player tapping out and throwing himself against his prey, fully aware that he has enough juice to mortally wound, but not KILL him, thereby setting up his predator for 2 easy vp. jase

In article <4228f7e3-cd88-4a43...@o2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > It's a good but subjective question. Well, of course it is. But I think there really is a significant mindset difference in VTES players that can kind of be broken down into: A) The goal of the game is to oust your prey. If you oust your first prey, your new goal is to oust your second prey. And then maybe win the game. This is your main goal. If you get killed when you are trying to oust your prey, no big deal, as your predator was also trying to kill their prey, and they were just better at it that game than you. So play another game. B) The goal of the game is to stay alive, and hope you can oust your prey maybe. If you are getting beat down, wall up, beg, deal, wheedle, connive, and do everything in your power to stay alive, and hope that a window opens and you can strike. And I think that this particular discussion is kind of looking for the distinction. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] When you're ousted, you're ousted, so a lot of it does depend on whims. I usually try to hang on to the last pool though, for my subjective reason that watching the game continue as a nearly-defeated player is more fun than standing up and watching as an observer. As additional food for thought -- assuming you're on the winning end of the above relationship, how do you prevent your defeated prey from doing something stupid? How do you convince him/her to keep attacking your grand-prey, even when you know you'll make the oust next turn? and likewise, how do you make sure your grand-prey doesn't just lose hope and transfer out, giving six more pool to your prey?

If I'm at the point I know I'm going out (Predator is consitently able to bleed me for 4, and I'm on 2 or other such nonsense) I'll completely lunge my Prey, more often than not. The reasoning for this behaviour is simple: I've lost count of the number of times I've sat with a Predator on 2 or 3, with myself in oustable range, and prayed to all that is holy that they don't think to lunge me, because I'm tapped, without a Wake or Bounce to my name. Amazingly, often they don't, and I live as a result. I'd hate to let me live. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. Especially all you dorks that self-oust. Try not self-ousting for the next year. You'll begin to LOVE the game when you get some VPs off the self-oust that you would have conducted previously. It'll make you a better player, I guarantee. [ quoted text not captured ]

<headle...@gmail.com> wrote: > As additional food for thought -- assuming you're on the winning end > of the above relationship, how do you prevent your defeated prey from > doing something stupid? I don't care what my defeated prey does. I care what the NON-defeated player does. "Oh, but KevinM, who decides when a player is defeated? What if a player decides for themselves that they are defeated at 8 pool?" If you have a player who believes that they are defeated at some unreasonable stage in their game, it is your duty as players and friends to educate said player that he is indeed not defeated -- and why -- to ensure that the offending behavior doesn't happen again. Just like you would in any other situation with the person. > How do you convince him/her to keep attacking your grand-prey, > even when you know you'll make the oust next turn? and likewise, > how do you make sure your grand-prey doesn't just lose > hope and transfer out, giving six more pool to your prey? Education. Then Shame. And, if necessary and possible, Ostracisim. Unfortunately, our game requires 4 players minimum, so Ostracisim is rarely an option. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > I like this discussion. Like others have said, if I *know* I am going to be ousted and *know* that I can't oust my prey, then it doesn't really matter. If some player wronged me, then this is the appropriate time for spite. However, I feel like a lot of players think that they "know" they are ousted when they still have an outside chance - a cross-table Life Boon or Eagle's Sight or Consanguineous Boon. Or your predator doesn't look like he's in oust range, but your grand-pred pulls off the miracle lunge before your turn. Or you think that your predator will certainly oust you based on his reliable history of bleeding for 3 at 3 stealth, and he's come into an inexplicable drought. If you know the game's over, for sure, then do what you must. But if there's still even an outside chance, then *that* I think, is the interesting situation to discuss. I am all for back-ousting if necessary. In general, I will try very hard to not wreck my predator, and don't lightly do pool damage to him. Most games, I will go so far as to bloat my predator when possible - as long as he's no real threat. But if it's apparent that my predator is going to oust me, and his predator isn't much of a threat, then by all means I will back oust. A very aggressive combat deck is a prime target for a backoust, if I can't deal with his brand of combat. A heavy bleeder, likewise. Good vote decks don't seem to be as likely because if they're doing well enough to potential steam- roll me, then they've probably got plenty of pool via Minion Taps and Voter Caps. Though back-rushing is, of course, a good option. I have, at times, threatened to self-oust. Usually, I really don't want to go through with the threat, but if it comes down to something like saying "if my prey rushes my vamps into torpor, I will self- oust", and he actually does it... then, yeah, I have to follow through on the threat or else it's meaningless. I don't like to threaten this too often because, a) I know it's annoying, and I try not to be *too* annoying, b) I hate it when other people do it, and c) threaten too often and it loses its power. But occasionally I might say, "rescue me from torpor or I'll self-oust", because that's my only chance of reasonable survival. In that type of situation, if the methuselah in question doesn't rescue because of something totally reasonable (like, they can oust their own prey, or they help me in some other way, or they get totally tooled before their turn), then I can back down on the threat. Self-ousting completely out of spite is not something I like, because that has no chance of helping you. Threatening to self- oust might just get you some help, though if it doesn't, you have to carry through on the threat occasionally. Lunging forward against prey is only a reasonable option to me if *maybe*, *somehow*, *some way*, I can hope to oust them. Like maybe I have to draw into the one bleed card in the whole damn deck. Or maybe if I lower them enough, *and* my predator bleeds me for 2, *and* I draw into a Wake and a Deflection, then I get them... Or if I can get them down to 1 and hope that someone needs my votes to get their KRC passed... Or something. If there's no reasonable chance at all, then a suicide lunge has no point. Although if they've bloated up to like 20 pool, then I might do it anyway just to balance things out a little. If none of those are an option, then just stay untapped and hope to be able to block is how I usually do it. Try to last one more turn, and if that works, maybe one more after that... because 2, 3 turns in the future, the table could look completely different and maybe there's still hope... Oh, one other scenario - sometimes in a hopeless situation, just play as if it wasn't hopeless, to see how your deck flows, and hopefully fix it for next time.

> Well, of course it is. But I think there really is a significant mindset > difference in VTES players that can kind of be broken down into: Agree 100%. The "stay alive at all costs" tends to be a mentality most new players adopt shortly after they grow out of their "I <3 stealth bleed" phase. Which makes sense, because it's hard to try new strats and experiment with different cards when you're dead. But unfortunatley some folks never grow out of it. Reminds me of the time a few years back when I had a guy come up to me at a qualifier and boast that he was on 33 pool when the game timed out. I asked hwo many vp he had, he replied "none' and walked away happy. Baffling. I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described: Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve their own letter though :)

> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. > Especially all you dorks that self-oust. I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). But I think many self-ousters are guilty of declaring "all hope is gone" far, far too soon. I'm sure many of us have seen comebacks that are nothing short of miraculous in this game.

<jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust. > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway. [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5] There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport?? [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? Thinking about it, I usually go through 7 stages: 1. Shock and Disbelief: I recount my pool over and over. I look at my cards in hand, counting them to see if I'm missing one...the one that will save me. 2. Denial: I say to myself, "(Joe, my predator, whoever) won't bleed me. He's got HIS predator to worry about and he's down to 18 pool for God's sake!" 3. Bargaining: I then try to bargain feverishishly for more time by offering to be my predator's bitch for the rest of the game or to give him bennies in future games or just anything. 4. Guilt: I kick myself OVER AND OVER for influencing out that last minion. Or forgetting to bounce the bleed. Or being a generally bad deckbuilder. Or whatever. This usually overlaps bargaining. 5. Anger: I lash out at my predator for being so obsessive about ousting me. Why does he need to oust me so SOON?!? If he'd just wait a turn or two, he'd surely set himself up for the sweep! SHeeesssSH! 6. Depression: I SUCK!!! GAWD, I JUST SUCK!!! I SUCK SO BAD I CAN'T SUCK FOR SUCKING SO SUCKISHLY BAD!!! 7: Acceptance and Hope: Oh, well. Think I've got another deck in my box here somewhere. I'll do better next game. > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > as you can when you know you can't oust them? > > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? > > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? > > Do you do something else I haven't listed here? > > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? All these questions are really answered above - if you'd just look real hard and take several hits of acid. Fred

<headle...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d05e55fa-d44b-4c6f...@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > When you're ousted, you're ousted, so a lot of it does depend on > whims. I usually try to hang on to the last pool though, for my > subjective reason that watching the game continue as a nearly-defeated > player is more fun than standing up and watching as an observer. There! There's the one! I agree with that! Though I don't do it 100% of the time. Occasionally I'll be spiteful, if spite seems incredibly appropriate. I almost never transfer out, though. I can remember one time I've transferred out in the last 2-3 years and it wasn't a tournament game. And I felt horribly dirty afterwards. Fred

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:75ef701c-e3da-41f4...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com... On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > > I like this discussion. I always like multi-player game philosophy discussions. It makes it so abundantly clear that multi-player games, unlike 2-player games, are often more than just cleverness and winning and losing. They can enter the realm of the purely philosophical in certain ways. Fred

On Feb 11, 9:27 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > news:c5fc2784-2cf0-43bb...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > > Thinking about it, I usually go through 7 stages: > Very nice. And surprisingly accurate. I think I go through the same steps, although the Guilt tends to happen more when I'm "surprise" ousted. "WTF, why did I tap out with no wakes and no way to cycle?" "Why in God's name would I influence out a new vampire to bring me into perfect ousting range when that vamp can't even play any of my defensive cards? What an idiot!" etc...

> There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. If your position is truly lost, and self-ousting will more likely lead to a sweep as opposed to vp split, the math favours a self-oust. You'll get more points on a TP countback if you lost at a table with a sweep. The chances of you making/not making the final through TP countback are small-ish, but not unimaginably remote. I'd still consider that potentially unethical behaviour though. > Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at > which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive > in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you > make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport?? Yeah I thought you were talking about 3+ players left. Surely self- ousting with only 2 players left is a violation of play to win, no matter what your circumstances? If your plight is that bad, you can always concede as you say. A good recent example I can think of happened at our last tourney: Me (Tori vote, 10+ pool, Anson + Anneke in play) -> Craig (weenie Target Vitals, 3 pool, 7+ minions, no permanents beside Aranthebes) -> Stu (Dem Ravnos, 8 pool, Tsunda with The Rack, No Secrets, Heart, Leather Jacket + Ivory Bow, Callirus and some other minion) -> Jim (untested, never before played and (self-admitted) PoS Black Hand Assamite deck, 5-6 pool, 3 minions) 20-ish minutes to go. Craig lunges at Stu, 3 minions get binned by Tsunda to no real progress (i think Tsunda might have had to burn his jacket) Craig expends all his in-hand combat resources to do so Stu and I have non-aggression pact, which only becomes void when we each have a vp. Jim is sucking badly, getting hit with Obedience every time he bleeds. He has no Rush in hand. Jim cannot kill me. Jim cannot help Craig. Craig is hand jammed and lost a minion every time he tapped last turn. He has four options, as he sees it: 1) Rush upstream. He might succeed in binning one of my vamps (anson was on very low blood and had a Haven Uncovered on him iirc) and set Stu up for the sweep. 2) Sit and wait to die. He's on three pool. The next Grand ball I draw will spell his end. 3) Bleed Stu with all his minions, each hitting Tsunda for 1 (at best) and being torpored in return. 4) Self oust. Option 4 seems viable here to me. In fact, it seems to be the "moral" choice, since anything else he does helps his prey win (and would be quite boring to play through too) jase

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:18:05 -0800, "Kevin M." wrote: >There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the >mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and >actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. I can point to at least 2 tournaments where the winner self ousted to guarantee the tie (2/2/1) and thus won on prior round standings.

Chris Berger wrote: > On Feb 11, 2:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? >> > I like this discussion. > > Oh, one other scenario - sometimes in a hopeless situation, just play > as if it wasn't hopeless, to see how your deck flows, and hopefully > fix it for next time. I like this idea. best - chris

On Feb 11, 12:04 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? It depends upon whether someone stole the Storage Annex that I put Life Boon under or whether I drew one of the copies of Extremis Boon. > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > as you can when you know you can't oust them? Um, no. > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? As said by someone else, this seems to contradict the premise. Of course, one never knows whether one will be ousted or not. Weird stuff happens like crosstable Eagle Sight blocks, Con Boons, DIs, and drawing into one of the copies of Extremis Boon. > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? > > Do you do something else I haven't listed here? It's situationally dependent how I react when I think I'm going to be ousted soon. I may decide to try to wall up. I usually look for help from other players. I rarely build decks that can cripple my predator, so that's rarely an option, but I can imagine doing so if I think that gives me some chance of gaining more VPs. Of course, it also depends upon the game and the environment. In a tournament, I take into consideration what is best for my chances of winning the tournament. In a casual game, it depends upon how interesting the game was to play up until the point that I think I'm doomed and how interesting the game will be when I'm gone. In casual play, when I figure I'm a goner, I'll try to find ways to make the game for the rest of the players better. > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? I hate to see people not take into account how their actions or nonactions will affect the game for the rest of the players. In and of itself, transferring out, for instance, isn't bad. But, it's usually a selfish and unsportsmanlike tactic that throws games to one's predator by reducing the amount of resources the predator needs to use to get the oust and/or changing the timing of the oust to earlier than it should be. Also, it's often dumb since there are a ridiculous number of ways that someone can recover in this game. Similarly, any other extreme activity on the doomed one's part can make the game for the remaining players less enjoyable/fair/ interesting. Talking oneself out of a demise is reasonable. Sure, it can become annoying and can get really dumb when someone just becomes a tool, but it's fair and often not annoying. Not conceding is occasionally annoying in casual play. If the endgame is largely inevitable and not terribly interesting, then it's better to start another game.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:18:05 -0800, "Kevin M." wrote: >There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the >mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and >actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. I can point to at least 2 tournaments where the winner self ousted to [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, sure. That's clearly the correct play. I guess I was thinking more about the prelim rounds, and of course in casual games. [ quoted text not captured ]

> <jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > KevinM wrote: > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. > > If your position is truly lost, and self-ousting will more likely lead > to a sweep as opposed to vp split, the math favours a self-oust. > You'll get more points on a TP countback if you lost at a table with a > sweep. The chances of you making/not making the final through TP > countback are small-ish, but not unimaginably remote. What you say is *technically* correct, but pretty foolish given the nature of multiplayer games and our game in specific. I would very much suggest that, as I said in a previous post, if there are more than two players in the game, then players in bad positions choose to stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more time to assault him and therefore be able to help you. WHY WHY WHY would you self-oust, with options still available to you, unless you are a weenie-douchebag? And why would I want to keep playing with you, since I know you are just going to wreck the game if it doesn't go your way? That is the behavior of 6-year olds, people. I was 6 once. I grew up. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 12, 5:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust. > > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). > > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway. > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5] > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a mathematical advantage. First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self- oust in a social game. The situation was that my prey was playing a wall-intercept type of deck. It hadn't gotten too many VP's in the game, but it looked like it would get into the final table on the 5th spot. I had done very well with my deck in previous games, and my spot at the final table was assured, regardless of my VP's at this table. I knew I couldn't generate enough stealth to get past his intercept, and I'd probably lose minions trying, and ultimately lose the game - but I knew if I pushed it and went full-tilt against him, I could do significant pool damage - at least enough to make it hard for him to go forward and get VP's. My predator in this game was on the same number of VP's from previous games as my prey - but was playing a deck that I'd much prefer to see in the final table, and would have a much easier time of defeating if it was my prey. So, I had the choice of either holding it out til timeout (which is where the table was headed), leaving both predator and prey to toss for the fifth spot on the final table, or go forward as hard as I could to make sure my prey couldn't get another VP, and let my predator oust me, ensuring his spot on the final table as the fifth spot, and stopping myself from facing that wall deck again. Even though I admit that I was highly pissed off at the time that my prey was just playing to shut down my game completely - ultimately it was a strategic choice to self-oust. Needless to say - my prey in that game didn't make it into the final table, and my predator did. Although I still didn't win...

On Feb 12, 10:29 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > The situation was that my prey was playing a wall-intercept type of > deck. It hadn't gotten too many VP's in the game, but it looked like > it would get into the final table on the 5th spot. I had done very > well with my deck in previous games, and my spot at the final table > was assured, regardless of my VP's at this table. Oh, I should also mention that no-one else on the table was willing to help me out because of the effectiveness of my deck in previous games. They were all quite happy to see my deck nullified.

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... On Feb 12, 5:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. > > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust. > > > > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances > > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). > > > > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you > > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway. > > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5] > > > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. > > I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a > mathematical advantage. > > First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where > VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self- > oust in a social game. (description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to meet in tournament finals) ...which, I believe, was kind of Kevin's point. Not because of the "social" vs. "tournament" thing, but the way you've defined it, your advantage was indended to help your tournament position, not help your in-game position. I believe this would be illegal in a VEKN tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate game and considerations about tournament position are actually illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless. I think Kevin's point was more about self-ousting in a game to help your position within that game only. And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editting final opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. > > Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at > which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive > in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you > make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport?? possible legitimate situations to self-oust (assuming you have no reasonable chance to gain any more vps) 1) your grand predator has screwed you somehow. eg: 'but i _needed_ to play Domain challenge and bewitch, in case i drew into a Voter Cap...' when your pred has 0 tapped minions and you have 5. 2) Your prey, while taking no forward action at all, has played so defensively as to screw you. Often with lame excuses like 'there's nothing i can do to my prey because he once played a copy of card X, and i am screwed against X, so i will just torp all your vamps instead'. in situations like those, i am quite happy to show people why their actions suck, and make life harder for them via my death. having said all that, i do agree a lot of people seem to think themselves unable to gain any more vps a lot earlier than they should. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Feb 11, 10:18 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust. > > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). > > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway. > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5] > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. > > Unless we are talking about more than two players left at the table, at > which point you again should not self-oust, since a)someone has an incentive > in keeping you in the game, so you aren't "lost" yet, and b)why would you > make it easier for your predator to win, unless you are a bad sport?? I've been in a tournament game where a Life Boon was keeping me alive, but the math of the game made it impossible for me to actually win the table. The dude who Life Boned me couldn't offer anything for the VP i could have theoretically got for him (4-player, had my prey on the ropes, g-pred [1VP already] Booned me, pred playing a wall deck that i had *zero* chance against) so i self-ousted to punish the Life Boon player for bleeding me for a ton with Donatien just to play some silly Life Bone trick. Had i tried to tough it out, Donatien, my actual predator and the Life Boon could have ousted me at pretty much any time, so at that point i would have been fighting for someone else to get a VP and then get ousted anyway. It was a stupid game. -Merlin

On Feb 11, 8:54 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described: > Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion > scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True > Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve > their own letter though :) Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh, wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type and the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast. But really, in terms of relatively serious play, I find the major split is between, as noted, people who are willing to risk getting ousted if it means maybe ousting their prey (i.e. playing to oust primarily and taking claculated risks to do so) and people who are above all trying to stay alive at all costs (even if it means completely ignoring their prey). -Peter

> Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh, > wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type and > the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table > KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm > CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast. Whilst I have fallen into the former category more times than I can remember (remember no matter how stupid the trick, you can still win if you use weenies), the latter is general hysterical to discuss and horrific to endure.

On Feb 12, 11:58 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 8:54 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > I think there's a third group too, outside the ones you've described: > > Heavy combat players who measure victory not in VP, but in minion > > scalps taken. Prey/Predator/Cross table doesn't really matter. True > > Agents of Chaos, who live to ruin your sh*t. Not sure they deserve > > their own letter though :) > > Heh. There is also the "Lemme make this weird trick deck work! Oh, > wait. I didn't do anything all game and then got ousted..." type > See, now this I feel is totally reasonable. Especially in casual play, you want to try out some new ideas and don't want to just always play dominate weenies and dementation stealth bleed... Sometimes my crazy ideas don't work, and the deck blows ass. It's still fun to try, and if people are worried about trying something too stupid because it'll upset table dynamics, then the game as a whole doesn't progress much. Heck, the Assamite Anarch Death Star Cannon deck is a good example of this. It doesn't do much for most of the game - just breeds and bloats and doesn't hit its prey for much, and then ZAPPPPPP, 24 pool damage in one turn. Sometimes when you play one, especially if you didn't copy the deck verbatim and haven't entirely tweaked your version of it, it just sits around and then gets ousted. But it's still a good tournament-winning deck type. > and > the worst of all, the "I'm a crazy Malkavian! I'm going to cross table > KRC you and block you with Eagle's Sight, just 'cause I'm > CRAAAAAAAZZZZZYYYYY!!!!", which is always a blast. > See, I don't see that one much at all. I've seen the Malkavian Oust Backwards deck, but as annoying as it is to have that as your prey, it's not so much just "I'm CRAAAAAAAZZZZZZYYYYYY!!!!" as it is evil genius. It totally messes with table dynamics, and it doesn't win as reliably as just ousting forward like a normal human being, but it *can* win. As far as just stupid crazy Malks with the various "Everyone gains or loses random amounts of pool" masters - I just don't see them much.

On Feb 12, 2:04 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > See, now this I feel is totally reasonable. Especially in casual > play, you want to try out some new ideas and don't want to just always > play dominate weenies and dementation stealth bleed... Oh, I agree. I'm not trying to denigrate that kind of play, just throwing it out there as a factor. People have every right to experiment and fail ('cause sometimes thses things work spectacularly), but in terms of motivation, the "I really want this trick to work" often has a significant impact on the game around it. > See, I don't see that one much at all. I don't either. But I have certainly run across it (i.e. someone, like, cross table blocking a hunt and then shooting your vampire into torpor, just 'cause it seemed appropriate for the Malkavians to do that, or something. And it isn't always someone playing Malkavians. Some people just like being random and arbitrary more than they like trying to win...) -Peter

On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 12, 5:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > > > >> These are all excellent maxims that every VTES player should live by. > > > >> Especially all you dorks that self-oust. > > > > > I think a self oust is forgivable in certain, limited circumstances > > > > (when you can truly say that you have ZERO chance of a VP). > > > > I still don't think it is a good idea, since it starts a bad habit, and you > > > can just be a good sport and concede at that point anyway. > > > [http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec3.5] > > > > There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the > > > mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and > > > actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. > > > I've been in one of these situations where I "self-ousted" to gain a > > mathematical advantage. > > > First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where > > VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self- > > oust in a social game. > > (description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to > meet in tournament finals) > > ...which, I believe, was kind of Kevin's point. Not because of the > "social" vs. "tournament" thing, but the way you've defined it, your > advantage was indended to help your tournament position, not help > your in-game position. Well then, the Lasombra has stated the one reason, and the only other reason I can think of involves tables of larger than 5 (which can happen in socials). > I believe this would be illegal in a VEKN > tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate > game and considerations about tournament position are actually > illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the > time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless. Uh... I'd like to see that VEKN rule please. As far as I know, if you are unable to achieve a VP by any means, you may play as you wish (barring a few other motives, like bribery). This was certainly the case in that game as my prey had more permacept than I could stealth past, and was walling up against me, so had a minion to minion match, I was the only one playing votes (so no kills by Domain Challenges or stuff like that) - I wasn't playing dominate or auspex (no deflections of any kind), I wasn't playing untap cards like maj's or freak drives, etc, so couldn't swarm him, and he had more than enough pool even if I did manage to get a single action through (over 6 pool). As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to convince them. Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish, so long as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey). > And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editting final > opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances. How come? In this circumstance, it seems like a "mathematical advantage" in that it involves numbers and more than or less than situations. If it isn't, then what exactly is meant by a mathematical advantage?

On Feb 12, 10:18 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >>There *are* extraordinarily-rare cases in which self-ousting is the >>mathematically correct choice. If anyone encounters one of these and >>actually does self-oust to mathematical advantage, please let me know. Also, what about a situation like this: Meth A has ousted 2 players and is on 2VPs, he is playing a vote deck with no intercept and is on low pool. Meth B has ousted 1 player and is on 1 VP, he is playing sneak-bleed deck with Jost (+1 stealth) It's Meth A's turn - he is on 1 pool and has steadily been bled by Meth B. Meth A has only one vamp left to act. Meth B still has one blocker (other than Jost) untapped. Meth A has a Kine Resources and has vote lock. Meth B has 3 pool. If Meth A calls the vote, and it passes, he will oust both himself and the other meth, but get a VP out of it, putting Meth A on 3 VPs and Meth B on 2. If Meth A does anything else, then Meth B will oust him, and this will leave B on 3 VPs and A on 2. Hence, it's mathematically better for Meth A to call the vote that ousts himself.

[ quoted text not captured ] While technically, that's self-ousting, I don't think it counts. When I think about self-ousting, I generally mean transferring out. If you can oust your prey, and the only means of doing so also ousts yourself, I think most people would agree that you're almost always justified in doing so.

[ quoted text not captured ] > -Merlin- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - Heh, "Life Boned". Hylarious! Drain

"Salem" <kell...@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip description of situation] > in situations like those, i am quite happy to show people why their > actions suck, and make life harder for them via my death. The fact that you believe you will "show people" and "make life harder for them" via your death, instead of your living and pounding them, etc., is very disturbing. That sounds almost pathological. Ick! I would suggest that you Choose Life. Wear this big white shirt and you'll feel better, and be a better player. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:16bfc82f-cfcb-49b2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 12, 12:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> > > wrote in messagenews:70b89b44-d5ac-4f55...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > First, I'd like to note that this was in a tournament situation where > > > VP's over multiple tables count. It's much harder to justify a self- > > > oust in a social game. > > > > (description of self-ousting to select which opponent he preferred to > > meet in tournament finals) ... > > I believe this would be illegal in a VEKN > > tournament because you're supposed to be playing to win the immediate > > game and considerations about tournament position are actually > > illegal to use. This might be hard to detect and enforce much of the > > time, but I understand it to be illegal nonetheless. > > Uh... I'd like to see that VEKN rule please. As far as I know, if you > are unable to achieve a VP by any means, you may play as you wish > (barring a few other motives, like bribery). "Rule 4.8 Play To Win One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play towards 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 standings, etc.)..." Attacking a player out of concern that his appearance in the final (or favoring a different player for that reason) would be a detriment to your ability to win that different game would be another such example. > ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me > sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in > any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to > convince them. > > Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish, Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game rule in tournament play (4.8.). > so long > as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other > players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their > tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting > anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey). Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does. > > And, by the way, legal or not, I would not classify editing final > > opponents as a "mathematical advantage" under any circumstances. > > How come? In this circumstance, it seems like a "mathematical > advantage" in that it involves numbers and more than or less than > situations. If it isn't, then what exactly is meant by a mathematical > advantage? It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent..."). If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define "mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have had only 2.5 VP." Fred

On Feb 13, 9:36 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If there are any players from Blacktown Sydney from about 5 years ago, they will remember the Malk/!Malk deck nicknamed the "Self-Oust 9000". It's claim to fame was ousting itself on one of those "crazy random stupid Malkavian Pool" things... scissors paper rock for 7 pool... It often screwed itself against the wall and gave a sweep its predator... but it was the most amusing thing to have in the room because you would have no clue at all if the guy was suddenly going to get a giant fistful of pool or basically oust himself. Regarding tournaments, I am fairly sure you are allowed to consider things such as positioning for the final as part of your "Play to win" thoughts but only after you are basically assured that winning on the current table is very remote.

On Feb 13, 4:59 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:16bfc82f-cfcb-49b2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > > "Rule 4.8 Play To Win > One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play towards > 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 standings, etc.)..." > > Attacking a player out of concern that his appearance in the final (or > favoring a different player for that reason) would be a detriment to > your ability to win that different game would be another such example. Yes, I agree with you, but you are neglicting to take into consideration the first part of that rule, i.e.: Players must not play towards goals that CONFLICT with the goal of the game. Attacking your prey hardly seems to be a conflict with the goal of the game by any stretch of the imagination. For example, if the person were not my prey in this instance, but someone across the table from me, for instance, and I was playing a kindred spirits deck, then I'd agree with you that destroying his chances of a VP would be in conflict with the goal of the game. But it was not. The man was my prey. I was attempting to oust my prey (badly) and did what I could to maximise my chances of earning VPs and GWs - however my efforts were ultimately futile. Given that, I had the option of trying to survive for as long as possible (which wouldn't have been that long, and certainly not long enough to time-out) which would've given my prey in a stronger position - which is NOT a requirement of Play-to-win - or going out in a blaze of glory and ensuring that my prey would have a much harder time of seeing the final table. I did take out-of-game considerations into play, but it was a legitimate path to take without out-of-game considerations. The equivalent would be someone attempting to bribe you to win the final table. An out-of-game consideration that leads you on the same path as an in-game consideration does not constitute illegal play - only when the goals conflict and you choose to let the out-of-game consideration sway your opinion does it constitute illegal play. A thin line, to be sure, but a valid point nonetheless. In any event, as much as I'd like to get a ruling or judgment from LSJ on the matter, I doubt this is a case where a hard ruling is in order. Suffice it to say that it's a grey area, and in that situation, it's up to the individual judge to decide. That being said, I'd love to hear what LSJ would've done in that situation, if he had the facts in hand. > > ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me > > sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in > > any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to > > convince them. > > > Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish, > > Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's > deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and > gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On > the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not > the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game > rule in tournament play (4.8.). Again, false - I was not compromising my current game in any way i.e. I was trying to the final game AND the one I was currently playing. In fact, that seems to be what everyone is doing in this game. The goals did not conflict. > > so long > > as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other > > players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their > > tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting > > anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey). > > Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents > in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It > conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents > for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does. What if you knew your prey had a higher VEKN rating, and by ousting him, you'd get a higher VEKN rating than him - something you've been wanting to do as he's been lauding his position over you. Are you now NOT going to oust him because there is also an out of game consideration for doing so? Ousting him is IMO not in conflict with the rules of the game, even if your reason for ousting him was more because of the out of game consideration than the in game one - so long as the in game considerations are followed. Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside considerations is illegal. I don't think either is possible, given the way the rules are written at the moment. > It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively > perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent..."). > If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define > "mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown > with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have > had only 2.5 VP." This gives my prey 2 VP instead of the chance at 3VP and a spot in the final table. This gives my predator 3VP and a spot in the final table instead of 2 VP. My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has not. My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2 intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has none. Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey. Hence I'd prefer my predator on the final table then my prey. Hard numbers shown objectively. Although the first 2 lines are the ones that are really mathematical considerations.

The Name Forgotten wrote: > On Feb 13, 4:59 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:16bfc82f-cfcb-49b2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > In any event, as much as I'd like to get a ruling or judgment from LSJ > on the matter, I doubt this is a case where a hard ruling is in order. > Suffice it to say that it's a grey area, and in that situation, it's > up to the individual judge to decide. That being said, I'd love to > hear what LSJ would've done in that situation, if he had the facts in > hand. > > >>> ...As I've mentioned, the table, having seen me >>> sweep the last table very quickly, were not willing to help me out in >>> any way at all, and I knew it was pointless trying too hard to >>> convince them. >>> Given that, I believe I was entitled to play any way I wish, >> Sorry, the one doesn't justify the other. Knowledge of someone's >> deck and its efficacy is a totally fine reason to pick on them and >> gang on them because it hinges on winning the immediate game. On >> the other hand, what you're doing is trying to the final game, not >> the one you're currently playing, so that runs afoul of the win game >> rule in tournament play (4.8.). > > Again, false - I was not compromising my current game in any way i.e. > I was trying to the final game AND the one I was currently playing. In > fact, that seems to be what everyone is doing in this game. The goals > did not conflict. Given multiple choices that each meet the PTW criteria, the player is free to take any of the options.

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:af1a064b-02e8-4a9e...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] But you just changed your story from what I originally responded to. When I started out, you were talking about holding on until the game timed out vs. self-ousting. You worded it that way because Kevin's challenge was for people to find a way that would improve their positions by self-ousting. If your position was absolutely futile and there was no way you could hold on until the game timed out, then you're not really self-ousting and this doesn't address what Kevin was talking about. And consequently, that wasn't what you said. I quote: # So, I had the choice of either holding it out til timeout (which is # where the table was headed), leaving both predator and prey to toss # for the fifth spot on the final table, or go forward as hard as I # could to make sure my prey couldn't get another VP, and let my # predator oust me, ensuring his spot on the final table as the fifth # spot, and stopping myself from facing that wall deck again. I was addressing the situation you originally described; not the one you just presented in your last post. Had there been a significant chance you could hang on until the game timed out, then allowing yourself to get ousted in order to edit which opponent you would face in the final would certainly conflict with the goal of the immediate game: get the most victory points possible. Hence, illegal. (I understand there is an exception that if you win the game either way, you are free to win it however you choose - including with the alternate goal of editing opponents.) > > > so long > > > as I'm not bribed or coerced to do so, I'm not colluding with other > > > players, and I'm not targeting anyone on the table because of their > > > tournament standing or V:EKN ranking (if I was said to be targeting > > > anyone, it would be my prey, and you're supposed to target your prey). > > > > Those are just the examples they give. I believe editing opponents > > in the final is another valid example of something is not allowed. It > > conflicts with the goal of the game just like attacking opponents > > for their VEKN rating or tournament standing does. > > What if you knew your prey had a higher VEKN rating, and by ousting > him, you'd get a higher VEKN rating than him - something you've been > wanting to do as he's been lauding his position over you. Are you now > NOT going to oust him because there is also an out of game > consideration for doing so? Ousting him is IMO not in conflict with > the rules of the game, even if your reason for ousting him was more > because of the out of game consideration than the in game one - so > long as the in game considerations are followed. Sure, I agree with the point you're making. But notice the point *I* was making, which doesn't conflict: that editing opponents in the final falls in the same category of potentially conflicting goals as playing for tournament standing, VEKN ratings, and so forth. > Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove > that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or > you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside > considerations is illegal. I can prove it in your original anecdote because you _said_ that's why you chose that course of action. But you'll notice, I also conceded that in fact, it can very difficult or impossible to prove. In your original anecdote, playing to hand your predator a VP he wouldn't have otherwise gotten is very difficult to discern from poor judgement. So if that was your plan, you're probably fine as long as you don't loudly state your thinking to the table - e.g., "I'm sure I can hold on until time out but I'm going to uselessly expose myself to Phil to oust me so he makes it to the finals and not Sam." > > It appears to me that you're angling to gain what you subjectively > > perceive as an advantage ("I prefer this opponent to that opponent..."). > > If that qualifies as "mathematical", then anything does. I'd define > > "mathematical" as involving something objective that can be shown > > with hard numbers: e.g., "This gives me 3 VP whereas otherwise I'd have > > had only 2.5 VP." > > This gives my prey 2 VP instead of the chance at 3VP and a spot in the > final table. > This gives my predator 3VP and a spot in the final table instead of 2 > VP. Sure. But that doesn't actually constitute an advantage unless you add in your subjective determination that finals with your predator is an advantage for you over finals with your prey. > My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has > not. > My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2 > intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has > none. > Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey. Nope. Sorry - that's still subjective judgement. Not mathematical fact. Counting torped vamps or permacept in the current game doesn't prove advantage in a future game. There could be a million different kinds of mitigating circumstances. Fred

The Name Forgotten wrote: > > Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove > that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or > you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside > considerations is illegal. I don't think either is possible, given the > way the rules are written at the moment. > >> An illegal play is still illegal, regardless of proof. If you kill someone, it's still illegal, even if it is never proved that you did it (like OJ Simpson...) best - chris

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:04:31 -0800 (PST), XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > How do you, the players, react when you know you are going ousted? > > Do you go out in a blaze of glory by hammering into your prey as hard > as you can when you know you can't oust them? > > Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if > you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears? > > Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival? > > Do you do something else I haven't listed here? > > Which of these behaviors to you hate to see? #1. If someone went out of their way to kill me, I try to get back at them. #2. If everyone did their job, and I hold no grudge against anyone, I try to kill the wall deck. #3. If everyone played nicely and there is no wall deck I just play on as before and die trying to oust my prey / survive my predator. -- Regards, Daneel

librarian wrote: > The Name Forgotten wrote: >> >> Your position of this being illegal play is only true if you can prove >> that I chose a course of action in spite of in-game considerations, or >> you can prove that taking any course of action that has any outside >> considerations is illegal. > > An illegal play is still illegal, regardless of proof. And a legal play is still legal, even if someone begrudges the legal play and seeks to show it is (or have it judged) illegal.

On Feb 11, 4:36 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 3:27 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against, > > to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future. > > Do you think that will work? Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance) "everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued" is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck. But given the premise, how much justification do I need? It is a given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work" for me in the normal sense. For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with punishment). Do I think it will "work"? Not really.

Depends utterly on the game. I think I have transferred out once or twice, each time because the person who was my prey back rushed me out of existence "because in the previous game I could not do anything to you," this being the same game in which said person bitched and moaned that I was killing him. Sorry prey, thats my job. Before PTO got banned, I got cross tabled and Fatima was blown up. So I dealth with my pred, said I would spend 13 of my remaining 14 pool to bring her out and tool up again. I then nuked the cross tabler out of existence. Watching Arika, Queen Anne, Marcus and Lucinde go poof was very satisfying. I also ended up winning that game as i then managed to oust my prey via TitR and Fame (hey, I am just cycling cards with this K:Glory, ok?) by the time i got to my pred, i had 22 pool, 5 minons, 2 with assault rifles, one with a bow. He was kinda annoyed about the deal but took it philosophically. Usually I will try to turn whoever killed me into a smoking crater. If it was my pred, then less so. But prey/cross table screwings? "load the nukes Bob, we got ourselves a target." Just wall up and hope for death? Sod that....

[ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. I think that's perfect, that people are playing legally, until proven otherwise. This may have been a default position, but I'm not sure it's one everyone was viewing things from. best - chris

On Feb 13, 7:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:af1a064b-02e8-4a9e...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, I see. Sorry, my bad. You're right, I abbreviated my initial story too much. I wasn't going to make it to the timeout, but I had the option of trying (poorly). My prey was walling and going backwards where possible, my predator was given full rein to go forwards and oust me. I wasn't playing a defensive deck by any stretch of the imagination (it was a setite-baron reckless agitation vote deck). I can't remember too well what my predator was playing, but IIRC it was a big bruise/bleed deck. My prey was playing Imbued (hence the multiple minions with intercept). That aside, if I did decide to just wall up and I didn't go forward, my predator would've ousted me and my prey had a good chance of ousting his prey before the table timed out (as he was mostly tooled up already, and a round or three of no pressure from me would've given him ample time to stock up on convictions to go forward). > Sure. But that doesn't actually constitute an advantage unless you add > in your subjective determination that finals with your predator is an > advantage for you over finals with your prey. > > > My prey has blocked and torporised my vampires (2) and my predator has > > not. > > My prey has multiple minions with permacept (4 minions with at least 2 > > intercept), and an intercept location (1), whereas my predator has > > none. > > Hence my predator is an easier opponent to defeat than my prey. > > Nope. Sorry - that's still subjective judgement. Not mathematical fact. > Counting torped vamps or permacept in the current game doesn't prove > advantage in a future game. There could be a million different kinds > of mitigating circumstances. > Yes, there could be - some of those mitigating circumstances have a greater mathematical value than others (in other words, they are, by the most part, quantifiable) - Most of those circumstances are so minor as to be negligible. It comes down to odds. The odds of me winning at a final table were significantly higher if my prey were not present and my predator was instead. This is most clearly seen when someone is playing Imbued, which can totally wreck certain decks, eg. amaranth, agg-poke decks or, in my case, undirected 1-stealth vote decks with no intercept. Even if he was cross-table from me in the finals, he had rush (which my predator didn't) making him worse-off as a player on the table. And yes, I knew I'd be getting serious table- hate in the final table (which is exactly what I did get - I didn't get anything off the ground). It was a very one-aspect deck, that, in the right conditions, completely obliterated players very quickly - a couple of Reckless Agitations can do that to a table. I know some people say there is no such thing as an objectively better deck, and it's a big area of debate. I believe some decks are just objectively better than others, just like some cards are objectively better than others. Not to say that a better deck ALWAYS bets a worse one, just to say that the odds are better that it does. I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I just don't agree with it. A mathematical advantage does not need to restrict itself to the kind of iron-clad certainty you're talking about. If that's the kind of mathematical advantage that the original poster was talking about, then I can only say I misunderstood and it was a reasonable misunderstanding to make. (Much in the same way that my KRC self-ousting reply showed a misunderstanding of his point, which he then clarified).

> <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against, > > > to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future. > > > > Do you think that will work? > > Since I am only one player, my behavior > has minimal effect on the metagame. Perhaps in your metagame you aren't enough of an influence to change the metagame on your own, or perhaps your metagame doesn't include such powerful players, but when it does then yes, a single player, for a variety of reasons, can and does change the metagame by himself. > For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed > me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on > my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with > punishment). Do I think it will "work"? Not really. See, this is what I take issue with, the definition of "a no-win scenario". How are you able to take actions, cross-table no less(!), if you are in "a no-win scenario"? Aaaah! Gotcha! ;) I would very much suggest that, as I said in two previous posts now, if there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position choose to stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more time to assault him and therefore be able to help you. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think I have transferred out once or twice, each time because the > person who was my prey back rushed me out of existence "because in the > previous game I could not do anything to you," this being the same > game in which said person bitched and moaned that I was killing him. > Sorry prey, thats my job. If this was in a tournament, that player is not playing to win, and breaking other rules besides. Everyone heard him say "because in the previous game I could not do anything to you" so you then call the judge over and ask the game and your prey to be watched for non-PTW. No, this isn't outrageous. It is his prey who is being outrageous by wrecking the game and destroying the agreement we all have when we sit down at the table to play VTES. If this was in a casual game, then follow my other set of rules: Education. Then Shame. And, if necessary and possible, Ostracisim. > Usually I will try to turn whoever killed me into a smoking crater. I suggest *AGAIN* that: If there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 13, 9:14 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > your predator's enemies have more > time to assault him and therefore be able to help you. The second does not always follow from the first. -witness1

> "witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > your predator's enemies have more time > > to assault him and therefore be able to help you. > > The second does not always follow from the first. How does your predator being weakened not help you? [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:b718f2ee-4af0-4f0c...@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're > free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I > just don't agree with it. OK. How many Usenet threads would get cut to reasonable length if people just said that more often. :-) Likewise, I can see what you're going for: you just wanted to demonstrate that one can self-oust to some sort of distinct advantage in this circumstance. > A mathematical advantage does not need to > restrict itself to the kind of iron-clad certainty you're talking > about. If that's the kind of mathematical advantage that the original > poster was talking about, then I can only say I misunderstood and it > was a reasonable misunderstanding to make. (Much in the same way that > my KRC self-ousting reply showed a misunderstanding of his point, > which he then clarified).\ Truth be known, I don't even really know what it was Kevin was looking for when he used that phrase and I can't speak for him. I just know what his challenge meant to me. Fred

On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the > metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance) > "everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued" > is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck. I dunno, man. If someone who's in a losing position starts hitting me cross-table when I haven't done anything to them, I'll ask why they're doing that. And if their answer is, "Because I don't like your deck," I'm not likely to think, "Wow, I shouldn't play that deck any more." I'm almost certainly going to think instead, "Wow, the person who just did that is an asshole." > But given the premise, how much justification do I need? \ How much justification do you need to not be a jerk when you're given the opportunity to be a jerk? None, I hope. > It is a > given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I > will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work" > for me in the normal sense. Sure. But acting like a jerk because you don't like someone else's deck doesn't have anything to do with that. And I'd be very surprised if that works as some kind of long-term social engineering tactic in any case. > For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed > me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on > my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with > punishment). That's not the situation you had originally posited, and which I was asking about. John Eno

On Feb 13, 10:24 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > your predator's enemies have more time > > > to assault him and therefore be able to help you. > > > The second does not always follow from the first. > > How does your predator being weakened not help you? If I have no ready minions and insufficient resources to acquire one, no amount of damage to my predator is helpful to me. -witness1

On Feb 14, 8:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "The Name Forgotten" <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in messagenews:b718f2ee-4af0-4f0c...@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm not going to debate the point any more than that though. You're > > free to disagree. I understand your point and the logic behind it, I > > just don't agree with it. > > OK. How many Usenet threads would get cut to reasonable length if > people just said that more often. :-) Now that's something I can whole-heartedly agree with! 8)

On Feb 13, 9:07 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > See, this is what I take issue with, the definition of "a no-win scenario". > How are you able to take actions, cross-table no less(!), if you are in "a > no-win scenario"? I am simply working with the definition of "no win scenario" provided by the original poster, XZealot. I am assuming a situation where you KNOW you will be ousted, and you KNOW you will not oust your prey. In other words, you will NOT gain any more victory points. > Aaaah! Gotcha! ;) Think so? I can think of many circumstances where a player without hope of bettering his own position can still affect the outcome with respect to the remaining players. I never said anything to suggest that "cross table actions" were necessarily involved. > I would very much suggest that, as I said in two previous posts now, > if there are more than two players in the game, then you in a bad position > choose to stay in the game so that your predator's enemies have more > time to assault him and therefore be able to help you. You are assuming that I have hope. Obviously, if I have hope, I should do as you suggest. But this is contrary to the starting proposition, suggested by XZealot, which I accepted for purposes of discussion.

On Feb 14, 5:03 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 3:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Since I am only one player, my behavior has minimal effect on the > > metagame. But in the broader sense, the worry that (for instance) > > "everyone hates a dominate stealth bleeder" or "everyone hates imbued" > > is a factor that occasionally does effect a player's choice of deck. > > I dunno, man. If someone who's in a losing position starts hitting me > cross-table when I haven't done anything to them, I'll ask why they're > doing that. Why do you assume you have done nothing to him? I never made such assumption. At the very least, given XZealots starting assumption of "no hope", you have left your cross-table buddy entirely without hope, which suggests to me the possibility that you have not been a very good cross-table buddy. > And if their answer is, "Because I don't like your deck," > I'm not likely to think, "Wow, I shouldn't play that deck any more." > I'm almost certainly going to think instead, "Wow, the person who just > did that is an asshole." He cannot help himself -- that is XZealots starting assumption. If he has a choice between hurting you, and helping his predator (your prey) OR helping you by hurting his predator (your prey). Why should he take the latter option? Why do you assume you are entitled to his support? What have you done to deserve it? You can make up lots of reasons, of course. You can assume that you have been an excellent cross-table buddy, and now he is trying to screw you just because he is an "asshole". But such assumptions were not the basis for discussion. I merely suggested that a person without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself. > > But given the premise, how much justification do I need? \ > > How much justification do you need to not be a jerk when you're given > the opportunity to be a jerk? None, I hope. Why are you engaging in name calling. "Asshole" and now "Jerk". Just because someone cross table did not recognize some sort of (non- existent) obligation to help you win. > > It is a > > given of the hypothetical that I know that I will be ousted and that I > > will not oust my prey first. It is a given that nothing will "work" > > for me in the normal sense. > > Sure. But acting like a jerk because you don't like someone else's > deck doesn't have anything to do with that. And I'd be very surprised > if that works as some kind of long-term social engineering tactic in > any case. I never said it would "work". I am merely pointing out that, given the starting premise, I have no obligation to help YOU win, as opposed to helping some other player. The fact that you are calling me a "jerk" for refusing to recognize some non-existent obligation to help YOU suggests bad sportsmanship on your part. > > For instance, given a no-win scenario, screwing a player who screwed > > me cross-table makes lots more sense than trying to take vengeance on > > my predator (who is only doing his job, and cannot be deterred with > > punishment). > > That's not the situation you had originally posited, and which I was > asking about. What I originally said was "Given the premise, I do whatever I please for whatever reason I choose." Assuming I have no power to help myself, I have no obligation to help YOU win, as opposed to helping some other player. And if I know you are going to call me "asshole" and "jerk" for refusing to help you, this is going to make me particularly ill disposed towards serving your interests.

On Feb 15, 5:21 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Why do you assume you have done nothing to him? Because your post didn't make any mention of you going cross-table in response to someone hitting you cross-table first. It only mentioned you taking action against decks you don't like. > I never made such > assumption. Fair enough. It sure seemed like you did, given that you didn't mention any cross-table vengeance until a follow-up post. If that's actually what you meant ("Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate to play against, which has hurt me cross-table during the current game, to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future"), I'm happy to say that I wouldn't perceive such behavior as unjustified jerkassery. > I merely suggested that a person > without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly > try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself. No, you didn't. You suggested that you would expend resources cross- table to hurt someone because you didn't like the deck that person was playing. > Why are you engaging in name calling. Please note the use of the word "if" in my post regarding how I feel when people hypothetically mess with me cross-table, and note the fact that you've never done so. I'm not calling you any names. Relax. John Eno

On Feb 16, 1:33 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 5:21 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Why do you assume you have done nothing to him? > > Because your post didn't make any mention of you going cross-table in > response to someone hitting you cross-table first. It only mentioned > you taking action against decks you don't like. In the context of that particular example (which was just an example), I did not mention "cross table" either. If it is the sort of deck I hate to play against, and I am in a lost position, then playing against it has probably done something to me. > > I never made such > > assumption. > > Fair enough. It sure seemed like you did, given that you didn't > mention any cross-table vengeance until a follow-up post. Cross table vengeance was a different example > If that's > actually what you meant ("Perhaps I will hurt the sort of deck I hate > to play against, which has hurt me cross-table during the current > game, to reduce the odds that I will see that deck in future"), I'm > happy to say that I wouldn't perceive such behavior as unjustified > jerkassery. No, that was not what I meant. What I meant was, I don't need a reason to hurt you. Any conduct I engage in that effects the table will inevitably hurt somebody. Even if I do nothing, as opposed to acting, that choice will inevitably hurt somebody. Given that I MUST hurt somebody, I may hurt whoever I please for whatever reason I please. And that person may be you. I know that you would rather I help you, hurting other players in the process. I know that you will call me "jerk" and "asshole" if I do choose not to benefit you (hurting other players in the process). But I don't have to do that. Given that my position is lost I can lose in any manner I please. > > I merely suggested that a person > > without hope does not necessarily have an obligation to pointlessly > > try to screw his predator and prey, with no benefit to himself. > > No, you didn't. You suggested that you would expend resources cross- > table to hurt someone because you didn't like the deck that person was > playing. I said nothing about "expending resources" and -- in the context of that example -- I said nothing about "cross table" -- though I am not sure what difference it would make if I did. I have no idea what you mean by "expending resources". Anything I do effects the table, and I can as easily screw you by not expending resources as by expending them. Given that my position is lost (XZealot's premise), my "resources" have no value to me, and it seems to me I am entitled to "expend" them -- or not -- however I choose. Maybe my reason for hurting you is that I admire my predator's (your prey's) deck, and think that, having effectively destroyed me, it deserves to win. So I tap myself out, doing as much damage to my prey as possible, but leaving myself (and my prey) wide open for the oust by my predator. My predator (your prey) is thereby permitted to oust me before you can oust him, and takes my prey as well, gaining 12 pool on the turn before you would otherwise have ousted him. Or perhaps my reason for hurting you is that I don't like it when people assume that, when I am in a lost position, I have an obligation to help them, as opposed to helping some other player. Given the premise I can act for any reason or no reason at all. Get it? > > Why are you engaging in name calling? > > Please note the use of the word "if" in my post regarding how I feel > when people hypothetically mess with me cross-table, and note the fact > that you've never done so. I'm not calling you any names. Relax. The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me. You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs?

On 17 helmi, 06:40, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the > support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the > table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you > are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical > person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me. > > You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which > players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he > has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs? It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from it is considered by some to be "unethical". It also seems that hurting someone passively is more acceptable than hurting someone actively. The reason for these guidelines is that some feel that personal issues should be left outside of the table. Arbitrarily defining passiveness as acceptable removes the possibility of active king making and whatnot. Saying that someone who actively hurts another player when they're in a certain no win situation is a jerk is an informal expression of support for the above conventions. That's my understanding.

On Feb 16, 11:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the > support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the > table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you > are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical > person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me. It makes sense to me. Yes, you are in a lost position (that is the premise of the discussion here, presumably). But the default position of the game is that the people you are sitting next to are your opponents and the people across the table from you are austensibly your allies. Or at least not yet your enemies. So even in the face of a lost position, acting to hinder people cross table is, what we call in the business, a "dick move". Unless there is a reason for it. Due to the structure of the game. If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the lost position, presumably. So given that you are in the lost position, and probably have someone to blame for it (predator or prey, likely), if you want to arbitrarily hinder someone (or punish or spite), it should be someone that makes sense. Which is going to be either your predator or your prey, in all likelihood. Yeah, it is possible that someone cross table is the reason that you are in the lost position, and you cross table messing with them makes sense. But most of the time, not so much. So I'm pretty sure that John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that is a "dick move", which I would agree with. > You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which > players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he > has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs? There are people he is supposed to hurt, by default: his prey, and failing that, his predator. If he is hurting someone else? There needs to be a good logic for it. "I don't like your deck" doesn't really pass muster as good logic. -Peter

On Feb 17, 1:58 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from > it is considered by some to be "unethical". I don't know that it is a matter of "ethical" or "unethical". But it is certainly illogical. The game provides a structure of you you should "hurt" (predator and prey) and who you should not "hurt" (everyone else). Unless there is a specific reason and advantage to messing with someone cross table, doing so is a default bad idea. > It also seems that hurting someone passively is more acceptable than > hurting someone actively. I don't know that that is true either--you certainly should hurt your prey actively (so you can oust them). It is also often a good idea to hurt your predator actively (so they don't kill you so fast). But actively hurting someone cross table is not really acceptable in the confines of the game, unless there is a specific benefit to do so (and even then, it is often a bad idea anyway). > The reason for these guidelines is that some feel that personal issues > should be left outside of the table. That is true. And hard coded into the tournament rules (which is a good idea, but difficult to quantify). > Saying that someone who actively hurts another player when they're in > a certain no win situation is a jerk is an informal expression of > support for the above conventions. Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon, and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason? Not reasonable. -Peter

On Feb 17, 3:12 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either > your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very > effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the > lost position, presumably. From my experience, having a crap deck/player as grand predator is almost worse (and certainly more common) than having a very effective predator. Even if your grand predator isn't actively doing damage to you, they've got a rather big impact on how your situation looks. In the situation discussed above though, I don't think it's very nice to hit someone crosstable just because they're playing a deck type you don't like. If it's a deck that just tend to ruin the table overall it's probably more effective to talk to the player afterwards and tell xer not to play it again. And if it's a deck type you can't handle then it's probably better to adapt.

On 17 helmi, 16:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 1:58 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > It seems that hurting someone without gaining any in-game benefit from > > it is considered by some to be "unethical". > > I don't know that it is a matter of "ethical" or "unethical". Hence the quotation marks. But you get the idea. > But it > is certainly illogical. The game provides a structure of you you > should "hurt" (predator and prey) and who you should not > "hurt" (everyone else). I wouldn't take that for granted. You should hurt people if it takes you closer to winning. This usually means you should hurt your prey and predator but not always. [ quoted text not captured ] I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey. This is, of course, a matter of opinion.

On Feb 17, 9:41 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > Hence the quotation marks. But you get the idea. Sure. Was playing along :-) > I wouldn't take that for granted. You should hurt people if it takes > you closer to winning. This usually means you should hurt your prey > and predator but not always. As noted, if there is a good reason to hurt someone who isn't your prey, then it is worth doing. But we are specifically discussion situations where there *isn't* a reason to hurt someone who isn't your prey. We are discussing random/arbitrary abuse of someone cross table. For reasons that have nothing to do with getting closer to winning (as the person doing it is in a lost position, so there is no getting closer to winning). Given that the default position is "hurt your prey" unless there is a beneficial reason to do otherwise, it is safe to say that sticking to your default position is generally the logical path to follow. Which is why people look at arbitrary hosing of folks cross table as a "dick move". > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey. It is moving contrary to the default position. And thus illogical. Even in a lost position, hurting your prey makes sense, as it isn't arbitrarily helping anyone else that you wouldn't be helping anyway. It is maintaining the initial structure of the game. Hurting someone cross table when in a lost position is upsetting the default structure of the table. If there is a good reason for this, it makes sense. If there is not, it doesn't. > This is, of course, a matter of opinion. Everything is a matter of opinion. -Peter

aleks...@gmail.com wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no >> logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a >> lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon, >> and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your >> predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason? >> Not reasonable. > > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey. As long as you agree that it is reasonable for Peter and I to call it "a dick move" and possibly even calling you "an ass" for acting that way, I see no problem with your argument. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 helmi, 17:11, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many > > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish > > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see > > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey. > > It is moving contrary to the default position. And thus illogical. > Even in a lost position, hurting your prey makes sense, as it isn't > arbitrarily helping anyone else that you wouldn't be helping anyway. > It is maintaining the initial structure of the game. Hurting someone > cross table when in a lost position is upsetting the default structure > of the table. If there is a good reason for this, it makes sense. If > there is not, it doesn't. I don't recognize the same default position as you do. I play to win and hope that others do so as well. I only hurt a player, including my prey or predator, if it helps me win. This is my default position. > > This is, of course, a matter of opinion. > > Everything is a matter of opinion. > > -Peter But you do understand what I meant, right?

On 17 helmi, 17:23, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Well, if you mean "actively hurts another player who they have no > >> logical reason to hurt", then yeah. The default, even if you are in a > >> lost position, is "get your prey". So if you are in a lost positon, > >> and you spite your prey? That is just the game moving on. Or your > >> predator? Reasonable. The guy across the table for no logical reason? > >> Not reasonable. > > > I disagree. The main objective is to win the game or get as many > > points as possible. Hurting other players is just a way to accomplish > > that goal. If there's no way to win or get victory points I see > > hurting your prey as logical as hurting your grand prey. > > As long as you agree that it is reasonable for Peter and I to call it "a > dick move" and possibly even calling you "an ass" for acting that way, I see > no problem with your argument. :) For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me any good.

On Feb 17, 10:26 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't recognize the same default position as you do. I play to win > and hope that others do so as well. I only hurt a player, including my > prey or predator, if it helps me win. This is my default position. But we aren't talking about doing things to help you win. The discussion here is based in "I'm in a lost position". At which point doing things to help you win are irrelevant to the discussion. So you could, at that point, be a random berzerk element, or continue to play logically. And if you continue to play logically, randomly attacking people cross table continues to be a bad idea. -Peter

On Feb 17, 10:29 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any > good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me > any good. Hurting your prey always does you good. -Peter

On Feb 17, 5:07 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But we aren't talking about doing things to help you win. The > discussion here is based in "I'm in a lost position". At which point > doing things to help you win are irrelevant to the discussion. So you > could, at that point, be a random berzerk element, or continue to play > logically. And if you continue to play logically, randomly attacking > people cross table continues to be a bad idea. But how is randomly attacking your prey logical?

On Feb 17, 11:19 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > But how is randomly attacking your prey logical? By definition, it is never random to attack your prey. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Who's definition is that?

On Feb 17, 11:25 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Who's definition is that? The one that is inherent in the design of the game. Oust your prey. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I am sorry that you feel that way. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your prey. I don't.

[ quoted text not captured ] The goal is to win, not oust.

[ quoted text not captured ] We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no gain.

On Feb 17, 11:40 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no > gain. I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be *random* to attack your prey. Attacking your prey is the primary method of winning the game. It won't always be the best idea to attack your prey, no, but at no point will it ever be random to do so, in the way that it is random or arbitrary to attack people across table. -Peter

On Feb 17, 11:36 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > The goal is to win, not oust. And again, winning isn't part of the discussion here. The base assumption here is a lost position. Where winning does not enter the equation. So if you still have the capacity to do anything at all, doing it to your prey is logical and non random; doing it to someone cross table arbitrarily is random and illogical. -Peter

On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your > prey. I don't. The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey. Which is why you are restricted in who you can attack by default. -Peter

On Feb 17, 5:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be > *random* to attack your prey. Attacking your prey is the primary > method of winning the game. It won't always be the best idea to attack > your prey, no, but at no point will it ever be random to do so, in the > way that it is random or arbitrary to attack people across table. Your goal is to gain victory points. If you can gain them by attacking your prey, then that's the logical way to go. If you can gain them by attacking your predator, then that's the logical way to go. If you can gain them by attacking your grandprey or grandpredator, then that's the logical way to go. If you won't get to your goal, then any attacks (or non-attacks) will be random/arbitrary/spiteful/revenge/whatever. But they won't really be logical (in the sense that going for victory points are logical). Sure, it's semantics, but it's not less important because of that.

On 17 helmi, 18:48, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your > > prey. I don't. > > The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey. I don't share that perception.

On 17 helmi, 18:46, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 11:36 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The goal is to win, not oust. > > And again, winning isn't part of the discussion here. It is now. You seem to view hurting your prey as a secondary goal, correct? I view winning as the main goal and getting as many victory points as possible as the only secondary goal. From this position, hurting my prey would only be logical if it either gave me a game win or a victory point. If I can't reach any goals by hurting my prey it must be illogical for me to do so.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 16, 11:40 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: >> The question remains, why do you assume you are entitled to the >> support of someone in a lost position, just because you are across the >> table from him? It really makes no difference whether the person you >> are calling a "jerk" and an "asshole" is me, or some hypothetical >> person. Your attitude still makes no sense to me. > > It makes sense to me. Yes, you are in a lost position (that is the > premise of the discussion here, presumably). But the default position > of the game is that the people you are sitting next to are your > opponents and the people across the table from you are austensibly > your allies. Or at least not yet your enemies. So even in the face of > a lost position, acting to hinder people cross table is, what we call > in the business, a "dick move". Unless there is a reason for it. Due > to the structure of the game. Just to be clear. Being cross-table does not inherently oblige someone to make choices to support you over choices which do not support you (given the choice between two or more options that benefit the chooser equally). Choosing one over the other is not a dick move. There need be no reason for choosing the one that doesn't support you, just as there need be no reason for the chooser to make the choice which supports you. Due exactly to the structure of the game (which is: do for yourself; do for others if it helps you). Badgering a player to make one choice over another when neither choice is better for the chooser, with some argument based its favor to you (with perhaps some hand waving to seating position, alliances, and so on) is bad form. > If you are in a lost position, there is a reason for it; likely either > your predator is very effective at killing you or your prey is very > effective at not being killed by you. So that is how you got to the > lost position, presumably. So given that you are in the lost position, > and probably have someone to blame for it (predator or prey, likely), > if you want to arbitrarily hinder someone (or punish or spite), it > should be someone that makes sense. Which is going to be either your > predator or your prey, in all likelihood. Yeah, it's possible to add all sorts of other assumptions. But given the simple premise: "player in a lost position", the conclusion that the player should make choices to support cross table players is spurious. Even with the extra baggage, it sis still the chooser's prerogative to use factors such as retribution or spite (or not to use them). "Should make sense" is spurious, given that all of the choices under discussion are equal under the basic rules of the game (play to win). > Yeah, it is possible that someone cross table is the reason that you > are in the lost position, and you cross table messing with them makes > sense. But most of the time, not so much. So I'm pretty sure that > John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross > table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that > is a "dick move", which I would agree with. > >> You don't want him to hurt you. That's understandable. But which >> players would you prefer that he hurt instead? Why do you assume he >> has the obligation to choose your interests over theirs? > > There are people he is supposed to hurt, by default: his prey, and > failing that, his predator. Actually, he is supposed to get the most VPs among the players at the table and win the game. Whom he helps or hurts in the pursuit of that goal is up to him. If he is hurting someone else? There needs > to be a good logic for it. "I don't like your deck" doesn't really > pass muster as good logic. It passes as well as "spite my prey" or "spite my predator". That is, they're equal -- they serve the chooser as much as the other choices would.

[ quoted text not captured ] No. It could be simply one of the choices available to you in your lost position that do you no good. By definition of lost position, making any of the choices available to the player in the lost position does him no good.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 17, 11:40 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking with no >> gain. > > I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be > *random* to attack your prey. It sure could be. Indeed, it would be if the stated assumption is true (being in a lost position). From a truly lost position, every course of action available is "random" in the sense you're using the word.

aleks...@gmail.com wrote: > For the sake of clarity: hurting my prey when it doesn't do me any > good is as illogical as hurting my grand prey when it doesn't do me > any good. Correct.

On Feb 17, 9:12 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So I'm pretty sure that > John's (Eno) point was that if someone is randomly attacking him cross > table 'cause they are in a lost position and don't like his deck, that > is a "dick move", which I would agree with. That was the first half of what I was getting at, yeah. The second half is that, specifically because that kind of behavior is going to be perceived as jerkassery rather than as a reasonable course of action, it's going to be self-defeating behavior in terms of trying to accomplish its stated goal (ie, getting the person not to play the deck any more). henrik hits on more reasonable courses of action, even ignoring any kind of potentially alienating behavior and looking at the issue from a purely pragmatic point of view: On Feb 17, 9:26 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the situation discussed above though, I don't think it's very nice > to hit someone crosstable just because they're playing a deck type you > don't like. If it's a deck that just tend to ruin the table overall > it's probably more effective to talk to the player afterwards and tell > xer not to play it again. And if it's a deck type you can't handle > then it's probably better to adapt. I agree completely. John Eno

On 17 helmi, 19:20, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Even with the extra baggage, it sis still the chooser's prerogative to use > factors such as retribution or spite (or not to use them). "Should make sense" > is spurious, given that all of the choices under discussion are equal under the > basic rules of the game (play to win). Just to be sure, wouldn't it be legitimate to have some arbitrary convention to prevent acting out of spite as long as you're not trying to present it as a part of the official rules?

On Feb 17, 10:54 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17 helmi, 18:48, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your > > > prey. I don't. > > > The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey. > > I don't share that perception. What game are you playing? The object of the game is to win. The means of doing so is to gain VP's. The means of gaining VP's is ousting your prey. The easiest means of ousting your prey is bleed them, a default action which is provided by the rules. Looks to me like the game places some innate value in attacking your prey. How close that "attack" gets you to a VP may depend on the situation, but getting your prey 1 pool lower means they're 1 pool closer to defeat, and no matter how sure you are that you're going to lose, you never *know* 100% that someone won't do something to help you before you're ousted - unless you've looked at everyone's deck on the table and have them memorized and have calculated all the permutations in your head to know that you have a statistically 0 chance of ousting. Of course, if your chance of ousting is mathematically insignificant, then yeah, you're free to lose in a way of your own choosing, but that doesn't mean that trying to hurt your prey has 0 value whatsoever. Nor does it change the fact that by the rules of the game, hurting your prey is more likely to help you than hurting another player.

aleks...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17 helmi, 19:20, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Even with the extra baggage, it sis still the chooser's prerogative to use >> factors such as retribution or spite (or not to use them). "Should make sense" >> is spurious, given that all of the choices under discussion are equal under the >> basic rules of the game (play to win). > > Just to be sure, wouldn't it be legitimate to have some arbitrary > convention to prevent acting out of spite as long as you're not trying > to present it as a part of the official rules? House rule? Sure. House rules are always legitimate in their houses. 4CL? Go for it. No cheese? Sure. No cross-tabling? OK. No spite? Sounds great. That's the great thing about friendly games. They're so friendly.

On Feb 17, 12:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > House rule? Sure. > > House rules are always legitimate in their houses. > > 4CL? Go for it. > No cheese? Sure. > No cross-tabling? OK. > No spite? Sounds great. > > That's the great thing about friendly games. They're so friendly. Friendly? Not around here they're not. I think tournament games seem to be more friendly because there everyone's aware that you're playing cutthroat and there's no hard feelings. =)

On 17 helmi, 20:30, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Feb 17, 10:54 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 17 helmi, 18:48, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your > > > > prey. I don't. > > > > The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey. > > > I don't share that perception. > > What game are you playing? At least try to keep up with the discussion if you decide to be rude. > The object of the game is to win. The > means of doing so is to gain VP's. The means of gaining VP's is > ousting your prey. The easiest means of ousting your prey is bleed > them, a default action which is provided by the rules. Looks to me > like the game places some innate value in attacking your prey. You have a very different definition of "innate value". By using the traditional definition winning the game would have innate value while the means to do so would have extrinsic value. > How close that "attack" gets you to a VP may depend on the situation, > but getting your prey 1 pool lower means they're 1 pool closer to > defeat, and no matter how sure you are that you're going to lose, you > never *know* 100% that someone won't do something to help you before > you're ousted - unless you've looked at everyone's deck on the table > and have them memorized and have calculated all the permutations in > your head to know that you have a statistically 0 chance of ousting. The discussion is about a theoretical situation where there is 0 chance of ousting before being ousted. > Of course, if your chance of ousting is mathematically insignificant, > then yeah, you're free to lose in a way of your own choosing, but that > doesn't mean that trying to hurt your prey has 0 value whatsoever. > Nor does it change the fact that by the rules of the game, hurting > your prey is more likely to help you than hurting another player. If you have 0 chance of ousting or winning hurting your prey or any other player for that matter has 0 value.

On 17 helmi, 20:33, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I only asked because some wise guy brought up the legal aspect when the discussion was clearly about convention.

On Feb 17, 12:44 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17 helmi, 20:30, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 10:54 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On 17 helmi, 18:48, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 11:35 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Exactly. You (Peter) seem to place some innate value in attacking your > > > > > prey. I don't. > > > > > The game seems to place some innate value in attacking your prey. > > > > I don't share that perception. > > > What game are you playing? > > At least try to keep up with the discussion if you decide to be rude. > I hardly think it was that rude. I avoided mentioning crack pipes, as you saw... I've read the entire discussion, thank you. If you think there is no value in attacking your prey, then I don't know what game you're playing. > The discussion is about a theoretical situation where there is 0 > chance of ousting before being ousted. > And I'm saying that there is no such situation, so it can be ignored. The only time that there is 0 chance of ousting before being ousted is if you are being ousted *right now*, and thus have no chance to act in any way at all. If you have a chance to act, then you have a chance of not being ousted. If that chance is very, very small, then that is the situation being discussed - maybe in such a situation you're not going to attack your prey because it has so little chance of actually helping you. Maybe doing something else has more value to you, even if that value is external to the current game (punishing someone who hurt you, trying to see how your deck flows, being mindlessly random for the hell of it, whatever...), but that doesn't mean that attacking your prey has no value whatsoever. It's pointless to discuss what you are going to do if you don't have the opportunity to do anything because you are already ousted, and that's the only situation where hurting your prey has 0 value whatsoever.

On Feb 17, 7:55 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > And I'm saying that there is no such situation, so it can be ignored. > The only time that there is 0 chance of ousting before being ousted is > if you are being ousted *right now*, and thus have no chance to act in > any way at all. If you have a chance to act, then you have a chance > of not being ousted. If you can't imagine the situation which is being discussed, I think it's better if you stay out of the discussion. Whether the situation can come up in a game or not isn't relevant to what's being discussed at this point.

[ quoted text not captured ] Umm... I'll thank you not to tell me what discussion I can engage in.

On Feb 17, 8:06 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Umm... I'll thank you not to tell me what discussion I can engage in. It was meant more like a suggestion about how you should engage in discussions. But whatever...

On 17 helmi, 20:55, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I hardly think it was that rude. I avoided mentioning crack pipes, as > you saw... I've read the entire discussion, thank you. If you think > there is no value in attacking your prey, then I don't know what game > you're playing. I didn't say that there isn't ever any value in attacking my prey, innate or extrinsic. > > The discussion is about a theoretical situation where there is 0 > > chance of ousting before being ousted. > > And I'm saying that there is no such situation, so it can be ignored. Or discussed. > The only time that there is 0 chance of ousting before being ousted is > if you are being ousted *right now*, and thus have no chance to act in > any way at all. If you have a chance to act, then you have a chance > of not being ousted. What is the chance of not being ousted in a situation where: 1. Your predator just played an Antediluvian Awakening. He also controls Army of Rats. 2. You control Smudge with one blood. There are no other minions on the table. 3. Your prey has the edge. 4. Every player has depleted their library and hand. 5. Every player has 3 pool left at the end of your predator's turn. You are the only player that can make any decisions. None of those decisions will help you win or get points but they may help or hurt other players.

[ quoted text not captured ] Scratch that, you only have 2 pool at the end of your predator's turn and all the other players have 3

aleks...@gmail.com wrote: > On 17 helmi, 20:55, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> I hardly think it was that rude. I avoided mentioning crack pipes, as >> you saw... I've read the entire discussion, thank you. If you think >> there is no value in attacking your prey, then I don't know what game >> you're playing. > > I didn't say that there isn't ever any value in attacking my prey, > innate or extrinsic. Perhaps an parallel would help: In chess, there is no innate value in attacking the opposing king. Delivering check gets you nothing. It may even be a worse move than not delivering check. Now, sometimes (often, perhaps), the move that delivers check also provides some value for your winning expectations, but that doesn't come innately from the check. Check the king with an unprotected pawn from a space to which luring the king has no greater value than the king's current position gains you nothing. Ousting the king (checkmate) is the goal, not harassing the king. Likewise, ousting the most preys is the goal of VTES, not harassing a given prey.

LSJ wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> We're not talking about ousting. We're talking about attacking >>> with no gain. >> >> I think we are quibbling over semantics here. It will never be >> *random* to attack your prey. > > It sure could be. Indeed, it would be if the stated assumption is > true (being in a lost position). > > From a truly lost position, every course of action available is > "random" in the sense you're using the word. Scott, what do you do in a "truly lost" position? Do you act in such a way that it has some kind of in-game rationality? Do you act such that PEter and I would call it a dick move? Or do you choose some other way? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > It is now. You seem to view hurting your prey as a secondary goal, > correct? Hurting your prey is the main way to win the game. Once and a while, you will be able to win in some other wacky way. But the vast majority of the time? You go after your prey. That is how the game is structured. And that is how the game works. > I view winning as the main goal and getting as many victory > points as possible as the only secondary goal. From this position, > hurting my prey would only be logical if it either gave me a game win > or a victory point. If I can't reach any goals by hurting my prey it > must be illogical for me to do so. The point at hand was "is it more or less logical to attack someone across the table arbitrarily than it is to attack your prey, when you are in a lost position". I would claim that it is considerably less logical to attack someone across table arbitrarily than it is your prey. Even if you can't win or gain more VPs by doing so. Due to the inherent structure of the game. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1520bb15-1830-459c...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > It is now. You seem to view hurting your prey as a secondary goal, > > correct? > > Hurting your prey is the main way to win the game. That statement is not completely correct, as written. If you considered that you could hurt your prey by playing a card which reduced the bleed of all of his minions by one while giving him 20 more pool or something along these lines, this wouldn't be something that would win you the game. OK, maybe excepting a Slaughterhouse/Brinksmanship type deck. If you eliminated those two cards from the game, you should be able to get my point. There is a subtle but definite distinction between hurting your prey and (the first required step in) winning the game. ... > The point at hand was "is it more or less logical to attack someone > across the table arbitrarily than it is to attack your prey, when you > are in a lost position". I would claim that it is considerably less > logical to attack someone across table arbitrarily than it is your > prey. Even if you can't win or gain more VPs by doing so. Due to the > inherent structure of the game. I agree with the people who say that if you can consider a position "lost", there is no logical attack to make by definition. Any inherent 'logic' has broken down so you may do as you please, at least, for these purposes. This is why lost positions have such a chaotic and often negative potential to affect multiplayer games. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > Scott, what do you do in a "truly lost" position? Lose. > Do you act in such a way that it has some kind of in-game rationality? Do > you act such that PEter and I would call it a dick move? Or do you choose > some other way? I continue to play through the mechanics of the game. This often involves making decisions. And these decisions often affect the balance of power among the other players. Sometimes these are to the benefit of my prey, sometimes my predator, and sometimes other players. I don't really have a set-in-stone script for what to do in a lost position (my plannings tend to be of the not getting myself into a lost position in the first place kind).

On Feb 17, 4:38 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > Scott, what do you do in a "truly lost" position? > > Lose. Best answer evar. -witness1

On 17 helmi, 23:22, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > It is now. You seem to view hurting your prey as a secondary goal, > > correct? > > Hurting your prey is the main way to win the game. Once and a while, > you will be able to win in some other wacky way. But the vast majority > of the time? You go after your prey. That is how the game is > structured. And that is how the game works. No it isn't. That's a simplistic model of a complex system based on vague trends. You can't expect to come to logical conclusions with it. > > I view winning as the main goal and getting as many victory > > points as possible as the only secondary goal. From this position, > > hurting my prey would only be logical if it either gave me a game win > > or a victory point. If I can't reach any goals by hurting my prey it > > must be illogical for me to do so. > > The point at hand was "is it more or less logical to attack someone > across the table arbitrarily than it is to attack your prey, when you > are in a lost position". I would claim that it is considerably less > logical to attack someone across table arbitrarily than it is your > prey. Even if you can't win or gain more VPs by doing so. Due to the > inherent structure of the game. > > -Peter You might call it less intuitive but not less logical.

On Feb 17, 1:40 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > What is the chance of not being ousted in a situation where: > 1. Your predator just played an Antediluvian Awakening. He also > controls Army of Rats. > 2. You control Smudge with one blood. There are no other minions on > the table. > 3. Your prey has the edge. > 4. Every player has depleted their library and hand. > 5. Every player has 3 pool left at the end of your predator's turn. > > You are the only player that can make any decisions. None of those > decisions will help you win or get points but they may help or hurt > other players. The odds of you not being ousted are less likely than the odds of that situation ever occuring, I'd wager. You prey might transfer out, your predator might have a massive coronary before your turn, causing the game to time out, your grand-prey might turn out to have been cheating and have a handful of cards up his sleeve which allows him to Malkavian Dementia the 2-cap Malk that your prey just brought out and use him to Kindred Spirits-bleed your predator, while no one calls him out on his cheating because they want your predator ousted... who knows? Granted, none of your own actual actions or decisions in this circumstance will have any bearing on the game (with the possible exception of transferring out), but there still is a just slightly barely greater than 0 chance of surviving. More importantly, I don't think the original question or most of the thread that's followed has anything to do with mathematically impossible chances of winning when you know what's in everyone's hand and deck, particularly as evidenced by questions like "Do you go into a defensive posture to shore up your position to see if you can survive until the opportunity to oust your prey appears?" and "Do you try to cripple your predator to ensure your survival?" The question was what do you do when you "know" you are going to be ousted, but since it will never occur that you are 100% guaranteed to be ousted (and because of the qualifying questions), I feel it *has* to be read as what do you do when you believe your chance of not being ousted is less than 1%, or when you are "virtually" certain that you will be ousted. And I contend that in some (not ALL, just SOME) of those cases, the best way to proceed is to hurt your prey, because hurting your prey is (indirectly, if you must) how you win the game, and acting within that context might just help you maximize your 1% or .1% or .01% chance of winning. A bleed against your prey, if it's an option that's open to you, has to be considered as a reasonable option, because there *is* value in bleeding your prey, even if you contend that it's not intrinsic value. It could increase your chance of victory from, say .01% to . 02%. Or it could be useful in a metagame sense, either because you are seen as the type of player who always goes forward (seen as a positive value, usually), or to add to the surprise value when you randomly kick someone in the nuts cross-table the next time you are boned.

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > No it isn't. That's a simplistic model of a complex system based on > vague trends. You can't expect to come to logical conclusions with it. So you are saying that the vast majority of the time, you win by *not* attacking your prey? I'm not seeing the "vague trends" here. From many many years of VTES play, the trends look pretty not vague; you attack your prey, you go towards winning, far, far more often than not. Nothing vague at all. Situations where you do something other than attack your prey and move towards victory are the small number of exceptions. Not the rule. Not even close. The number of times I have seen someone win the game by doing something other than attacking (and by "attacking" I mean "using resources to weaken with the intention of ousting them") their prey? Very, very small. > You might call it less intuitive but not less logical. No, I'd call it less logical. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: >> No it isn't. That's a simplistic model of a complex system based on >> vague trends. You can't expect to come to logical conclusions with it. > > So you are saying that the vast majority of the time, you win by *not* > attacking your prey? Clearly, that is not what he is saying.

On Feb 17, 6:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Clearly, that is not what he is saying. Gosh, ya think? -Peter

On Feb 17, 4:35 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > That statement is not completely correct, as written. "Hurting" is a vague word, I agree. If you take "hurting" to mean "expend resources to weaken your prey with the intention of trying to oust them", does that work better? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] So you're saying you're deliberately misinterpreting his words?

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:906dc654-6bb1-4253...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, it's not the intent that's as important as the effect, so "weaken your prey's ability to withstand being ousted", something along those lines would be fine. But I think that distinction is the whole bone of contention here unless I'm misunderstanding something. Fred

On 18 helmi, 01:35, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > A bleed against your prey, if it's an option that's open to you, has > to be considered as a reasonable option, because there *is* value in > bleeding your prey, even if you contend that it's not intrinsic > value. It could increase your chance of victory from, say .01% to . > 02%. I would say *can be* instead of *is*. Just like there can be value in any imaginable action, completely depending on the situation. If we're extending the discussion beyond a no hope situation I'd argue that trying to back oust and possibly making some sort of a deal with your grand predator will more often save your neck and increase your chances of winning than going forward. > Or it could be useful in a metagame sense, either because you > are seen as the type of player who always goes forward (seen as a > positive value, usually), As a prey of said player I'd just be more inclined to help him get ousted. As a predator I'd be pleased but just as inclined to oust him as any other player. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Berger wrote: > 02%. Or it could be useful in a metagame sense, either because you > are seen as the type of player who always goes forward (seen as a > positive value, usually), or to add to the surprise value when you > randomly kick someone in the nuts cross-table the next time you are > boned. You know, this might be the meat of Norm's original question. Is it actually seen as a positive value in a metagame sense to be a forward player, a waller-upper, or a x-table thrasher? I think that one's own sense of what is positive pushes you to behave in that manner. best - chris

On 18 helmi, 01:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > No it isn't. That's a simplistic model of a complex system based on > > vague trends. You can't expect to come to logical conclusions with it. > > So you are saying that the vast majority of the time, you win by *not* > attacking your prey? Nope. What I said is that V:TES is so complex that conclusions based on the careful analysis of the current game state are *significantly* more accurate and useful than conclusions based on generalizations. Incidentally, I often do gain the advantage that leads to winning by playing defensively.

On Feb 17, 7:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > So you're saying you're deliberately misinterpreting his words? No, I'm asking a leading question in an attempt to get him to clarify his statement. It is a very common rhetorical device.

On Feb 17, 7:21 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > Incidentally, I often do gain the advantage that leads to winning by > playing defensively. At no point did I ever discount playing defensively. But you also can't generally win games without ousting your prey. If you never oust your prey, you will never win a game. -Peter

On Feb 17, 1:55 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > And I'm saying that there is no such situation, so it can be ignored. > The only time that there is 0 chance of ousting before being ousted is > if you are being ousted *right now*, and thus have no chance to act in > any way at all. If you have a chance to act, then you have a chance > of not being ousted. > > If that chance is very, very small, then that is the situation being > discussed [...] Well, if you're going to be an total absolutist, then "zero chance" is a meaningless concept. One may always pray for a miracle, however infinitisimally small the chance is that such will occur. Human judgment is fallible, and it is always possible that a person who thinks his cause is lost may be wrong. There is always a possibility that you will be saved by some out of turn master you never heard of. Even if you think you know all the cards, there is a theoretical possibility that you may be mistaken. But if a person is entirely without hope, then he is in no position to know which course of action is most likely to unexpectedly save him. Suppose that I, in despair and with no minions, decide to transfer myself out by transfering my last 4 pool to Agrippina. Then my prey, who has 30 pool and vote lock, decides to Life Boon me for 26 pool in the hopes that he can pull off the 3 Parity Shifts in his hand, thereby going for the oust. Unfortunately for my prey, my grand-prey plays Delaying Tactics to save himself. Then, on my next turn, I find myself able to play Warsaw Station, and immediately draw into Tasha Morgan, followed by Computer Hacking followed by Old Friends. The problem with planning for miracles is that you cannot plan for miracles. In this case, it is my despair that has saved me. In normal usage "no hope" is not a meaningless concept. In grandmaster chess, for instance, it is normal for contestants to concede defeat, even though, from the perspective of an absolutist like yourself, there remains a theoretical possibility that the opponent will hand you the game by making an error that no grandmaster would normally be expected to make. But I wonder how you would assess the following scenario, from the perspective of Player "D": 4 players A has 2 pool, no ready minions, 1 IC Member in torpor with 1 blood, and controlls dragonbound. B has 1 pool, no ready minions, and 1 minion in torpor with 1 blood. C has 1 pool, 1 ready minion with no votes, 1 minion in torpor with no blood. D has 1 pool, 1 ready minion (Calebros the Martyr) with 2 blood, and 9 minions in Torpor. D's hand is: Rat's Warning, Forgotten Labyrinth, Into Thin Air, Animal Magnetism, Carrion Crows, Immortal Grapple, and Sense the Savage Way. It is the beginning of C's minion phase. C's lone minion calls a Con Boon, attempting to gain 1 pool. This will fail if D votes it down. D has many options, including: -- Permit the Con Boon to pass, then rescue A's vampire from Torpor. This will probably result in a result in a Game Win for "A", with C getting a vp as well. -- Vote in favor of the Con Boon, then Bleed A for 1. This will result in a sweep for C. -- Vote against the Con Boon. This will result in a sweep for B. B, who is (in theory) D's cross-table "buddy", is loudly insisting that D should vote down the Con Boon, because otherwise he is a "jerk" and an "asshole". Meanwhile, C, who is D's predator, has long silky brown hair, enchanting green eyes, and is politely awaiting D's decision with a slightly worried expression on her beautiful face. What should D do?

[ quoted text not captured ] Make a deal in exchange for sexual favours??? DUH! Hey, I may be a 'jerk' and an 'asshole' but at least I'm getting laid tonight by a babe!

[ quoted text not captured ] What's your point? Rules of thumb are pretty useless in V:TES because the current situation always tends to be more nuanced and completely different from the "average" situation from which those rules are derived. Do you disagree?

On Feb 18, 4:34 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > What should D do? > > Make a deal in exchange for sexual favours??? DUH! > > Hey, I may be a 'jerk' and an 'asshole' but at least I'm getting laid > tonight by a babe! Who said anything about "getting laid"? Given that I MUST choose the winner, why does the tie breaker have to be so momentous?

On Feb 17, 10:57 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > B, who is (in theory) D's cross-table "buddy", is loudly insisting > that D should vote down the Con Boon, because otherwise he is a "jerk" > and an "asshole". You should really look into unbunching those undies. John Eno

On Feb 18, 4:42 am, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > What's your point? I said "the default assumption of the game is that you are trying to oust your prey". You said "I disagree with that. The default assumption is trying to win". I countered with "Which you do, generally speaking, by ousting your prey". Which you followed with "I don't think that is necessarily true". And here we are. I think my point is pretty clear--the default assumption in the game is that you are trying to oust your prey. If you aren't trying to oust your prey, you should have a good reason for it. > Rules of thumb are pretty useless in V:TES because > the current situation always tends to be more nuanced and completely > different from the "average" situation from which those rules are > derived. Do you disagree? In the sense that the game has general tendencies that hold up, and are reasonable to assume in discussion, then yeah, I disagree. I think it is safe to assume that you are generally trying to oust your prey. Which then makes it safe to assume that the game assumes you are generally trying to oust your prey. Which makes it safe to assume that attempting to oust your prey is a default action in the game. Which brings us back to the point at hand--randomly attacking people across table is both less sensical and less logical, in any situation, than attacking your prey. As the game assumes you are attacking your prey. And that is built into the structure of the game. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It was a hypothetical, my friend. If it offends you, perhaps you should unbunch yours.

On Feb 18, 4:31 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > If you aren't trying to oust your prey, > you should have a good reason for it. Like, that you're in a lost position with no chance of getting a victory point no matter what you do? I think that's what the tournament rules qualify as a good enough reason. > Which brings us back to the point at hand--randomly attacking people > across table is both less sensical and less logical, in any situation, > than attacking your prey. As the game assumes you are attacking your > prey. And that is built into the structure of the game. The point is that in the given situation, attacking your prey doesn't do you any good (gw/vp wise). Since you're in a position where you can't oust your prey. You won't win, you won't get a victory point. So attacking your prey gives you as much as attacking your grand prey. And it's that position that makes it as random (or logical) to attack your prey as your grand predator.

On Feb 18, 10:56 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > If it offends you, Nope. John Eno

On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:34 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > What should D do? > > > Make a deal in exchange for sexual favours??? DUH! > > > Hey, I may be a 'jerk' and an 'asshole' but at least I'm getting laid > > tonight by a babe! > > Who said anything about "getting laid"? I believe I did (when I was talking about making a deal in exchange for sexual favours). > Given that I MUST choose the > winner, why does the tie breaker have to be so momentous? Given that YOU must choose, why would you choose not to make it something momentous and at least get something out of it? I know I would... 8^D At least, I'd start a bidding war or something P^) Although, if you're gay or impotent or something... and I'm totally cool with that, not passing any judgement at all... you could flip a coin to make your decision, really. It just don't matter.

On Feb 18, 11:31 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:29 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 4:34 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > What should D do? > > > > Make a deal in exchange for sexual favours??? DUH! > > > > Hey, I may be a 'jerk' and an 'asshole' but at least I'm getting laid > > > tonight by a babe! > > > Who said anything about "getting laid"? > > I believe I did (when I was talking about making a deal in exchange > for sexual favours). > > > Given that I MUST choose the > > winner, why does the tie breaker have to be so momentous? > > Given that YOU must choose, why would you choose not to make it > something momentous and at least get something out of it? I know I > would... 8^D I'll take your word for it. But if you take that approach, you might want to check to see whether the rude ugly player cannot offer you a substantial monetary bribe. If it is large enough, you can use the proceeds to purchase numerous sexual favors from whomever you please. > At least, I'd start a bidding war or something P^) > > Although, if you're gay or impotent or something... and I'm totally > cool with that, not passing any judgement at all... you could flip a > coin to make your decision, really. It just don't matter. Well. That was my point. Any reason or no reason at all. Like I said.

On Feb 18, 10:58 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like, that you're in a lost position with no chance of getting a > victory point no matter what you do? > I think that's what the tournament rules qualify as a good enough > reason. And yet still, if you randomly attack someone across the table for no logical reason, it is a silly move. Assume I'm at 2 pool and I'm about to get ousted on my predator's next turn. I could call and pass a KRC for whatever reason. If I do this: -To make my prey lose 3 pool, it is logical and makes sense. As he is my prey. And continuing to keep pressure on him makes the game go round. Even if I'm about to get ousted. -To make some random guy across the table lose 3 pool, it is illogical and makes no sense. As I am randomly punishing someone for no good reason. Which is where the concept of the "dick move" comes in. Getting the guy cross table is a dick move. As it is illogical and random. Getting your prey might be a good idea, might be a bad idea, but it at the very least holds up to some logic. -Peter

On Feb 18, 10:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > And yet still, if you randomly attack someone across the table for no > logical reason, it is a silly move. Assume I'm at 2 pool and I'm about > to get ousted on my predator's next turn. I could call and pass a KRC > for whatever reason. If I do this: > > -To make my prey lose 3 pool, it is logical and makes sense. As he is > my prey. And continuing to keep pressure on him makes the game go > round. Even if I'm about to get ousted. > > -To make some random guy across the table lose 3 pool, it is illogical > and makes no sense. As I am randomly punishing someone for no good > reason. > > Which is where the concept of the "dick move" comes in. Getting the > guy cross table is a dick move. As it is illogical and random. Getting > your prey might be a good idea, might be a bad idea, but it at the > very least holds up to some logic. I still don't see any logic in attacking your prey unless it gets you closer to a victory point (which it, in this fictional situation, doesn't). I see that as a dick move, as much as it would be a dick move to attack your predator, grand prey or grand predator. If you're about to be ousted (without any chance to survive), and all you can do is 3 pool damage to one player, then you can't apply any "logic" to who you pick. We're not at a point where attacking my prey "might be a good idea, might be a bad idea". We're at a point where it won't matter shit for your own cause. You won't gain anything by doing it (except you might feel better since you went out in some "blaze of glory by hammering into your prey"). If you don't accept that situation, just tell me that instead of calling stuff random or illogical. In your example, your not just "letting the game go round". You're helping your predator, and kick your prey. That changes the the game situation for the remaining players. It could be a dick move towards your grand predator (since his prey will get the next victory point 3 pool faster due to your KRC). I know that a situation where you've got 0% chance of getting a victory point is rare, perhaps even non-existant. Most of us agree on that. But that's not the point here.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:58 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Like, that you're in a lost position with no chance of getting a >> victory point no matter what you do? >> I think that's what the tournament rules qualify as a good enough >> reason. > > And yet still, if you randomly attack someone across the table for no > logical reason, it is a silly move. Assume I'm at 2 pool and I'm about > to get ousted on my predator's next turn. I could call and pass a KRC > for whatever reason. If I do this: > > -To make my prey lose 3 pool, it is logical and makes sense. As he is > my prey. And continuing to keep pressure on him makes the game go > round. Even if I'm about to get ousted. Randomly attacking your prey for no logical reason (since you have already entered a truly lost position) is equally sensical or nonsensical. I'd say equally sensical, because some action (or inaction) must be chosen. > -To make some random guy across the table lose 3 pool, it is illogical > and makes no sense. As I am randomly punishing someone for no good > reason. vs. punishing your prey for no good reason, it's a wash. > Which is where the concept of the "dick move" comes in. Getting the > guy cross table is a dick move. As it is illogical and random. Getting > your prey might be a good idea, might be a bad idea, but it at the > very least holds up to some logic. Both are equally dickless.

On 18 helmi, 17:31, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In the sense that the game has general tendencies that hold up, and > are reasonable to assume in discussion, then yeah, I disagree. I think > it is safe to assume that you are generally trying to oust your prey. > Which then makes it safe to assume that the game assumes you are > generally trying to oust your prey. Which makes it safe to assume that > attempting to oust your prey is a default action in the game. I don't understand how you make the leap from extrinsic value to innate value. It is always good to win so winning has innate value. Hurting your prey only has value when it helps you win so it has extrinsic value. The fact that hurting your prey helps you win in certain situations does not give it value in situations where it doesn't help you win. We're talking about a theoretical situation where no action can help you win.

On Feb 18, 4:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I still don't see any logic in attacking your prey unless it gets you > closer to a victory point (which it, in this fictional situation, > doesn't). Ok. But if you are going to attack *anyone*, attacking your prey is always going to be more logical than randomly attacking someone across table. > I see that as a dick move, as much as it would be a dick > move to attack your predator, grand prey or grand predator. > If you're about to be ousted (without any chance to survive), and all > you can do is 3 pool damage to one player, then you can't apply any > "logic" to who you pick. But you can. As attacking your prey is the base assumption of the game. It might not always be the best idea, but it is always at least mildly sensible, as opposed to attacking someone across the table. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 18, 4:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 18, 10:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> I still don't see any logic in attacking your prey unless it gets you >> closer to a victory point (which it, in this fictional situation, >> doesn't). > > Ok. But if you are going to attack *anyone*, attacking your prey is > always going to be more logical than randomly attacking someone across > table. No, it won't be. For instance, in the circumstances given for this thread (truly lost position), attacking your prey is no more logical than attacking cross table. > >> I see that as a dick move, as much as it would be a dick >> move to attack your predator, grand prey or grand predator. >> If you're about to be ousted (without any chance to survive), and all >> you can do is 3 pool damage to one player, then you can't apply any >> "logic" to who you pick. > > But you can. As attacking your prey is the base assumption of the > game. No. Getting more VPs than everyone else is the base assumption. The tournament rules add (and get as many VPs as you can if you can't get the most). How you go about doing that is not one of the base assumptions of the game. > It might not always be the best idea, but it is always at least > mildly sensible, as opposed to attacking someone across the table. No. In a truly lost position, it is not mildly sensible (not beyond the "must make some choice" sense, anyway -- in which attacking cross table is equally sensible).

On Feb 18, 4:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Which is where the concept of the "dick move" comes in. Getting the > > guy cross table is a dick move. As it is illogical and random. Getting > > your prey might be a good idea, might be a bad idea, but it at the > > very least holds up to some logic. > > Both are equally dickless. Do you think that said dicklessness holds when the motivation for cross-table hate is an attempt at social engineering and/or distaste for someone else's deck? It's acting on those motivations, rather than the cross-table shenanigans (which shenanigans strike me as stupid, because I don't believe in the idea of a truly lost position if you're still in the game, but not dickish) which bother me. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Why is favoring the deck I like best worse than favoring the person I like best? At least in the former case, I am not making it personal. And I think it is absurd for you (and others) to persistently and perversely characterize such choices as motivated by "spite" and "hate". I have to choose somebody.

LSJ wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Which is where the concept of the "dick move" comes in. Getting the >> guy cross table is a dick move. As it is illogical and random. Getting >> your prey might be a good idea, might be a bad idea, but it at the >> very least holds up to some logic. > > Both are equally dickless. Dr Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here. Walter Peck: They caused an explosion! Mayor: Is this true? Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes it's true. [pause] Dr. Peter Venkman: This man has no dick. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Feb 18, 7:15 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Why is favoring the deck I like best worse than favoring the person I > like best? Stop dissembling. I never mentioned favoring people due to liking them. > At least in the former case, I am not making it personal. False. You're basing your decision on your personal taste, not some imaginary objective list of distasteful decks. You can't punish a deck, only the person playing it. Punishing someone because they chose to play a deck you don't like is as personal as you can get in this game. > And I think it is absurd for you (and others) to persistently and > perversely characterize such choices as motivated by "spite" and > "hate". I have to choose somebody. And if you choose your prey or predator, you have a better chance of winning than if you choose someone sitting across the table from you. Choosing a course of action which has less chance of helping you win isn't motivated by a desire to win, so it must be motivated by something else. Given your desire to punish decks you don't like, "spite" and "hate" are accurate words to describe what that motivation is. John Eno

On Feb 19, 2:17 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 7:15 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Why is favoring the deck I like best worse than favoring the person I > > like best? > > Stop dissembling. I never mentioned favoring people due to liking > them. I never said you said that. I merely tried to point out that this option was less "personal' than one alternative. > > At least in the former case, I am not making it personal. > > False. You're basing your decision on your personal taste, not some > imaginary objective list of distasteful decks. You can't punish a > deck, only the person playing it. Punishing someone because they chose > to play a deck you don't like is as personal as you can get in this > game. By that standard, anything I do, regardless of motive, is "as personal as you can get". My choices must disfavor someone. I cannot stop the disfavored person from taking it personally, but then the disfavored person is the one being spiteful. A player who, after his cause is lost, continues to sit at the table, going through the motions of playing the game, is being a good sport and acting for the collective benefit of the remaining players. To take personally the fact that his choices do not favor you is, in my opinion, the height of bad taste. > > And I think it is absurd for you (and others) to persistently and > > perversely characterize such choices as motivated by "spite" and > > "hate". I have to choose somebody. > > And if you choose your prey or predator, you have a better chance of > winning than if you choose someone sitting across the table from you. No I don't have a better chance. I have 0 chance of winning no matter what I do. > Choosing a course of action which has less chance of helping you win > isn't motivated by a desire to win, so it must be motivated by > something else. Given your desire to punish decks you don't like, > "spite" and "hate" are accurate words to describe what that motivation > is. Given the starting assumption, it seems that any attempt to foil predator or prey is just as spiteful.

On 20 helmi, 03:25, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > At least in the former case, I am not making it personal. > > > False. You're basing your decision on your personal taste, not some > > imaginary objective list of distasteful decks. You can't punish a > > deck, only the person playing it. Punishing someone because they chose > > to play a deck you don't like is as personal as you can get in this > > game. > > By that standard, anything I do, regardless of motive, is "as personal > as you can get". The standard seems to be "choosing to disfavor someone based on personality or deck preferences is spiteful". If your decision is not affected by either of those factors you're not being spiteful by that standard.

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > The standard seems to be "choosing to disfavor someone based on > personality or deck preferences is spiteful". If your decision is not > affected by either of those factors you're not being spiteful by that > standard. Perhaps. But I have no sympathy for such silliness. If you cannot otherwise find fault with a person's conduct, then do not waste time finding fault with his motives. In the situation in question, the person must do something, so he might as well do as he pleases. Once the base assumption is established, he need not explain his actions, and no-one has a right to one.

[ quoted text not captured ] If the person prefers not to be disfavored out of spite himself he might find it advantageous to treat others the same way. This is a pretty basic concept.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Ought implies can" is also a pretty basic concept. If you are going to blame a person's conduct, you have to show that he could have done better. You cannot do so. You can only show that he could have done differently. As applied here, you attempt to blame a person for "spite" is ridiculous. Your use of the word "spite" is inappropriate; or, if it is accepted, it is being applied in circumstances where it is not necessarily wrong to be "spiteful". Choosing one person over another, where a choice must be made, is not wrong. Suppose a straight white anglo-saxon protestant is fleeing a burning building. In the hallway, he finds, unconscious on the floor, a Jew, a black person, and a homosexual. He only has time and strength to drag two to safety (at considerable risk to himself) before the hallway collapses in flame. What should he do? Answer: Drag two to safety ... and decide quickly. That, in the end, is all that anyone may reasonably ask of him in the circumstances.

>On Feb 19, 8:25 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 19, 2:17 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And if you choose your prey or predator, you have a better chance of > > winning than if you choose someone sitting across the table from you. > > No I don't have a better chance. I have 0 chance of winning no matter > what I do. This is the core of your disagreement, and probably a dead end to the "productive" conversation going on here. I find it preposterous that you would ever have a 0% chance of getting more VPs, although I didn't always feel this way. I was convinced of it by Greg Williams. -dc

[ quoted text not captured ] The thing you are disagreeing to is in the stated scenario. It is given that the player is in a truly lost position. To argue about what the player should do in other situations is a different topic altogether.

On 20 helmi, 16:32, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > "Ought implies can" is also a pretty basic concept. If you are going > to blame a person's conduct, you have to show that he could have done > better. You cannot do so. You can only show that he could have done > differently. I can show that favoring certain personalities or deck types based on preference gives them a statistical advantage that they would not have if preference was not a factor.

[ quoted text not captured ] After reading large chunks of this thread (and getting supremely bored by it, but feeling compelled... a bit like watching academics debating the existance of table salt...) I have come to one conclusion: Salem should quote more movies during boring threads. It makes them bearable. In the spirit...some more Ghostbusters ----------------------- Dana Barrett: Do you want this body? Dr. Peter Venkman: Is this a trick question?

On Feb 19, 8:25 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > By that standard, anything I do, regardless of motive, is "as personal > as you can get". Attacking your predator or prey is impersonal, because those players are your predator and prey due to impersonal reasons. Attacking other players based on their choice of deck or the color of their eyes or any other non-game-advantage reason is personal. > No I don't have a better chance. I have 0 chance of winning no matter > what I do. Do you really believe that Norm's premise is not flawed, and that there are situations in which it is impossible for you to get more VPs despite you not being ousted? There's a reason that the hypothetical examples that people have had to come up with to illustrate a truly lost position that invovles still being in the game are so unlike situations that actually come about in real games of VTES that they resemble each other barely at all. I can tell you that the number of times that Smudge has been the only minion in the game, and everyone has exhausted their libraries and hands, and Cthulhu is rising from R'lyeh, and Tollhouse has baked a cookie so moist and delicious that human beings no longer fear death is zero, but the number of times that I was completely convinced that it was impossible for me to get any VPs and I ended up getting one anyway is around a dozen. > Given the starting assumption, it seems that any attempt to foil > predator or prey is just as spiteful. I've moved on from that assumption, because it's worthless for discussing actual VTES. If you want to keep talking about an assumption that doesn't have anything to do with VTES other than for theory purposes, I'll happily duck out of this conversation. John Eno

dclo...@gmail.com wrote: > I find it preposterous that you would ever have a 0% chance > of getting more VPs, although I didn't always feel this way. > I was convinced of it by Greg Williams. If there are more than 2 players left, you never have a 0% chance. I don't think anyone cares what you do when there are 2 players left. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

Kushiel wrote: > Do you really believe that Norm's premise is not flawed, and that > there are situations in which it is impossible for you to get more VPs > despite you not being ousted? > > I've moved on from that assumption, because it's worthless for > discussing actual VTES. If you want to keep talking about an > assumption that doesn't have anything to do with VTES other than for > theory purposes, I'll happily duck out of this conversation. I've stated before that it is very hard to be in a truly lost position, yet I don't find myself compelled to overlap off-topic posts parading as on-topic ones into threads which clearly state the assumption of a lost position. Perhaps if the premise itself is so onerous to you, you could just point that out in the first place rather than posting with unstated adjustments to it, which only serves to cloud the issues being discussed, or simply not duck in in the first place.

Kevin M. wrote: > dclo...@gmail.com wrote: >> I find it preposterous that you would ever have a 0% chance >> of getting more VPs, although I didn't always feel this way. >> I was convinced of it by Greg Williams. > > If there are more than 2 players left, you never have a 0% chance. Indeed, if there are more than one player left, you almost have a 0% chance. But even with more than two, you may have a zero percent chance. It's not hard to come up with contrived examples that would have a vanishingly small chance of actually occurring to demonstrate this. But all of that is beside the point. The topic as given is what to do when you actually are in a lost position, without regard to the odds against that happening in actual play.

LSJ wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> dclo...@gmail.com wrote: >>> I find it preposterous that you would ever have a 0% chance >>> of getting more VPs, although I didn't always feel this way. >>> I was convinced of it by Greg Williams. >> >> If there are more than 2 players left, you never have a 0% chance. > > Indeed, if there are more than one player left, you almost have a 0% > chance. "almost never", that is. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 20, 10:54 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I've stated before that it is very hard to be in a truly lost position, yet I > don't find myself compelled to overlap off-topic posts parading as on-topic ones > into threads which clearly state the assumption of a lost position. I'm not ready to shed any tears over changing the assumptions of the thread, which seems to be dead anyway with the exception of what you're calling an off-topic digression. If it's really bothering you, I can start a new thread, but that always strikes me as needlessly messy. > Perhaps if the premise itself is so onerous to you, you could just point that > out in the first place rather than posting with unstated adjustments to it, > which only serves to cloud the issues being discussed, or simply not duck in in > the first place. I don't deny that other people think that they can be in lost positions while still in the game, and I recognize that they're free to act however they like once they arrive there. I was curious to know if John Whelan really felt as though he could socially engineer decks out of existence once he'd arrived in a position to do so (due to being in what he perceives as a lost position), and if so, why. John Eno

Kushiel wrote: > I'm not ready to shed any tears over changing the assumptions of the > thread, which seems to be dead anyway with the exception of what > you're calling an off-topic digression. If it's really bothering you, > I can start a new thread, but that always strikes me as needlessly > messy. Changing the assumptions isn't the issue. Do so all you like, as far as I'm concerned. It's the unstated changes to the assumptions that cause the real problems. That unstated change (from "you're in a lost position" to "you're not in a lost position and want to justify some bad behavior") tends to make the threads about lost positions take much longer to cover the issues raised than is necessary.

On Feb 20, 11:01 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was curious to know > if John Whelan really felt as though he could socially engineer decks > out of existence once he'd arrived in a position to do so (due to > being in what he perceives as a lost position), and if so, why. I don't know why this question keeps coming up. I already answered it. No, I don't "think I can" socially engineer decks out of existence. My position is that I don't need such a weighty reason for my choices, given the premise.

On Feb 20, 11:14 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It's the unstated changes to the assumptions that cause the real problems. Fair enough. I'll be more specific in the future. John Eno

On Feb 20, 11:21 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > No, I don't "think I can" socially engineer decks out of > existence. My position is that I don't need such a weighty reason for > my choices, given the premise. And you can't fathom why people would be cranky with you for hurting them cross-table, even when you don't have a passably good reason to do so, so long as you don't have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs. Gotcha. I'm done here. Thanks for your time. John Eno

On Feb 20, 12:28 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > And you can't fathom why people would be cranky with you for hurting > them cross-table, even when you don't have a passably good reason to > do so, so long as you don't have a reasonable chance of getting more > VPs. Well, as all indications are that if you are in a lost position, arbitrarily hosing someone cross table becomes completely logical and justified, even when you don't have a passably good reason to do so, why would anyone ever be cranky about this? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] True enough. Actually, being in a lost position is the driving force that makes the passably good reason for the activity: namely, that you have to make some decision (to do something or another, including "pass") and none of the options are any better or worse for you than any other. So, in the interest of sportsmanship (as well as the interest of not running afoul of the "slow play" prohibition in the tournaments rules) -- a passably good reason -- you go ahead and choose from among the available equal options.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:c0617aa2-9d3f-4489...@n20g2000vba.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Because you're causing them lose is a reason for people to get cranky with you. Given that premise that any choice of action is equally valid, you could choose to try to make anyone lose or win. The 'victim' will tend to get annoyed that you chose him to lose ("oh, how nice!") even though he can't make an argument why you shouldn't. I get annoyed when the wrong card turns up in a solitaire game in a critical spot and I lose because of it. Some people think that makes me a nut but that's only because they don't know the half of it. Fred

On Feb 20, 1:42 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Because you're causing them lose is a reason for people to get cranky > with you. (Fred, sadly, this is the internet, so it is easy to mistake these things, but we've known each other long enough that I'd at least have figured that *you* would have been able to smell the rich, thick musk of sarcasm :-) -Peter

On Feb 20, 1:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > True enough. Which part? The part where it becomes completely logical and justified to arbitrarily hose someone cross table 'cause you are in a lost position, or the part about that this wouldn't cause someone to be cranky? > Actually, being in a lost position is the driving force that makes the passably > good reason for the activity: namely, that you have to make some decision (to do > something or another, including "pass") and none of the options are any better > or worse for you than any other. See, this is clearly the point of disagreement that at least a few of us are having here; yes, if you are truly in a lost position, then any action you take isn't going to help you. But then taking any action is going to be, essentially, spiteful (as it isn't going to help you, so anything you do you are doing simply to hinder someone else for zero gain. Which strikes me as pretty much the definition of spite). And taking spiteful actions against people who were already your opponents (i.e. prey and/or predator) seems much more logical and reasonable than taking spiteful actions against people who weren't (everyone else). Which is why arbitrarily attacking someone cross table is viewed as a "dick move" (see: Fred's completely reasonable response to my sarcastic question). > So, in the interest of sportsmanship (as well as the interest of not running > afoul of the "slow play" prohibition in the tournaments rules) -- a passably > good reason -- you go ahead and choose from among the available equal options. I'm still yet to be convinced that attacking someone arbitrarily cross table is an equal option to attacking your prey. Even in a completely lost position. But clearly, that is me. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 20, 1:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> True enough. > > Which part? The part I quoted. And then restated: >> Actually, being in a lost position is the driving force that makes the passably >> good reason for the activity: namely, that you have to make some decision (to do >> something or another, including "pass") and none of the options are any better >> or worse for you than any other. > > See, this is clearly the point of disagreement that at least a few of > us are having here; Yes. Which is why I keep explaining it in different ways. > yes, if you are truly in a lost position, then any > action you take isn't going to help you. But then taking any action is > going to be, essentially, spiteful (as it isn't going to help you, so > anything you do you are doing simply to hinder someone else for zero > gain. Which strikes me as pretty much the definition of spite). And > taking spiteful actions against people who were already your opponents > (i.e. prey and/or predator) Your "i.e." is not correct. All other Methuselahs are your opponents. The alliance you keep hanging your argument on is merely one of convenience -- your cross-table buddy is only your buddy when being your buddy is mutually beneficial. Same as your predator (who can be your buddy when it is mutually beneficial). And, naturally, the convenience is lost when you're in a lost position. > seems much more logical and reasonable > than taking spiteful actions against people who weren't (everyone > else). Yes, you've said so. And, as I've said, it isn't actually more reasonable or logical, no matter how it seems to anyone, as I've explained. > Which is why arbitrarily attacking someone cross table is > viewed as a "dick move" (see: Fred's completely reasonable response to > my sarcastic question). Yes, and I'm trying to correct that mistaken view. >> So, in the interest of sportsmanship (as well as the interest of not running >> afoul of the "slow play" prohibition in the tournaments rules) -- a passably >> good reason -- you go ahead and choose from among the available equal options. > > I'm still yet to be convinced that attacking someone arbitrarily cross > table is an equal option to attacking your prey. Even in a completely > lost position. But clearly, that is me. You keep dropping "arbitrarily" when you say "attacking your prey", even after acknowledging it is just as arbitrary. The player who happens to be seating next to you is not intrinsically more worthy of your spite than anyone else at the table. He's the person you're supposed to oust, not the one you're "supposed" to spite. And (in a lost position) you can't oust him. So you're left with a table full of people you're not "supposed" to spite -- a table full of people who mean the same to you as each other (intrinsically, any way).

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:33996d84-dce1-496c...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I understood it wasn't to be taken as a straight question but didn't guess exactly how thick and rich you meant your sarcasm to be nor what kind of sarcastic point you were trying to make. Never underestimate the lack-of-context-cluelessness possible for he who jumps into a conversation from the side! (No, I realize that's impossible to take into account when you're writing something. I'm just saying...) Fred

On Feb 20, 2:17 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I understood it wasn't to be taken as a straight question but didn't > guess exactly how thick and rich you meant your sarcasm to be nor what kind > of sarcastic point you were trying to make. Never underestimate the > lack-of-context-cluelessness possible for he who jumps into a conversation > from the side! Heh. I was up to my neck in this discussion all week, and retreated a couple days ago, laying low till Eno opened a window I just couldn't resist :-) -Peter

On Feb 20, 2:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes. Which is why I keep explaining it in different ways. And yet your explanation is clearly not making the headway you hope it is; there is clearly a chunk of people involved in this discussion for whom the "all options are equally valid" argument isn't holding water, based on various factors, all of which have been elaborated on. Maybe we are all insane, I don't know, but I certainly don't think that, even in a completely lost position, "all options are equally valid". > Your "i.e." is not correct. > > All other Methuselahs are your opponents. Yes. Yet in a practical sense, hostilities against your predator or prey are default logical and hostilities against your not predator or prey are default illogical due to the structure of the game. Taking actions against your not predator or prey or not taking actions against your predator or prey are occasionally valid, but generally you need a good reason to follow these paths (i.e. there needs to be a concrete incentive to attack your cross table ally or concrete incentive to not attack your prey, and by default, this isn't the case). In a truly lost position, any action you take is a spiteful one. And taking spiteful actions against opponents who you had no previous conflict with (as opposed to opponents who you did, i.e. your predator and prey) is extra spiteful, i.e. a dick move. > The alliance you keep hanging your argument on is merely one of convenience -- > your cross-table buddy is only your buddy when being your buddy is mutually > beneficial. Same as your predator (who can be your buddy when it is mutually > beneficial). Yes. But unless there is a concrete benefit to making your prey your buddy, it is a bad idea to do this. The game starts with a default state of hostility; you are actively working against the goals of your predator and prey, you are actively working towards the goals of your grand predator and grand prey. As the game is fluid, these states change from the default starting point all the time, but only 'cause someone is given incentive change them. > Yes, you've said so. > > And, as I've said, it isn't actually more reasonable or logical, no matter how > it seems to anyone, as I've explained. And yet, people will view an arbitrary cross table attack from someone in a truly lost position as a dick move all the time. So clearly, I'm not alone in viewing it as less reasonable or logical. > Yes, and I'm trying to correct that mistaken view. I don't think it is going to work. As even long after this discussion is over, people are going to consider being arbitrarily attacked cross table by someone in a lost position as a dick move. > You keep dropping "arbitrarily" when you say "attacking your prey", even after > acknowledging it is just as arbitrary. I don't think attacking your prey is every an arbitrary move. Even in a truly lost position. > The player who happens to be seating next to you is not intrinsically more > worthy of your spite than anyone else at the table. Well, as it is likely that the person sitting next to you is directly responsible for you being in a truly lost position, I think they *are* intrinsically more worthy of my spite. As that is the nature of spite. If I'm in a truly lost position, and I focus my spite on the opponent who is most responsible for my truly lost position, that strikes me as completely logical. If, on the other hand, I focus my spite on a completely non involved opponent? Illogical. Arbitrary. > So you're left with a table full of people you're not "supposed" to spite -- a > table full of people who mean the same to you as each other (intrinsically, any > way). And yet still... -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Feb 20, 2:14 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Yes. Which is why I keep explaining it in different ways. > > And yet your explanation is clearly not making the headway you hope it > is; As, clearly, yours is not as well. Yet here you and I still are. > there is clearly a chunk of people involved in this discussion for > whom the "all options are equally valid" argument isn't holding water, > based on various factors, all of which have been elaborated on. And there is clearly a chunk of people involved for whom the "some of the equally-useless options are any better or worse (or any more or less spiteful)" argument isn't holding water. Fortunately, it isn't a popularity contest. Nor a squeaky wheel contest. > Maybe > we are all insane, I don't know, but I certainly don't think that, > even in a completely lost position, "all options are equally valid". Maybe we are all insane, but I certainly see that they are. > But unless there is a concrete benefit to making your prey your > buddy, it is a bad idea to do this. Same with all of your opponents. You don't use your resources to help others to the exclusion of yourself. This is true all the time (playing to win, and all). With the result that I keep stating. > And yet, people will view an arbitrary cross table attack from someone > in a truly lost position as a dick move all the time. And yet, people won't view it as such any of the time. > So clearly, I'm > not alone in viewing it as less reasonable or logical. So clearly, I'm not alone in viewing it as I do. (Can we dispense with the appeals to the masses, please?) >> Yes, and I'm trying to correct that mistaken view. > > I don't think it is going to work. I think you may be right. But that doesn't change my job description. >> The player who happens to be seating next to you is not intrinsically more >> worthy of your spite than anyone else at the table. > > Well, as it is likely that the person sitting next to you is directly > responsible for you being in a truly lost position, I think they *are* > intrinsically more worthy of my spite. With that added artificial assumption, sure. But that isn't intrinsic. Naturally, you are free to make your equally-useless choice based on whom you think is most to blame for your state, if that tickles you. And you're free to use other criteria, too. Since it doesn't matter to your state. > As that is the nature of spite. > If I'm in a truly lost position, and I focus my spite on the opponent > who is most responsible for my truly lost position, that strikes me as > completely logical. If, on the other hand, I focus my spite on a > completely non involved opponent? Illogical. Arbitrary. Then you are free to operate on that. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to, or that not following your arbitrary decision tree makes us any more spiteful or dicky.

On Feb 20, 2:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > As, clearly, yours is not as well. Yet here you and I still are. So let's call it even and move on. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > All other Methuselahs are your opponents. > > The alliance you keep hanging your argument on is merely one > of convenience -- your cross-table buddy is only your buddy > when being your buddy is mutually beneficial. Same as your predator > (who can be your buddy when it is mutually beneficial). > > And, naturally, the convenience is lost > when you're in a lost position. And yet the default position that most everyone I have ever played with has is: that when you are in a "lost" position, there are actions which upon taking them will cause you to be viewed as a jerk. And there IS a logical reason for this that outweighs the logic of your explanation(s): it is obvious that such jerk behavior is antithetical to the very reason(s) the game is played. In other words: Your game is over. Don't be a sore loser. You keep saying that it isn't more reasonable or logical, no matter how it seems to anyone, that such behavior -- or, indeed ANY behavior -- in a "lost" position could be categorized as jerky or "a dick move" and yet it seems so simple and so straightforward to so many that I am beginning to wonder from what position you are coming in this argument. Rulesmonger, obviously, but can you truly not see what most everyone I have ever played with can see? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 20, 9:23 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > In other words: Your game is over. Don't be a sore loser. > > You keep saying that it isn't more reasonable or logical, no matter how it > seems to anyone, that such behavior -- or, indeed ANY behavior -- in a > "lost" position could be categorized as jerky or "a dick move" and yet it > seems so simple and so straightforward to so many that I am beginning to > wonder from what position you are coming in this argument. Rulesmonger, > obviously, but can you truly not see what most everyone I have ever played > with can see? Just a small one here. My predator who's surely getting ousted before his next turn (say 3 players left, he's on 1 pool and his predator has got 15 Army of Rats out). If his last action would be to bleed me for 8 (with no chance of ousting), and thus doing nothing for himself but only making sure that his predator could kill me, I wouldn't be far from calling my predator a sore loser. Whether I'd call him anything would depend on the person and the game overall though. And his predator might call him a sore loser if I don't get bled for 8, since that would make me win instead.

Kevin M. wrote: > In other words: Your game is over. Don't be a sore loser. Better: the player whose game is not over shouldn't be a whiner. There is no "sore loser" aspect inherent in the player who has lost finishing out the game. That is sportsmanship -- the opposite of being a sore loser. > You keep saying that it isn't more reasonable or logical, no matter how it > seems to anyone, that such behavior -- or, indeed ANY behavior -- in a > "lost" position could be categorized as jerky or "a dick move" and yet it > seems so simple and so straightforward to so many that I am beginning to > wonder from what position you are coming in this argument. From the position stated, in detail, so many times already. That player must make some decision (some activity or inactivity). And each choice will affect the table balance some how. Those benefited by the choice do not include the chooser, by definition. Making a decision is required. As the choices are all equal, none can be honestly called a "dick move". > Rulesmonger, > obviously, but can you truly not see what most everyone I have ever played > with can see? I see what you see. And I see the error in it, which you apparently do not.

On Feb 20, 9:33 am, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Feb 19, 8:25 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2:17 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And if you choose your prey or predator, you have a better chance of > > > winning than if you choose someone sitting across the table from you. > > > No I don't have a better chance. I have 0 chance of winning no matter > > what I do. > > This is the core of your disagreement, and probably a dead end to the > "productive" conversation going on here. > > I find it preposterous that you would ever have a 0% chance of getting > more VPs, although I didn't always feel this way. I was convinced of > it by Greg Williams. I don't see it that way. The "there's no such thing as zero chance" argument seems to me like a distraction which is completely irrelevant to the core of the disagreement. Normally, given 3 choices of conduct, a player should take the choice of conduct that most helps him win. That is called "playing to win". Hence, if I can get 20% chance of victory by attacking my prey, 15% chance of victory by attacking my predator, and 80% chance of victory by attacking cross table, then my choice is obvious. Usually it is best to go after your prey, but that is just a general rule. On the other hand, if all your choices give you equal chance (say, 20%) of victory, you may choose any of the three options, as though at random. It does not do, in cases of such a 3-way tie, to say that in such cases you should attack your prey. That only begs the question. For all you know, the individual may already have taken the general rule -- favoring attacking one's prey as the best policy -- into account before reaching the conclusion that all options were of equal value to him. The "lost cause" scenario is merely one variant of the 3-way tie scenario, but where the the odds for each option are calculated at 0% instead of (say) 20%. It does no good, in such circumstances, to say that there is no such thing as absolute 0%. Because, in such cases, you still end up with a 3-way tie between near 0%. If there is no such thing as 0% chance when I attack my prey, then there is also no such thing as 0% chance when I attack cross table. Bottom line is, that if a player reaches the conclusion that all options are equal (even after taking into account the principle that attacking your prey usually yields best results), then he is entitled to pick any of the options.

On Feb 20, 2:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Well, as it is likely that the person sitting next to you is directly > responsible for you being in a truly lost position, I think they *are* > intrinsically more worthy of my spite. As that is the nature of spite. > If I'm in a truly lost position, and I focus my spite on the opponent > who is most responsible for my truly lost position, that strikes me as > completely logical. Your logic seems hardly inevitable to me. When I fold up my cards, after playing the game, I am certainly not going to bear ill will against a predator for having played a good game and done a good job. Nor am I going to bear ill will against my prey merely because he has done a good job of defending himself. Such an attitude would reek of bad sportsmanship. Punishment, blame and spite make no sense in this context. Predator and prey were doing exactly what they were supposed to do. No-one can claim that they ought to have done differently. And if I have this attitude after I fold up my cards after a defeat, why should I not have this attitude after defeat where I am, technically, still in the game? > If, on the other hand, I focus my spite on a > completely non involved opponent? Illogical. Arbitrary. The cross table opponent is not "completely non-involved". If there is anyone in a table who (possibly, arguably) ought to have done more to keep you in the game, it is probably your "cross-table buddy". Less frequently, it may be arguably true of your Prey. It is never true of your Predator -- it is his job to oust you, and "blaming" him or trying to spite him is silly. Note that I am not advocating spite in any context. But, relatively speaking, if I were to attempt to analyse who is, generally speaking, the most appropriate target for spite (or vengeance or retaliation), I would reach the reverse of your conclusion.

LSJ wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> In other words: Your game is over. Don't be a sore loser. > > Better: the player whose game is not over shouldn't be a whiner. > > There is no "sore loser" aspect inherent in the player who has lost > finishing out the game. > > That is sportsmanship -- the opposite of being a sore loser. Except for his post-viability actions based on emotion, I agree with you. >> You keep saying that it isn't more reasonable or logical, no matter >> how it seems to anyone, that such behavior -- or, indeed ANY >> behavior -- in a "lost" position could be categorized as jerky or >> "a dick move" and yet it seems so simple and so straightforward >> to so many that I am beginning to wonder from what position you >> are coming in this argument. > > From the position stated, in detail, so many times already. > > That player must make some decision (some activity or inactivity). > And each choice will affect the table balance some how. Those > benefited by the choice do not include the chooser, by definition. > Making a decision is required. As the choices are all equal, none > can be honestly called a "dick move". Since it is now clear to me that you believe the OP's premise hinges on unemotional players, I have nothing further to discuss. Thank you for your time. I hope it wasn't wasted. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> In other words: Your game is over. Don't be a sore loser. >> Better: the player whose game is not over shouldn't be a whiner. >> >> There is no "sore loser" aspect inherent in the player who has lost >> finishing out the game. >> >> That is sportsmanship -- the opposite of being a sore loser. > > Except for his post-viability actions based on emotion, I agree with you. Well, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about his post-viability actions. Such choices are inevitably based on out-of-game considerations, since in-game considerations do not suffice to break the deadlock (every choice being tied for first place of "gains me nothing"). > Since it is now clear to me that you believe the OP's premise hinges on > unemotional players, I have nothing further to discuss. Thank you for your > time. I hope it wasn't wasted. :( I do not believe the premise hands on unemotional players. But I usually assume that the audience of any debate such as this one is earnest and reflective.

On Feb 20, 6:32 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 20, 2:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Well, as it is likely that the person sitting next to you is directly > > responsible for you being in a truly lost position, I think they *are* > > intrinsically more worthy of my spite. As that is the nature of spite. > > If I'm in a truly lost position, and I focus my spite on the opponent > > who is most responsible for my truly lost position, that strikes me as > > completely logical. > > Your logic seems hardly inevitable to me. When I fold up my cards, > after playing the game, I am certainly not going to bear ill will > against a predator for having played a good game and done a good job. > Nor am I going to bear ill will against my prey merely because he has > done a good job of defending himself. Such an attitude would reek of > bad sportsmanship. > > Punishment, blame and spite make no sense in this context. Predator > and prey were doing exactly what they were supposed to do. No-one can > claim that they ought to have done differently. If a player at the table has left me in a lost position without taking into account what may result, that player has played poorly. I find teaching this truth to be of some value on occasion. Your mileage may vary. -witness1

On Feb 20, 6:32 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Your logic seems hardly inevitable to me. When I fold up my cards, > after playing the game, I am certainly not going to bear ill will > against a predator for having played a good game and done a good job. Nor would I. And I'd applaud them for actually killing their prey, even if that prey is me (as I always appreciate people who kill their prey) . But if I'm going to spite someone in the context of a game, I'm going to spite the person who made me lose. This doesn't mean I bear ill will. It just means that when the spite phase comes, it makes sense to spite someone who deserves some spite. > Punishment, blame and spite make no sense in this context. Predator > and prey were doing exactly what they were supposed to do. No-one can > claim that they ought to have done differently. I'm not claiming they ought to have done differently. If my game has entered the spite phase, and I am able and willing to spite (i.e. hinder for no personal gain) someone who made me lose or someone who did nothing at all to me? I'll spite the player who made me lose. As that is usually going to be my predator or prey, who I've been battling with all game, makes total sense to spite them. And not someone random. > The cross table opponent is not "completely non-involved". If there > is anyone in a table who (possibly, arguably) ought to have done more > to keep you in the game, it is probably your "cross-table buddy". I wouldn't assume that. Your cross table "allies" and you work towards similar goals most of the time (i.e. weakening/ousting/foiling your predator and prey; and you the same for them), but it isn't really their responsibility to keep you alive unless it helps them get somewhere. > Less frequently, it may be arguably true of your Prey. It is never > true of your Predator -- it is his job to oust you, and "blaming" him > or trying to spite him is silly. Yeah, that strikes me as insane troll logic (to avoid any potential misunderstanding, I'll point out that "insane troll logic" is a particularly hysterical phrase from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, describing the insane logic of mythical norse trolls, and not some internet slur. I realize I could have just used a different phrase, but "insane troll logic" makes me laugh). If someone makes you lose, regardless of how justified they are in making you lose, directing spite at them during the spite phase of the game (which is a phase that many games devolve into) seems the only logical option. Using the spite phase to hinder someone random isn't spite. It is wandering damage. > Note that I am not advocating spite in any context. But, relatively > speaking, if I were to attempt to analyse who is, generally speaking, > the most appropriate target for spite (or vengeance or retaliation), I > would reach the reverse of your conclusion. You would reach the conclusion that the most appropriate target for spite is someone who has done nothing to hinder you and possibly even (indirectly) aided you over someone who put you in the losing position you are in in the first place? You have a vastly different understanding of spite than I. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. There is no such thing as an inherently bad emotion. All human emotions serve valuable functions in at least some contexts, and what John Eno calls "spite" is not unrelated to what you call "teaching truth". But all I was saying was that, regardless of whether you call it "spite" or "teaching truth," your predator is the player least likely to learn any valuable lessons from your retaliation. His job is to oust you, and it will be difficult to prove to him that he has done too effective a job. Nor is your prey likely to come to the realization that they ought to have been less effective in preventing you from ousting them. But I don't think that anyone in a lost position need apologize for taking vengeance on their predator or prey: One of the reasons people play competitive games is to give vent to aggressive feelings. Indulging these feelings is not wrong -- and in fact forms a major component of what most players call "having fun." If a player in a lost position feels like taking vengeance on his predator, within the confines of the game, then that's what he should feel free to do. He may indulge his emotions so long as they do not conflict with some other duty. For instance, any game-related "grudges" that he bears should not be carried beyond the confines of the game, and he should lay them down when he lays down his cards (except to the extent that they motivate him to prepare for the next match). He should also not allow his "grudge" to cause him to violate other rules, such as the play-to-win rule, or other rules of good sportsmanship. One of the problems in this thread is that some posters seem determined to find fault with the hypothetical player's emotions, even though they cannot otherwise find fault with his conduct.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > You would reach the conclusion that the most appropriate target for > spite is someone who has done nothing to hinder you and possibly even > (indirectly) aided you over someone who put you in the losing position > you are in in the first place? No. Not if I cannot plausibly claim they ought to have done differently. > You have a vastly different > understanding of spite than I. Not really. I merely stated my thoughts as to who the most "logical" target for "spite" usually would be, in terms of "teaching them a lesson". But I do not think a player in a lost position has any obligation to be "logical"; nor do I think he has an obligation to undertake to "teach people lessons". If you think it is more fun, in such contexts, to take out your aggressions on your predator, then that's what you should do.

On 21 helmi, 07:56, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Not really. I merely stated my thoughts as to who the most "logical" > target for "spite" usually would be, in terms of "teaching them a > lesson". But I do not think a player in a lost position has any > obligation to be "logical"; nor do I think he has an obligation to > undertake to "teach people lessons". If you think it is more fun, in > such contexts, to take out your aggressions on your predator, then > that's what you should do. I believe many people, including myself, find the game more fun when emotions are not allowed to affect the game. If the four other players in the table feel that way it may not be a good idea to act out of spite.

suolir...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe many people, including myself, find the game more fun when > emotions are not allowed to affect the game. If the four other players > in the table feel that way it may not be a good idea to act out of > spite. Fine. Prohibit it. Then what? The player can still make exactly the same choice (now free of "emotion"). Why? Because all the choices are equal in-game, since the player is in a lost position. I believe many people, including myself, find the rules set better when it doesn't include spurious rules.

On Feb 21, 12:56 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Not really. I merely stated my thoughts as to who the most "logical" > target for "spite" usually would be, in terms of "teaching them a > lesson". Ah, see, I'm not generally interested in "teaching anyone a lesson", as that isn't spite either. Spite is hindering someone for no gain. Teaching someone a lesson is gain, at least in a protracted sense. > But I do not think a player in a lost position has any > obligation to be "logical"; People always have at least some obligation to be logical. > nor do I think he has an obligation to undertake to "teach people lessons". Neither do I. But I'f I'm gonna spite someone? It's gonna be someone who deserves spite. And most of the time, the person who most deserves spite is the person who put you in the losing position. Regardless of if it was completely warranted (which, if it is your predator, it tends to be). -Peter

On 21 helmi, 15:23, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Fine. Prohibit it. Then what? The player can still make exactly the same choice > (now free of "emotion"). Why? Because all the choices are equal in-game, since > the player is in a lost position. > > I believe many people, including myself, find the rules set better when it > doesn't include spurious rules. I don't dispute that. Just felt like pointing out that even if the rules accept spitefulness the other players might not. I'm not proposing some contrived new rule either, the situation is perfectly fine.

On Feb 21, 2:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > But I do not think a player in a lost position has any > > obligation to be "logical"; > > People always have at least some obligation to be logical. Wouldn't that bring us to a world where the tactic of bashing people when they play wrong/bad/cheesy decks works? And stuff that works, is kinda logical in some way.

[ quoted text not captured ] Or at least to a world where people don't bash each other for being "spiteful" or making "dick moves" when in fact they are not doing either.

On Feb 21, 10:29 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Or at least to a world where people don't bash each other for being "spiteful" > or making "dick moves" when in fact they are not doing either. Ok, so do you accept that someone *can* make a dick move? Removing the concept from the current discussion and moving it to another context, if someone is not in a completely lost position, and they arbitrarily mess with you cross table for no good reason, can you see how that might be considered a dick move? -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >On Feb 21, 10:29 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Or at least to a world where people don't bash each other for being "spiteful" >> or making "dick moves" when in fact they are not doing either. > >Ok, so do you accept that someone *can* make a dick move? The whole concept of the sportsmanlike conduct rules, including PTW, incorporates the idea that people can do unsportsmanlike things, which you might characterize as a dick move. An obvious one might be *giving up* your chance of winning purely to spite someone else. e.g. I already have 2 GW and 10 VP, so in the third round I get rid of you because I know I'm already in the final. That's okay, though, because we have rules against that. The point is that when you're in a truly lost position, none of your moves can improve your position. For your predator, the fact that you won't just roll over and die is a 'dick move'. For your prey, the fact that you go all out and don't even try to defend is a 'dick move'. In the truly lost position - which is extremely rare - the concept of 'dick move' is pretty irrelevant. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > if someone is not in a completely lost position, and they arbitrarily > mess with you cross table for no good reason, can you see how that > might be considered a dick move? Obviously. "no good reason" implies "at less benefit to themselves than another option", and so, yes, this is unsportsmanlike (and violates PTW).

On Feb 21, 3:46 am, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe many people, including myself, find the game more fun when > emotions are not allowed to affect the game. If you believe this, you are wrong. Emotions are essential to the game, as they are essential to life. If someone, such as yourself, has been castrated and lobotomized to remove his emotions (and particularly the aggressive emotions), and yet still finds the game to be "fun", then this can only mean that these operations have not been entirely successful in removing his emotions. Normally, castration and lobotomy combined would be suffient remove any remote interest in playing V:tES. Probably, it would remove even the volitional capacity to force oneself to do so. But even this would not completely remove all emotions. The only way such operations can be entirely successful in removing emotions is if the end product is a corpse. Sure, one's emotions should not be allowed to affect one's conduct in SPECIFIC WAYS. But this is merely a restatement of the idea that we often have duties to others (including other players) that conflict with our emotions. Where duty and emotion do not conflict, there is no duty to resist one's emotions. That is the situation here. > If the four other players > in the table feel that way it may not be a good idea to act out of > spite. Problem here, is that the word "spite" is being used here only because you and others insist on using it. You cannot prove that the hypothetical player has done anything wrong, so you are (spitefully?) attacking his emotions. The hypothetical player was forced to make a choice, and, rather than ponderously rolling dice (thereby slowing down the game) he merely did what he felt like doing.

On 21 helmi, 23:21, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 21, 3:46 am, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I believe many people, including myself, find the game more fun when > > emotions are not allowed to affect the game. > > If you believe this, you are wrong. Emotions are essential to the > game, as they are essential to life. If someone, such as yourself, > has been castrated and lobotomized to remove his emotions (and > particularly the aggressive emotions), and yet still finds the game to > be "fun", then this can only mean that these operations have not been > entirely successful in removing his emotions. Eh, now you're just being difficult. People can have emotions and not allow them to affect in-game decision making. > Sure, one's emotions should not be allowed to affect one's conduct in > SPECIFIC WAYS. But this is merely a restatement of the idea that we > often have duties to others (including other players) that conflict > with our emotions. Where duty and emotion do not conflict, there is > no duty to resist one's emotions. That is the situation here. You keep mentioning "duty" and "obligation". A player is not obligated to act the way I expect them to and I'm not obligated to like that. Maybe someone else wants spitefulness to potentially be an in-game factor but I don't. > Problem here, is that the word "spite" is being used here only because > you and others insist on using it. I use the word "spite" because its definition accurately describes the behavior I'm referring to. > You cannot prove that the > hypothetical player has done anything wrong, so you are (spitefully?) > attacking his emotions. "Attacking" is an exaggeration. I hope you don't feel that you're under attack, that certainly isn't my intention. > The hypothetical player was forced to make a choice, and, rather than > ponderously rolling dice (thereby slowing down the game) he merely did > what he felt like doing. And got called a dick because the other players didn't feel like accepting his spiteful behavior.

On Feb 21, 5:19 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 21 helmi, 23:21, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 3:46 am, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I believe many people, including myself, find the game more fun when > > > emotions are not allowed to affect the game. > > > If you believe this, you are wrong. Emotions are essential to the > > game, as they are essential to life. If someone, such as yourself, > > has been castrated and lobotomized to remove his emotions (and > > particularly the aggressive emotions), and yet still finds the game to > > be "fun", then this can only mean that these operations have not been > > entirely successful in removing his emotions. > > Eh, now you're just being difficult. No. I was being sincere. > People can have emotions and not > allow them to affect in-game decision making. I don't believe that they can. That's why I said what I said. In V:tES, as in life, and especially in contexts where decisions must be made quickly, effective decision-making relies heavily on the instincts, emotions and other non-rational factors. There will be many occasions, of course, when our (highly limited) powers of reason will be a determinative factor, but any attempt to rely on "pure reason" is a recipe for inaction, paralysis and/or insanity. This is especially so in the hypothetical situation under discussion. In this situation, the player has tried to use his powers of reason to help him make a decision, and his powers of reason have failed him. All options still seem equal to him. He is obligated to make a decision, reasonably quickly, for the collective benefit of the remaining players. > > Sure, one's emotions should not be allowed to affect one's conduct in > > SPECIFIC WAYS. But this is merely a restatement of the idea that we > > often have duties to others (including other players) that conflict > > with our emotions. Where duty and emotion do not conflict, there is > > no duty to resist one's emotions. That is the situation here. > > You keep mentioning "duty" and "obligation". Yeah. So? > A player is not obligated > to act the way I expect them to and I'm not obligated to like that. No. You are not required to be happy when another player's conduct results in you getting ousted, no. > Maybe someone else wants spitefulness to potentially be an in-game > factor but I don't. Again -- what do you mean by "spiteful"? Just because you are feeling, perhaps, a bit spiteful, and want to call another player names, like "spiteful" does not mean that he has done anything wrong. Indulging aggressive instincts is a large part of what makes this game fun. > > Problem here, is that the word "spite" is being used here only because > > you and others insist on using it. > > I use the word "spite" because its definition accurately describes the > behavior I'm referring to. What behavior are you referring to? > > You cannot prove that the > > hypothetical player has done anything wrong, so you are (spitefully?) > > attacking his emotions. > > "Attacking" is an exaggeration. I hope you don't feel that you're > under attack, that certainly isn't my intention. No. I think that you are (bizarrely) attaching fictional "bad" emotions to a hypothetical character, because you want to find an excuse to find something wrong with his conduct. To my mind, such speculation about "bad" emotions and "bad" character is mean- spirited. The discussion should have been over when you found yourself unable to find anything wrong with his actual conduct, viewed objectively. > > The hypothetical player was forced to make a choice, and, rather than > > ponderously rolling dice (thereby slowing down the game) he merely did > > what he felt like doing. > > And got called a dick because the other players didn't feel like > accepting his spiteful behavior. I doubt that all the other players are calling him a "dick". Only those who did not benefit from his actions. The motive for such nastiness is not hard to find.

On Feb 21, 8:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 12:56 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Not really. I merely stated my thoughts as to who the most "logical" > > target for "spite" usually would be, in terms of "teaching them a > > lesson". > > Ah, see, I'm not generally interested in "teaching anyone a lesson", > as that isn't spite either. Neither am I. I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling dice for each decision. > Spite is hindering someone for no gain. By that definition, anything the player does is spiteful to someone, even if he DOES roll dice first. > Teaching someone a lesson is gain, at least in a protracted sense. Maybe. But if "spite", by definition, is so completely illogical that it must necessarily be completely removed from any constructive function, no matter how protracted or far fetched, then it is nonsense for you to argue that your predator or your prey are more logical targets for your spite. > > But I do not think a player in a lost position has any > > obligation to be "logical"; > > People always have at least some obligation to be logical. No. Ought implies Can. In the hypothetical situation in question, the person has used his powers of reason to help him make a decision, and all options still seem equal to him. Insofar as helping him make a decision goes, his powers of reason have failed him. Moreover, humans are not robots, and have no obligation to attempt to be robots. > > nor do I think he has an obligation to undertake to "teach people lessons". > > Neither do I. But I'f I'm gonna spite someone? It's gonna be someone > who deserves spite. "deserves" spite? > And most of the time, the person who most deserves > spite is the person who put you in the losing position. Regardless of > if it was completely warranted (which, if it is your predator, it > tends to be). I don't see the "logic" in this. But you have already indicated that determining the "proper" target for spite means deliberately choosing a course of action in order to hurt someone for no benefit whatsoever. This puts you in a bad way in terms of arguing that others have some kind of obligation to follow your example.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 21, 8:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Spite is hindering someone for no gain. > > By that definition, anything the player does is spiteful to someone, > even if he DOES roll dice first. Correct. The proper definition is Spite is hindering someone for loss (i.e., for less benefit to self than another available option).

On 22 helmi, 01:20, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't believe that they can. That's why I said what I said. In > V:tES, as in life, and especially in contexts where decisions must be > made quickly, effective decision-making relies heavily on the > instincts, emotions and other non-rational factors. There will be > many occasions, of course, when our (highly limited) powers of reason > will be a determinative factor, but any attempt to rely on "pure > reason" is a recipe for inaction, paralysis and/or insanity. There is a distinction between instinct and emotion. I sometimes make in-game decisions based on guesses or gut feeling but that's pretty far from being motivated by emotions. > This is especially so in the hypothetical situation under discussion. > In this situation, the player has tried to use his powers of reason to > help him make a decision, and his powers of reason have failed him. > All options still seem equal to him. He is obligated to make a > decision, reasonably quickly, for the collective benefit of the > remaining players. All options are only equal within the context of the rules. > > You keep mentioning "duty" and "obligation". > > Yeah. So? Seems a little pointless to bring those up since we both agree that they're not factors, that's all. > Again -- what do you mean by "spiteful"? Adjective spiteful (comparative more spiteful, superlative most spiteful) 1. Filled with, or showing, spite; having a desire to vex, annoy, or injure; malignant; malicious Noun spite (uncountable) 1. Ill will or hatred toward another, accompanied with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart; a desire to vex or injure; petty malice; grudge; rancor. Spite is to intentionally annoy, hurt, or upset. Spiteful words or actions are delivered in such a way in which it's clear that the person is delivering them just to annoy, hurt, or upset. > Just because you are > feeling, perhaps, a bit spiteful, and want to call another player > names, Nobody's calling names. > Indulging aggressive instincts is a large part of what makes this game > fun. For you. If you mean that you welcome aggressive emotions as a factor in the game and even enjoy them then sure, go ahead. I don't. > > I use the word "spite" because its definition accurately describes the > > behavior I'm referring to. > > What behavior are you referring to? See the definition above. > No. I think that you are (bizarrely) attaching fictional "bad" > emotions to a hypothetical character, because you want to find an > excuse to find something wrong with his conduct. I don't think there's anything bizarre about defining a hypothetical character as spiteful when I'm discussing spiteful behavior. He wouldn't be a very useful character otherwise. > To my mind, such > speculation about "bad" emotions and "bad" character is mean- > spirited. The discussion should have been over when you found > yourself unable to find anything wrong with his actual conduct, viewed > objectively. I've never pretended that spitefulness is objectively wrong or illegal. It's a factor that I'd rather not have in the game.

On 22 helmi, 02:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, > in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling > dice for each decision. I distance myself from Peter's opinions but would like to point out that rolling a dice or acting out of spite are not the only options. If removing personal preferences as an in-game factor is desired the players can agree on a predefined course of action in a situation where the rules aren't helpful.

On 22 helmi, 02:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, > in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling > dice for each decision. I distance myself from Peter's opinions but would like to point out [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 helmi, 02:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, > in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling > dice for each decision. I distance myself from Peter's opinions but would like to point out [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 helmi, 02:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, > in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling > dice for each decision. I distance myself from Peter's opinions but would like to point out [ quoted text not captured ]

On 22 helmi, 02:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I merely suggested that any basis for decision-making, > in this context, is more efficient and less cumbursome than rolling > dice for each decision. I distance myself from Peter's opinions but would like to point out [ quoted text not captured ]

On Feb 21, 8:03 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > There is a distinction between instinct and emotion. Perhaps a meaningful distinction could be drawn, though I cannot help noticing that you have not drawn one. If I were attempt a distinction, I would say that an "emotion" is an irrational feeling which urges you towards a specific course of conduct, whereas "instinct" is a slightly broader concept which also includes irrational feelings that merely convey information, without conscious awareness of how the information was derived. > I sometimes make > in-game decisions based on guesses or gut feeling but that's pretty > far from being motivated by emotions. I don't agree that it's "pretty far" at all. Without emotion, you would be unable to summon the mental energy to engage in the strategic planning necessary to effective play. Without emotion you would be unable to marshall all the resources of your mind (including your "instincts") and focus them on the task at hand. > I don't think there's anything bizarre about defining a hypothetical > character as spiteful when I'm discussing spiteful behavior. He > wouldn't be a very useful character otherwise. What spiteful "spiteful" hypothetical conduct do you think is being discussed? > I've never pretended that spitefulness is objectively wrong or > illegal. It's a factor that I'd rather not have in the game. I agree, depending on how "spiteful" is defined. However, if one insists on applying the term to the hypothetical conduct at issue here, and then speaks of removing such conduct from the game, then, as far as I can tell, we have entered the realm of nonsense.

On 22 helmi, 03:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > What spiteful "spiteful" hypothetical conduct do you think is being > discussed? I've been talking about hurting another player because you don't like them or their deck. > > I've never pretended that spitefulness is objectively wrong or > > illegal. It's a factor that I'd rather not have in the game. > > I agree, depending on how "spiteful" is defined. However, if one > insists on applying the term to the hypothetical conduct at issue > here, and then speaks of removing such conduct from the game, then, as > far as I can tell, we have entered the realm of nonsense. You don't think it's possible to eliminate the advantage/disadvantage gained by hurting players based on personal preferences? Or did you mean something else?

On Feb 21, 8:38 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 22 helmi, 03:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > What spiteful "spiteful" hypothetical conduct do you think is being > > discussed? > > I've been talking about hurting another player because you don't like > them or their deck. So you are NOT talking about the situation at issue. In the situation at issue is that he must hurt someone, and must choose who gets hurt. That is his reason for hurting someone -- simply that it is impossible to do otherwise. The reason for his choice is a separate matter. > > > I've never pretended that spitefulness is objectively wrong or > > > illegal. It's a factor that I'd rather not have in the game. > > > I agree, depending on how "spiteful" is defined. However, if one > > insists on applying the term to the hypothetical conduct at issue > > here, and then speaks of removing such conduct from the game, then, as > > far as I can tell, we have entered the realm of nonsense. > > You don't think it's possible to eliminate the advantage/disadvantage > gained by hurting players based on personal preferences? Or did you > mean something else? I don't understand the question

On 22 helmi, 03:50, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > So you are NOT talking about the situation at issue. I feel that what I have been discussing is relevant to the original discussion. > In the situation > at issue is that he must hurt someone, and must choose who gets hurt. Sure. > That is his reason for hurting someone -- simply that it is impossible > to do otherwise. The reason for his choice is a separate matter. At some point someone said "well I don't know what I'd do in a no-win situation but I'd certainly not act out of spite" (paraphrased). Spite requires intent so the matter of motivation became relevant. > > You don't think it's possible to eliminate the advantage/disadvantage > > gained by hurting players based on personal preferences? Or did you > > mean something else? > > I don't understand the question Do you think that it's possible and preferable to remove personal preference as a factor from no-win situations if the majority of the group wants to by use of a mutual agreement, social contract, peer pressure, coercion or whatever you'd want to call it?

On Feb 21, 9:46 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > Do you think that it's possible and preferable to remove personal > preference as a factor from no-win situations if the majority of the > group wants to by use of a mutual agreement, social contract, peer > pressure, coercion or whatever you'd want to call it? No, I don't think it's possible. No, I don't think it's desirable.

[ quoted text not captured ] Let's say that a group of players do find it desirable. They agree that whenever a player is in a no-win situation he will be as passive as possible. By passive I mean that that player will not attempt non- mandatory actions, cast votes, attempt blocks, use optional abilities etc. I'm sure you know what I'm after. A more thorough definition will be given if necessary. If the player is somehow put in a situation where he can't possibly be passive he will roll a dice as a last resort. Would it in your opinion be reasonable to say that this would remove personal preference as a factor in no-win situations?

On Feb 21, 7:06 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > By that definition, anything the player does is spiteful to someone, > even if he DOES roll dice first. If you are truly in a lost position, then yeah, anything you do is spiteful to someone. As it isn't going to help you in any way. And is only going to act to hinder someone for no gain. > Maybe. But if "spite", by definition, is so completely illogical that > it must necessarily be completely removed from any constructive > function, no matter how protracted or far fetched, then it is nonsense > for you to argue that your predator or your prey are more logical > targets for your spite. You predator and your prey are your primary opponents. Being in a lost position doesn't change that. Unless the conditions that resulted in your lost position change things. > "deserves" spite? Sure. If someone makes me lose? They win whatever spite is available. Mind you, in the situation proposed (i.e. you are truly in a lost position), the amount of spite available is likely very limited (as otherwise, you probably aren't in a lost position). That is how the spite phase works. > I don't see the "logic" in this. But you have already indicated that > determining the "proper" target for spite means deliberately choosing > a course of action in order to hurt someone for no benefit > whatsoever. Spite has no benefit whatsoever. Except maybe adding a bit of entertainment to your lost game. That is why it is spite. But it strikes me as highly obvious (but clearly, this is mostly just me) that there are going to be appropriate targets for spite and inappropriate targets for spite. If I'm in a lost position 'cause my prey decided to back oust me, and the only reason I'm even still alive is 'cause someone cross table spent resources to keep me alive? Spending whatever I have left to spite my prey makes sense. Spending whatever I have left to spite the guy who was helping me out? Makes no sense. > This puts you in a bad way in terms of arguing that > others have some kind of obligation to follow your example. I've never argued such a thing. That anyone has an obligation to do anything. -Peter

On Feb 21, 10:22 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > Let's say that a group of players do find it desirable. They agree > that whenever a player is in a no-win situation he will be as passive > as possible. By passive I mean that that player will not attempt non- > mandatory actions, cast votes, attempt blocks, use optional abilities > etc. I'm sure you know what I'm after. A more thorough definition will > be given if necessary. If the player is somehow put in a situation > where he can't possibly be passive he will roll a dice as a last > resort. > > Would it in your opinion be reasonable to say that this would remove > personal preference as a factor in no-win situations? No. In my opinion it would not be reasonable to say that. First off, it requires the players to collectively legislate a distinction between a true "no-win situation" and a quasi "no-win situation" where the chances of victory are vanishingly small. What do you do when a player insists that he has hope? Seems to me you must take his word for it. And if he then insists that attacking cross table gives him a slightly better vanishingly-small chance than attacking his prey, how do you prove him wrong? If you insist, "no, the vanishingly small chances are exactly equal", you have only stated an assessment of the situation that is only marginally different from his own, thereby admitting you have no basis for questioning his judgment. You cannot legislate such distinctions. The only reason the "play to win" rule has any teeth at all is because occasionally there is a very stark contrast between what the player does and what the player ought to do. The rule has no teeth when bias has a subtle effect on a players assessment of equal or almost-equal odds. Moreover, it still does not eliminate bias and personal preference, because a 0% to 0% tie between two options, is merely one example of a situation where a player's two different choices grant a player equal or almost-equal chances of victory. Suppose the player has, in his view a 20% chance of victory if he attacks his prey, and a 20% chance of victory if he attacks cross-table. So he attacks cross table, perhaps due to bias. If anyone challenges his decision, he can always insist he is doing what he is doing because he thinks it the better option, and the statement will seem perfectly credible, even to himself. A far better system would be simply for the players to accept that a player who reasonably believes his cause is lost may do as he pleases, and that no player should take his decisions personally.

On Feb 20, 2:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I don't think attacking your prey is ever an arbitrary move. Even in > a truly lost position. From a lost position, attacking your prey tends to help your predator, which in turn tends to hurt the guy cross table. But I thought you had taken the position that making choices that hurt the fellow cross- table would qualify as a "dick move".

On Feb 22, 5:02 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 7:06 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > By that definition, anything the player does is spiteful to someone, > > even if he DOES roll dice first. > > If you are truly in a lost position, then yeah, anything you do is > spiteful to someone. As it isn't going to help you in any way. And is > only going to act to hinder someone for no gain. Thus, in that position, it's no more logical to attack your prey than attacking your grand predator (for example)? > > This puts you in a bad way in terms of arguing that > > others have some kind of obligation to follow your example. > > I've never argued such a thing. That anyone has an obligation to do > anything. Eh.. Yes you have? You wrote that "people always have at least some obligation to be logical. " like yesterday or so? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9cdff4d50dcef42a

On 22 helmi, 06:57, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > First off, it requires the players to collectively legislate a > distinction between a true "no-win situation" and a quasi "no-win > situation" where the chances of victory are vanishingly small. What > do you do when a player insists that he has hope? Trust that he is being sincere, just like I trust that he isn't marking his cards, arranging his deck etc. > You cannot legislate such distinctions. The only reason the "play to > win" rule has any teeth at all is because occasionally there is a very > stark contrast between what the player does and what the player ought > to do. The rule has no teeth when bias has a subtle effect on a > players assessment of equal or almost-equal odds. I'm proposing a social contract, not a rule. The other players are not obligated to have absolute proof of a violation to call it off. It is therefore up to each player to convince the rest that they are being sincere. > Moreover, it still does not eliminate bias and personal preference, > because a 0% to 0% tie between two options, is merely one example of a > situation where a player's two different choices grant a player equal > or almost-equal chances of victory. Suppose the player has, in his > view a 20% chance of victory if he attacks his prey, and a 20% chance > of victory if he attacks cross-table. I'm talking about no-win situations specifically.

On Feb 22, 5:26 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eh.. Yes you have? > You wrote that "people always have at least some obligation to be > logical. " like yesterday or so?http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/9cdf... Being logical (which is something everyone should be) and following my example (which is what John seemed to be implying I was trying to oblige people to do) aren't necessarily the same thing. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I know, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. You did however say: "people always have at least some obligation to be logical" Followed by: "I've never argued such a thing. That anyone has an obligation to do anything" And whether following your example or not is logical, you saying that first sentence means your second sentence is a lie (small one, but still). Either way, this thread should die. I'll skip posting from now on, hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Good night!

On Feb 22, 6:17 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know, that's what I've been trying to tell you all along. > You did however say: > "people always have at least some obligation to be logical" > Followed by: > "I've never argued such a thing. That anyone has an obligation to do > anything" This is true. It was my error. I was responding to John stating that I was trying to oblige people to follow my example. > And whether following your example or not is logical, you saying that > first sentence means your second sentence is a lie (small one, but > still). An error. Not an in intentional lie. -Peter

aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 22 helmi, 06:57, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > First off, it requires the players to collectively legislate a > > distinction between a true "no-win situation" and a quasi "no-win > > situation" where the chances of victory are vanishingly small. What > > do you do when a player insists that he has hope? > > Trust that he is being sincere, just like I trust that he isn't > marking his cards, arranging his deck etc. Of course he is being sincere! Saying "I have hope" does not require him to lie ... it merely requires a slight adjustment of perspective. One can always pray for a miracle, but a player in such situation has no way of rationally planning for victory. He is left to his instincts -- or to "random" actions -- or to doing what he "feels like". > > You cannot legislate such distinctions. The only reason the "play to > > win" rule has any teeth at all is because occasionally there is a very > > stark contrast between what the player does and what the player ought > > to do. The rule has no teeth when bias has a subtle effect on a > > players assessment of equal or almost-equal odds. > > I'm proposing a social contract, not a rule. The other players are not > obligated to have absolute proof of a violation to call it off. It is > therefore up to each player to convince the rest that they are being > sincere. I can see no value whatsoever to this exercise, and have no idea what value you see in it. > > Moreover, it still does not eliminate bias and personal preference, > > because a 0% to 0% tie between two options, is merely one example of a > > situation where a player's two different choices grant a player equal > > or almost-equal chances of victory. Suppose the player has, in his > > view a 20% chance of victory if he attacks his prey, and a 20% chance > > of victory if he attacks cross-table. > > I'm talking about no-win situations specifically. With a slight adjustment of perspective, a "no-win situation" becomes a situation where all options are tiny but about equal. A player, without rationally-determined basis for hope, nonetheless prays for a miracle and trusts ("randomly") to his instincts. Meanwhile, it seems to me contrary to the spirit of the game to suggest that players have an obligation to be sincere to each other about odds of victory.

On 23 helmi, 08:38, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > With a slight adjustment of perspective, a "no-win situation" becomes > a situation where all options are tiny but about equal. A player, > without rationally-determined basis for hope, nonetheless prays for a > miracle and trusts ("randomly") to his instincts. If all the options seem equal to the player the situation is functionally the same as a no-win situation in the sense that he can't rationally plan for victory. The player can opt for the predefined course of action instead of the pseudo-random action that is potentially affected by preferences.

[ quoted text not captured ] Again, why??? What function is being served? Why are you so terrified of any hint of an implication that a person might be a person and not a robot? Why this urge to so completely sterilize game play of its human element? How do you handle similar situations, occurring in real life, which are potentially of far more import than the outcome of a silly game? Do you think that, in real life, a person who cannot think of a rational self-interested basis for action, should be condemned to inaction?

On 23 helmi, 15:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 23 helmi, 08:38, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > With a slight adjustment of perspective, a "no-win situation" becomes > > > a situation where all options are tiny but about equal. A player, > > > without rationally-determined basis for hope, nonetheless prays for a > > > miracle and trusts ("randomly") to his instincts. > > > If all the options seem equal to the player the situation is > > functionally the same as a no-win situation in the sense that he can't > > rationally plan for victory. The player can opt for the predefined > > course of action instead of the pseudo-random action that is > > potentially affected by preferences. > > Again, why??? What function is being served? You mean why would I want to leave personal issues outside of the game? Because I think the tactical element it brings to the table makes the game less fun. Sometimes it even creates tension. > Why are you so terrified of any hint of an implication that a person > might be a person and not a robot? Why this urge to so completely > sterilize game play of its human element? Heh. You might be getting a little too emotionally involved in this discussion. > How do you handle similar situations, occurring in real life, which > are potentially of far more import than the outcome of a silly game? > > Do you think that, in real life, a person who cannot think of a > rational self-interested basis for action, should be condemned to > inaction? What makes you think I do?

aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Again, why??? What function is being served? > > You mean why would I want to leave personal issues outside of the > game? Because I think the tactical element it brings to the table > makes the game less fun. Sometimes it even creates tension. I don't see what you see. In any event, your solution only seems to beg the question of human decision making. Rather than admit that there is inevitably a fuzzy element to human decision making, you want to rule in advance that if a player is unable to choose between doing A, B, C or D (allegedly using only "rational" considerations), he should choose D. But what if the player has trouble deciding if he has trouble deciding? The fuzzy element remains, and you have merely moved the goalpost, and sought to confuse and complicate the decision- making process with an irrelevancy. The game already has a system for removing players from the game after they no longer have a stake in it. That rule is that, when you lose your last pool, your cards are removed from the table and you no longer participate. This system works fine.

On 23 helmi, 16:19, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Again, why??? What function is being served? > > > You mean why would I want to leave personal issues outside of the > > game? Because I think the tactical element it brings to the table > > makes the game less fun. Sometimes it even creates tension. > > I don't see what you see. I don't expect you to agree with me on whether personal issues are good or bad for the game. > In any event, your solution only seems to > beg the question of human decision making. Rather than admit that > there is inevitably a fuzzy element to human decision making, you want > to rule in advance that if a player is unable to choose between doing > A, B, C or D (allegedly using only "rational" considerations), he > should choose D. But what if the player has trouble deciding if he > has trouble deciding? The fuzzy element remains, and you have merely > moved the goalpost, and sought to confuse and complicate the decision- > making process with an irrelevancy. Seems pretty straightforward to decide whether it's possible to make a rational decision in a given situation or not. Furthermore, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that players have the capacity for introspection required to decide whether their own decisions are rational within the context of the rules or emotional. > The game already has a system for removing players from the game after > they no longer have a stake in it. That rule is that, when you lose > your last pool, your cards are removed from the table and you no > longer participate. This system works fine. For situations where you have actually lost. The discussion so far has been about a situation in which you can't win but can still affect the game.

aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 23 helmi, 16:19, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Again, why??? What function is being served? > > > > > You mean why would I want to leave personal issues outside of the > > > game? Because I think the tactical element it brings to the table > > > makes the game less fun. Sometimes it even creates tension. > > > > I don't see what you see. > > I don't expect you to agree with me on whether personal issues are > good or bad for the game. Our difference is purely related to the statement as applied to the situation under discussion. As far as I can tell, the only people injecting personal issues into the game, are those who insist that a player making this sort of decision should be required to explain his reasons, or who insist on ascribing to him bad motives. To my mind, the only explanation required is "because I was in a lost position" and even that only after the game is over -- or to the judge. > > In any event, your solution only seems to > > beg the question of human decision making. Rather than admit that > > there is inevitably a fuzzy element to human decision making, you want > > to rule in advance that if a player is unable to choose between doing > > A, B, C or D (allegedly using only "rational" considerations), he > > should choose D. But what if the player has trouble deciding if he > > has trouble deciding? The fuzzy element remains, and you have merely > > moved the goalpost, and sought to confuse and complicate the decision- > > making process with an irrelevancy. > > Seems pretty straightforward to decide whether it's possible to make a > rational decision in a given situation or not. Furthermore, I think it's perfectly > reasonable to expect that players have the capacity for > introspection required to decide whether their own decisions are > rational within the context of the rules or emotional. Not to me. The mind cannot be expected to properly reckon itself. I simply do not believe it is possible to operate by "pure reason" -- not even within the narrow, protected, structured environment of a V:tES game. Moreover, I see no reason by the "introspective" player, who is wise enough to be humble about his capacity for "pure reason", should be left at a disadvantage compared those players who are more delusional, and falsely believe that all their gaming decisions are motivated by pure reason. In "close call" situations, the player must make his own decisions. He needs no help from the silly "social contract" you describe, which only serves the make his decision-making process even fuzzier and more complex. You want to distract him from the issues at hand so he can take time out for a silly bout of introspection. > > The game already has a system for removing players from the game after > > they no longer have a stake in it. That rule is that, when you lose > > your last pool, your cards are removed from the table and you no > > longer participate. This system works fine. > > For situations where you have actually lost. The discussion so far has > been about a situation in which you can't win but can still affect the > game. Right. "Ousting" provides a clear goal-post, that determines when the player must leave the game. I don't believe that it is entirely meaningless to speak of a non- ousted player being in a lost position. But it is certainly a fuzzy concept. In games, a clear goalpost is better than a fuzzy one. And we already have our clear goalpost.

On 23 helmi, 18:02, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Our difference is purely related to the statement as applied to the > situation under discussion. As far as I can tell, the only people > injecting personal issues into the game, are those who insist that a > player making this sort of decision should be required to explain his > reasons, or who insist on ascribing to him bad motives. Who's telling other people what they should do? Who's saying that emotions are inherently bad? > I simply do not believe it is possible to operate by "pure reason" -- > not even within the narrow, protected, structured environment of a > V:tES game. Why? All you have to do is ask yourself "how does this action help me win?" If you can't answer that question the action is not rational. If you can't think of any rational course of action you are unable to make a rational choice. I don't see where you get this fuzziness. > I don't believe that it is entirely meaningless to speak of a non- > ousted player being in a lost position. But it is certainly a fuzzy > concept. In games, a clear goalpost is better than a fuzzy one. And > we already have our clear goalpost. I'm not sure what you mean here and how it's related to the discussion.

aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 23 helmi, 18:02, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Our difference is purely related to the statement as applied to the > > situation under discussion. As far as I can tell, the only people > > injecting personal issues into the game, are those who insist that a > > player making this sort of decision should be required to explain his > > reasons, or who insist on ascribing to him bad motives. > > Who's telling other people what they should do? Who's saying that > emotions are inherently bad? It's implied. You have suggested that, when a player cannot be guided by the application of "pure reason" to the PTW goal, and must be guided by emotion and instinct as a tie breaker, he should reject what emotion and instinct tell him, and do something else instead, per a "social contract". This suggests you believe, not only that emotion and instinct have no value, but that they have negative value. > > I simply do not believe it is possible to operate by "pure reason" -- > > not even within the narrow, protected, structured environment of a > > V:tES game. > > Why? I tried to explain it. > All you have to do is ask yourself "how does this action help me > win?" The answer might be: "I don't know, but it feels better than doing nothing". > If you can't answer that question the action is not rational. Neither is doing nothing, which the "solution" you propose. A rational person trusts his emotions, unless he is aware of a specific reason to distrust them. For that reason alone, my solution is more rational than yours. > If > you can't think of any rational course of action you are unable to > make a rational choice. Then I will make an irrational choice. I can trust my instincts / emotions. > I don't see where you get this fuzziness. I tried to explain it. It is impossible to make a hard distinction between a "no hope" and "virtually no hope". In a virtually no hope scenario, it is impossible to make a hard distinction between options that are precisely tied, and options that are almost tied. In such fuzzy contexts, emotions inevitably effect analysis (and these emotions do not necessarily bring the analysis further from the "truth"). Your "social contract" tries to take the decision out of the hands of the player, but ultimately it is still up to him. He still has to decide whether it is a "no hope scenario" or a "virtual no hope scenario"; he then must decide whether the options are tied or almost tied.

On 23 helmi, 21:46, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > Who's telling other people what they should do? Who's saying that > > emotions are inherently bad? > > It's implied. You have suggested that, when a player cannot be guided > by the application of "pure reason" to the PTW goal, and must be > guided by emotion and instinct as a tie breaker, he should reject what > emotion and instinct tell him, and do something else instead, per a > "social contract". I have said that players that don't want emotion (not emotion and instinct, just emotion) to be a factor can choose to remove it. I haven't said or implied that this is the decision that every group of players should make. > This suggests you believe, not only that emotion > and instinct have no value, but that they have negative value. I believe that allowing emotions to affect the game make the game less fun for me and a number of other players. > > If you can't answer that question the action is not rational. > > Neither is doing nothing, which the "solution" you propose. Yeah, the situation under discussion is defined as having no rational solution when the goal is to win or get points. Doing nothing is not rational in that context but the goal of a predefined option would be to remove preference as a factor. In that context it is perfectly rational. > A > rational person trusts his emotions, unless he is aware of a specific > reason to distrust them. In this case the specific reason would be the possibility of personal preference affecting decision making and giving another player a disadvantage just because you don't like them or their deck. > For that reason alone, my solution is more > rational than yours. Not if the goal is to remove emotional factors. > > If > > you can't think of any rational course of action you are unable to > > make a rational choice. > > Then I will make an irrational choice. I can trust my instincts / > emotions. But you would be aware of the nature of your choice. > Your "social contract" tries to take the decision out of the hands of > the player, but ultimately it is still up to him. He still has to > decide whether it is a "no hope scenario" or a "virtual no hope > scenario"; he then must decide whether the options are tied or almost > tied. All he has to decide is whether he can make a rational decision or not.

aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 23 helmi, 21:46, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Who's telling other people what they should do? Who's saying that > > > emotions are inherently bad? > > > > It's implied. You have suggested that, when a player cannot be guided > > by the application of "pure reason" to the PTW goal, and must be > > guided by emotion and instinct as a tie breaker, he should reject what > > emotion and instinct tell him, and do something else instead, per a > > "social contract". > > I have said that players that don't want emotion (not emotion and > instinct, just emotion) to be a factor can choose to remove it. It seemed to me that, since you would require that a player articulate a rational basis for his actions, any non-rational basis would thereby be excluded. But if it is okay to act on "instinct", I withdraw my objection to your proposed "social contract". With this clarification, the contract will not restrict me, or any other player, in any way. I will simply say "instinct" when asked to explain my reasons for choosing between options that appear to me to be equally hopeless. > I believe that allowing emotions to affect the game make the game less > fun for me and a number of other players. The idea of emotionless "fun" sounds rather contradictory to my mind. But if I am still allowed to laugh and smile on the basis of "instinct", I guess everything is okay. > Yeah, the situation under discussion is defined as having no rational > solution when the goal is to win or get points. Doing nothing is not > rational in that context but the goal of a predefined option would be > to remove preference as a factor. In that context it is perfectly rational. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be worried that I will be hurt and offended if, in a no-win situation, a player chooses to benefit his girlfriend instead of me, since such behavior is grounds to suspect that he may like her better. Thanks for your concern, but I think I can handle it. > > A > > rational person trusts his emotions, unless he is aware of a specific > > reason to distrust them. > > In this case the specific reason would be the possibility of personal > preference affecting decision making and giving another player a > disadvantage just because you don't like them or their deck. You cannot legislate social interaction. Obviously, it would not be a good thing for a player to telegraph his dislike for another player as the reason for his choice. But such explanation would also be completely unnecessary, since, in the circumstances, the player obviously must make a choice even if he has considerable and equal love, respect and admiration for everyone at the table. Why not just let the player make his choice, and explain as he pleases? He is free to consider the social consequences of both his choice and his explanation. As for disliking a deck, that has nothing to do with personal preference. In my experience, players tend to dislike the sorts of decks that shut them down without even giving them a chance to play. An example would be super-fast bleed decks, which inflict such severe damage in the opening rounds, that his doomed prey cannot even transfer out his key minion. In such circumstances, the doomed prey often "walls up" and tries to act as a speed bump, while putting no pressure on his own prey, who may then serve as an even greater speed bump. I don't recall doing this myself. But I recall having it done to me when I play super-fast cheesy bleed decks. I did not take it personally at all, and, in fact, fully sympathized with his motives. If an explanation of in-game retaliation is offered (such as cross- table vengeance), this also removes the need to suspect personal preference as a factor. If a player retaliates for specific conduct that occurred in the course of THIS game, then it is understood that all will be forgotten the next game. He is reacting to specific conduct, not to a specific person.

On 26 helmi, 16:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > It seemed to me that, since you would require that a player articulate > a rational basis for his actions, any non-rational basis would thereby > be excluded. I don't demand anything. > But if it is okay to act on "instinct", I withdraw my objection to > your proposed "social contract". With this clarification, the > contract will not restrict me, or any other player, in any way. I > will simply say "instinct" when asked to explain my reasons for > choosing between options that appear to me to be equally hopeless. And if I don't feel like you're being sincere I will take the liberty to interpret your conduct as a violation of the contract. > > I believe that allowing emotions to affect the game make the game less > > fun for me and a number of other players. > > The idea of emotionless "fun" sounds rather contradictory to my mind. > But if I am still allowed to laugh and smile on the basis of > "instinct", I guess everything is okay. Allowing emotions to affect the game is not the same as experiencing emotions during the game. > You cannot legislate social interaction. Obviously, it would not be a > good thing for a player to telegraph his dislike for another player as > the reason for his choice. But such explanation would also be > completely unnecessary, since, in the circumstances, the player > obviously must make a choice even if he has considerable and equal > love, respect and admiration for everyone at the table. Why not just > let the player make his choice, and explain as he pleases? He is free > to consider the social consequences of both his choice and his > explanation. The player can choose any way he wants. If he doesn't want to discriminate or be discriminated against based on personal issues he can choose a predefined course of action to make sure that personal issues are not a factor and the other players are more likely to treat him the same way. This is all I've been saying. Which part of this, if any, do you disagree with?

On Feb 26, 6:41 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 26 helmi, 16:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > It seemed to me that, since you would require that a player articulate > > a rational basis for his actions, any non-rational basis would thereby > > be excluded. > > I don't demand anything. You seem to like pulling the rug out from under the conversation. I was trying to discuss the conditions of the proposed social contract. As you described those conditions, they seemed to exclude all non-rational bases, including instinct. > > But if it is okay to act on "instinct", I withdraw my objection to > > your proposed "social contract". With this clarification, the > > contract will not restrict me, or any other player, in any way. I > > will simply say "instinct" when asked to explain my reasons for > > choosing between options that appear to me to be equally hopeless. > > And if I don't feel like you're being sincere I will take the liberty > to interpret your conduct as a violation of the contract. I'm sure you will. But on what basis? You said that your social contract does not exclude instinct. Do you take that back? This is my entire problem with your outlook. You seem to be looking for excuses for ascribing bad motives for the actions of other players. Obviously, your "social contract" will not solve this problem. > > > I believe that allowing emotions to affect the game make the game less > > > fun for me and a number of other players. > > > The idea of emotionless "fun" sounds rather contradictory to my mind. > > But if I am still allowed to laugh and smile on the basis of > > "instinct", I guess everything is okay. > > Allowing emotions to affect the game is not the same as experiencing > emotions during the game. How can you tell? If your emotions (or "instincts") say "do X"; and you say "screw you, emotions, I am going to do Y instead," you have still acted on the basis of emotions (or "instincts"). In the absence of awareness of some rational or other competing basis for "do Y" (which is the hypothetical under discussion), then you have no way of knowing what you would have done had your emotions (or "instincts") not said "do X". A person who acts purely to spite his emotions, has still acted on the basis of emotions. > > You cannot legislate social interaction. Obviously, it would not be a > > good thing for a player to telegraph his dislike for another player as > > the reason for his choice. But such explanation would also be > > completely unnecessary, since, in the circumstances, the player > > obviously must make a choice even if he has considerable and equal > > love, respect and admiration for everyone at the table. Why not just > > let the player make his choice, and explain as he pleases? He is free > > to consider the social consequences of both his choice and his > > explanation. > > The player can choose any way he wants. If he doesn't want to > discriminate or be discriminated against based on personal issues he > can choose a predefined course of action to make sure that personal > issues are not a factor and the other players are more likely to treat > him the same way. This is all I've been saying. Which part of this, if > any, do you disagree with? I disagree with the idea that social interaction can be controlled in this way. Let us assume I agree with the idea that personal favoritism should be kept out of the game as a factor in decisions. They way to do this, I think, is for players to articulate an in-game reason for their actions, and to try to mean what they say. Usually this means "play to win"; but when this does not apply, another in-game reason should be found. Retaliation or gratitude for specific in-game conduct is a favorite formula for an "in-game reason" -- not because the player is emotional or bears ill will -- but rather because he knows that by offering such reasons, he refutes the suspicion that he is acting on the basis of personal favoritism. Thus, each game begins, and ends, with the slate wiped clean and all forgotten.

On 27 helmi, 23:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > You seem to like pulling the rug out from under the conversation. I > was trying to discuss the conditions of the proposed social > contract. As you described those conditions, they seemed to exclude > all non-rational bases, including instinct. Maybe "instinct" is a misleading choice of words on my part. I'll call it intuition from now on. > I'm sure you will. But on what basis? You said that your social > contract does not exclude instinct. Do you take that back? Social contracts are entirely dependent on the whims of the parties involved. Making or breaking them doesn't require justification by irrefutable logical proofs. Typically, the spirit of the "rule" is more relevant to social contracts than the exact language. > This is my entire problem with your outlook. You seem to be looking > for excuses for ascribing bad motives for the actions of other > players. You seem to be too concerned about me instead of the topic. > How can you tell? If your emotions (or "instincts") say "do X"; and > you say "screw you, emotions, I am going to do Y instead," you have > still acted on the basis of emotions (or "instincts"). In the absence > of awareness of some rational or other competing basis for "do > Y" (which is the hypothetical under discussion), then you have no way > of knowing what you would have done had your emotions (or "instincts") > not said "do X". > > A person who acts purely to spite his emotions, has still acted on the > basis of emotions. Acting on the basis of avoiding acting on the basis of emotions is a valid concept and distinct from the concept of acting on the basis of emotions, even if language doesn't sufficiently describe it. > > The player can choose any way he wants. If he doesn't want to > > discriminate or be discriminated against based on personal issues he > > can choose a predefined course of action to make sure that personal > > issues are not a factor and the other players are more likely to treat > > him the same way. This is all I've been saying. Which part of this, if > > any, do you disagree with? > > I disagree with the idea that social interaction can be controlled in > this way. > > Let us assume I agree with the idea that personal favoritism should be > kept out of the game as a factor in decisions. They way to do this, I > think, is for players to articulate an in-game reason for their > actions, and to try to mean what they say. Usually this means "play > to win"; but when this does not apply, another in-game reason should > be found. "Play to win" is the only sanctioned in-game motivator. Other goals would be completely arbitrary from the point of view of the rules. > Retaliation or gratitude for specific in-game conduct is a favorite > formula for an "in-game reason" -- not because the player is emotional > or bears ill will -- but rather because he knows that by offering such > reasons, he refutes the suspicion that he is acting on the basis of > personal favoritism. Thus, each game begins, and ends, with the slate > wiped clean and all forgotten. Passiveness is one arbitrary option, retaliation or gratitude is another.

On 27 helmi, 23:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > You seem to like pulling the rug out from under the conversation. I > was trying to discuss the conditions of the proposed social > contract. As you described those conditions, they seemed to exclude > all non-rational bases, including instinct. Maybe "instinct" is a misleading choice of word on my part. I'll call it intuition from now on. > I'm sure you will. But on what basis? You said that your social > contract does not exclude instinct. Do you take that back? Social contracts are entirely dependent on the whims of the concerned parties. Making or breaking them does not require justification by logical proofs. Typically, the spirit of the "rule" is more relevant than the exact language. > This is my entire problem with your outlook. You seem to be looking > for excuses for ascribing bad motives for the actions of other > players. Obviously, your "social contract" will not solve this > problem. You seem to be more concerned about me than the topic. > How can you tell? If your emotions (or "instincts") say "do X"; and > you say "screw you, emotions, I am going to do Y instead," you have > still acted on the basis of emotions (or "instincts"). In the absence > of awareness of some rational or other competing basis for "do > Y" (which is the hypothetical under discussion), then you have no way > of knowing what you would have done had your emotions (or "instincts") > not said "do X". > > A person who acts purely to spite his emotions, has still acted on the > basis of emotions. Acting based on avoiding acting based on emotions is a valid concept and distinct from the concept of acting based on emotions. > I disagree with the idea that social interaction can be controlled in > this way. > > Let us assume I agree with the idea that personal favoritism should be > kept out of the game as a factor in decisions. They way to do this, I > think, is for players to articulate an in-game reason for their > actions, and to try to mean what they say. Usually this means "play > to win"; but when this does not apply, another in-game reason should > be found. "Play to win/get points" is the only in-game motivator sanctioned by the rules. All other goals are arbitrary from the point of view of the game. > Retaliation or gratitude for specific in-game conduct is a favorite > formula for an "in-game reason" -- not because the player is emotional > or bears ill will -- but rather because he knows that by offering such > reasons, he refutes the suspicion that he is acting on the basis of > personal favoritism. Thus, each game begins, and ends, with the slate > wiped clean and all forgotten. Passiveness is one arbitrary course of action, retaliation or gratitude is another.

On Feb 27, 6:10 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27 helmi, 23:06, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > You seem to like pulling the rug out from under the conversation. I > > was trying to discuss the conditions of the proposed social > > contract. As you described those conditions, they seemed to exclude > > all non-rational bases, including instinct. > > Maybe "instinct" is a misleading choice of words on my part. I'll call > it intuition from now on. The semantics make no difference. The essential problem remains. If, after entering a strange old house, I feel nervous and I feel the urge to flee, and no other factors inform my choice, then it does not make any difference whether you call this "emotion" or "instinct" or "intuition". If I subsequently learn of a rational basis for belief that fleeing was a good move, I may congratulate myself for my good instincts or valid intuition. However, if, in hindsight, it turns out that fleeing was a bad idea, I may scold myself for giving in to silly emotions. In the situation at issue, the chooser must make his choice with benefit of hindsight. He has no way of knowing whether his feelings have any special validity, such as the term "intuition" implies. If he did, he would have a rational basis for action. > > I'm sure you will. But on what basis? You said that your social > > contract does not exclude instinct. Do you take that back? > > Social contracts are entirely dependent on the whims of the parties > involved. Making or breaking them doesn't require justification by > irrefutable logical proofs. Typically, the spirit of the "rule" is > more relevant to social contracts than the exact language. I cannot see the "spirit" of the rule. Objectively, there is no wrong behavior involved in the situation. There would be no need of the social contract, except that you seem to think the private thoughts and emotions of the person engaging in such conduct is somehow everyone else's business, which it is not. Since the contract itself is unenforceable, it seems that the only purpose the contract serves is to endorse the wrongheaded idea that internal private emotions are everyone else's business, and provide additional occasion to unprovably speculate as to whether persons are complying with the contract. > Acting on the basis of avoiding acting on the basis of emotions is a > valid concept and distinct from the concept of acting on the basis of > emotions, even if language doesn't sufficiently describe it. I disagree. The concept you describe is a nonsensical concept. One can resist the pull of a particular emotion, if there is a particular reason to do so. But to act solely for the purpose of spiting one's emotions serves no valid function. God and/or Evolution (take your pick) gave us emotions for a reason. We would not have them if they did not serve a purpose. Resisting emotions solely for the sake of resisting emotions is a silly and counter-productive endeavor.

On 1 maalis, 05:21, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The semantics make no difference. The essential problem remains. If, > after entering a strange old house, I feel nervous and I feel the urge > to flee, and no other factors inform my choice, then it does not make > any difference whether you call this "emotion" or "instinct" or > "intuition". If I subsequently learn of a rational basis for belief > that fleeing was a good move, I may congratulate myself for my good > instincts or valid intuition. However, if, in hindsight, it turns out > that fleeing was a bad idea, I may scold myself for giving in to silly > emotions. Emotion/instinct is a motivator. Intuition is a method. > In the situation at issue, the chooser must make his choice with > benefit of hindsight. He has no way of knowing whether his feelings > have any special validity, such as the term "intuition" implies. If > he did, he would have a rational basis for action. If he didn't, he would know that he doesn't have a basis for rational action. > I cannot see the "spirit" of the rule. The "spirit" of the rule is to prevent discrimination based on preferences. > Objectively, there is no wrong > behavior involved in the situation. Objectively, there is no wrong. At all. That's not a helpful statement. > There would be no need of the > social contract, except that you seem to think the private thoughts > and emotions of the person engaging in such conduct is somehow > everyone else's business, which it is not. I've explained the incentive for the social contract several times. If players don't like the effect emotions have on the game they can make a social contract. > Since the contract itself > is unenforceable, The contract is enforceable by the player making the choice. > it seems that the only purpose the contract serves > is to endorse the wrongheaded idea that internal private emotions are > everyone else's business, and provide additional occasion to > unprovably speculate as to whether persons are complying with the > contract. The idea is to keep private emotions private as opposed to forcing other players to worry about them. > > Acting on the basis of avoiding acting on the basis of emotions is a > > valid concept and distinct from the concept of acting on the basis of > > emotions, even if language doesn't sufficiently describe it. > > I disagree. The concept you describe is a nonsensical concept. One > can resist the pull of a particular emotion, if there is a particular > reason to do so. But to act solely for the purpose of spiting one's > emotions serves no valid function. The reason is to remove emotions as a factor because they would make the game less enjoyable. This is not acting solely for the purpose of spiting one's emotions. > God and/or Evolution (take your pick) gave us emotions for a reason. > We would not have them if they did not serve a purpose. Resisting > emotions solely for the sake of resisting emotions is a silly and > counter-productive endeavor. God/Evolution gave us self control for a reason. We would not have it if it didn't serve a purpose. When emotions seem counterproductive we have the choice of resisting them.

On Mar 1, 9:45 am, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 1 maalis, 05:21, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The semantics make no difference. The essential problem remains. If, > > after entering a strange old house, I feel nervous and I feel the urge > > to flee, and no other factors inform my choice, then it does not make > > any difference whether you call this "emotion" or "instinct" or > > "intuition". If I subsequently learn of a rational basis for belief > > that fleeing was a good move, I may congratulate myself for my good > > instincts or valid intuition. However, if, in hindsight, it turns out > > that fleeing was a bad idea, I may scold myself for giving in to silly > > emotions. > > Emotion/instinct is a motivator. Intuition is a method. The distinction is meaningless in the context of the choice being made. "Method" implies means to an end. But without benefit of hindsight, or rational basis for connecting his means to his end, he has no way of knowing if his choice will lead to his goal. > > In the situation at issue, the chooser must make his choice with > > benefit of hindsight. He has no way of knowing whether his feelings > > have any special validity, such as the term "intuition" implies. If > > he did, he would have a rational basis for action. > > If he didn't, he would know that he doesn't have a basis for rational > action. Right. That's all he knows. He has no way of excluding "instinct" from his non-rational bases. That's why I said your test excludes "instict" and "emotion". Nor do I see how it helps to resort to a third word. > > I cannot see the "spirit" of the rule. > > The "spirit" of the rule is to prevent discrimination based on > preferences. > > > Objectively, there is no wrong > > behavior involved in the situation. > > Objectively, there is no wrong. At all. That's not a helpful > statement. It is helpful. For it shows that the only "problem" lies purely in the minds of those who are complaining. > > There would be no need of the > > social contract, except that you seem to think the private thoughts > > and emotions of the person engaging in such conduct is somehow > > everyone else's business, which it is not. > > I've explained the incentive for the social contract several times. If > players don't like the effect emotions have on the game they can make > a social contract. Your reasons for desiring this social contract are clearly emotional. "Emotions" are still having an effect on the game (if the social contract has any effect -- which it probably won't). In the hypothetical at issue, Players have no reason to dislike the effect emotions are having on the game, because this alleged affect is entirely invisible to them. Any "problem" clearly lies in their own minds, in their wrong-headed belief that that it is their business to speculate into the private emotions of other players. The problem is in your mind. That is also where the solution must begin. > > Since the contract itself is unenforceable, > > The contract is enforceable by the player making the choice. No. It is not even self-enforceable, because of the flexible, meaningless semantics involved. > > it seems that the only purpose the contract serves > > is to endorse the wrongheaded idea that internal private emotions are > > everyone else's business, and provide additional occasion to > > unprovably speculate as to whether persons are complying with the > > contract. > > The idea is to keep private emotions private as opposed to forcing > other players to worry about them. If THAT is the idea, then I have already proposed the superior solution. The player may either keep his reasons private, or voice a reason that is NOT personal favoritism. Other players in turn should respect the choosers privacy, and not demand explanations where it is none of their business. > > > Acting on the basis of avoiding acting on the basis of emotions is a > > > valid concept and distinct from the concept of acting on the basis of > > > emotions, even if language doesn't sufficiently describe it. > > > I disagree. The concept you describe is a nonsensical concept. One > > can resist the pull of a particular emotion, if there is a particular > > reason to do so. But to act solely for the purpose of spiting one's > > emotions serves no valid function. > > The reason is to remove emotions as a factor because they would make > the game less enjoyable. This is not acting solely for the purpose of > spiting one's emotions. Yes it is. Because you have not demonstrated circumstances where emotions would make the game less enjoyable. > > God and/or Evolution (take your pick) gave us emotions for a reason. > > We would not have them if they did not serve a purpose. Resisting > > emotions solely for the sake of resisting emotions is a silly and > > counter-productive endeavor. > > God/Evolution gave us self control for a reason. We would not have it > if it didn't serve a purpose. When emotions seem counterproductive we > have the choice of resisting them. Exactly. But you have not demonstrated circumstances where "emotions seem counterproductive". The only "seeming" lies in your mind, and your persistent belief that it is your own business to engage in hostile speculation regarding the private emotions of other players.

On 1 maalis, 22:56, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The distinction is meaningless in the context of the choice being > made. "Method" implies means to an end. But without benefit of > hindsight, or rational basis for connecting his means to his end, he > has no way of knowing if his choice will lead to his goal. Rationality doesn't require infallibility. > Right. That's all he knows. He has no way of excluding "instinct" > from his non-rational bases. That's why I said your test excludes > "instict" and "emotion". If he knows that he can't make a decision that is rational in the context of the rules he has to decide based on either emotion or, assuming he doesn't want emotions to affect the game, convention. > Nor do I see how it helps to resort to a > third word. Rationality allows intuition. > It is helpful. For it shows that the only "problem" lies purely in > the minds of those who are complaining. And what is that supposed to prove? Not liking something is a perfectly good reason to want to change something. If all the players in the table agree that they don't like the effect emotions have on the game there is no reason not to do something about it. > Your reasons for desiring this social contract are clearly emotional. > "Emotions" are still having an effect on the game (if the social > contract has any effect -- which it probably won't). But not the specific emotions that are presumed undesirable. > In the hypothetical at issue, Players have no reason to dislike the > effect emotions are having on the game, because this alleged affect is > entirely invisible to them. Why would it be entirely invisible? If it were, why shouldn't the players dislike the possibility of an invisible but real factor? > Any "problem" clearly lies in their own > minds, in their wrong-headed belief that that it is their business to > speculate into the private emotions of other players. > > The problem is in your mind. That is also where the solution must > begin. Why "must" the solution begin in my mind when I have other options? > No. It is not even self-enforceable, because of the flexible, > meaningless semantics involved. I thought we already agreed that a player can know when he can't make a rational decision. > If THAT is the idea, then I have already proposed the superior > solution. The player may either keep his reasons private, or voice a > reason that is NOT personal favoritism. Spite implies that the reason is obvious. > Other players in turn should respect the choosers privacy, and not > demand explanations where it is none of their business. Who's demanding? The player has the option to give an explanation if he prefers that others would do so as well. > Yes it is. Because you have not demonstrated circumstances where > emotions would make the game less enjoyable. If I'm punished out of spite I am enjoying the game less. If I have to include the possibility of me or someone else being punished out of spite in to my game plan I am enjoying the game less. > Exactly. But you have not demonstrated circumstances where "emotions > seem counterproductive". Allowing emotions to affect the game in certain ways is counterproductive if it makes the game less fun and the goal is to have fun. > The only "seeming" lies in your mind, and > your persistent belief that it is your own business to engage in > hostile speculation regarding the private emotions of other players. Why do you see it as hostile? I'm not trying to force anyone to comply.

On Mar 1, 4:56 pm, aleksinu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 1 maalis, 22:56, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The distinction is meaningless in the context of the choice being > > made. "Method" implies means to an end. But without benefit of > > hindsight, or rational basis for connecting his means to his end, he > > has no way of knowing if his choice will lead to his goal. > > Rationality doesn't require infallibility. > > > Right. That's all he knows. He has no way of excluding "instinct" > > from his non-rational bases. That's why I said your test excludes > > "instict" and "emotion". > > If he knows that he can't make a decision that is rational in the > context of the rules he has to decide based on either emotion or, > assuming he doesn't want emotions to affect the game, convention. > > > Nor do I see how it helps to resort to a > > third word. > > Rationality allows intuition. I still have no idea what you are talking about. So why don't you give an example, operating within the context of the situation under discussion, where a person, without other rational basis for hope, uses "intuition" to choose the "best" choice, and does not thereby violate the social contract. > > It is helpful. For it shows that the only "problem" lies purely in > > the minds of those who are complaining. > > And what is that supposed to prove? Not liking something is a > perfectly good reason to want to change something. Sounds to me like an "emotional" reason to want to change something, since you have provided no rational reason to believe that anything needs to be changed, or that this scheme would serve any good purpose. > If all the players > in the table agree that they don't like the effect emotions have on > the game there is no reason not to do something about it. In the situation at issue, the players have no rational basis for their belief that emotions are having a negative effect on the table. If their has been a negative effect, it would be because the "bad" emotions have somehow manifested themselves in bad conduct. But in that case, it is the conduct which is the problem. You should target the conduct you believe is the problem, and not worry yourself about private emotions, which are none of your business. > > Your reasons for desiring this social contract are clearly emotional. > > "Emotions" are still having an effect on the game (if the social > > contract has any effect -- which it probably won't). > > But not the specific emotions that are presumed undesirable. You never mentioned specific emotions. Nor did you ever justified your presumption that they are having an undesireable effect. > > In the hypothetical at issue, Players have no reason to dislike the > > effect emotions are having on the game, because this alleged affect is > > entirely invisible to them. > > Why would it be entirely invisible? If it were, why shouldn't the > players dislike the possibility of an invisible but real factor? Firstly, if it were visible, there would be specific "bad conduct" (which includes words as well as deeds) to complain about. This would eliminate any need to complain of their "bad" emotions, which are none of your business. Secondly, we were discussing a hypothetical situation. No bad conduct is inherent in that situation. Indeed, no strong emotions are inherent in the situation -- the situation is not inherently any more emotional than is typical the case. What defines the situation is a lack of any rational basis for choosing between the interests of remaining players in the context of the play-to-win goal. If you now want to add bad conduct to the situation (whether caused by "emotions" or not), we are now discussing a different hypothetical. > > Any "problem" clearly lies in their own > > minds, in their wrong-headed belief that that it is their business to > > speculate into the private emotions of other players. > > > The problem is in your mind. That is also where the solution must > > begin. > > Why "must" the solution begin in my mind when I have other options? Your other option does not solve the problem, because, as you admitted, you will still "feel at liberty" to ascribe "bad" motives to other players, and speculate that they are violating the contract. > > No. It is not even self-enforceable, because of the flexible, > > meaningless semantics involved. > > I thought we already agreed that a player can know when he can't make > a rational decision. It is possible for a player to be unable to make a rational decision, and know this. But only if "rational decision" is defined to exclude instinct and intuition. If I said such a thing, it was on this understanding. Moreover, it is NOT possible for a player to distinguish between "absolutely no hope" and "almost no hope". As I understand it, you would apply your contract in the former situation, but not the latter, though this has been a bit unclear. Moreover, it is NOT possible, in an "almost no hope" situation, for a player to precisely calcluate, in mathematical terms, the miniscule odds of victory for each option. He cannot prove to himself that all options are equally mathematically, and hence know that his preference for one option is mathematically wrong. If he feels he likes one course of action better, he will have no rational basis for being sure that his conduct is "rational" as opposed to "emotional". > > If THAT is the idea, then I have already proposed the superior > > solution. The player may either keep his reasons private, or voice a > > reason that is NOT personal favoritism. > > Spite implies that the reason is obvious. Not in the hypothetical at issue. The hypothetical at issue is simply that a person must choose between 3 options, in the absence of a rational basis for choice in the context of the play-to-win goal. It is you, and others, who have incorporated the word "spite" into the hypothetical. To the extent this was based on an assumption of objectively observable "bad conduct", you have never adequately specified the "bad conduct" you had in mind. Adding new factors is cheating. It changes the hypothetical. Obviously if, in choosing my option, I say "I'm doing this because I hate your guts and think you are ugly," this would be bad conduct and rude conduct. > > Other players in turn should respect the choosers privacy, and not > > demand explanations where it is none of their business. > > Who's demanding? The player has the option to give an explanation if > he prefers that others would do so as well. In the context of the hypothetical at issue, a player should have the OPTION of giving a reason for his decision, just as he has the OPTION to make table talk. No-one should believe they have a right to an explanation for conduct, unless there is some indication that PTW, or some other rule, is violated, which it has not been. > > Yes it is. Because you have not demonstrated circumstances where > > emotions would make the game less enjoyable. > > If I'm punished out of spite I am enjoying the game less. If I have to > include the possibility of me or someone else being punished out of > spite in to my game plan I am enjoying the game less. In the hypothetical at issue, you have no rational basis for your belief that you are being "punished out of spite." You can invent such a scenario, of course, but that changes the hypothetical. Personally, I find that I enjoy the game more when I win than when I lose. This is an unavoidable aspect of the competitive drive. But I do not think these emotions jusfify bad conduct on my part. In short, I do not think I should be a whiny sore loser. Hence, when another player's choices cause me to lose, I do not accuse them of acting with "bad" emotions, if I have no objective reason to believe they have done anything contrary to the rules of the game. Yes. It feels bad to lose, sometimes. Do not take it personally. Do not project your bad feelings onto other players. > > Exactly. But you have not demonstrated circumstances where "emotions > > seem counterproductive". > > Allowing emotions to affect the game in certain ways is > counterproductive if it makes the game less fun and the goal is to > have fun. I agree. But the key phrase here is "in certain ways". In the hypothetical at issue, you have not shown that emotions have effected the game in any negative way.

On 2 maalis, 00:52, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I still have no idea what you are talking about. So why don't you > give an example, operating within the context of the situation under > discussion, where a person, without other rational basis for hope, > uses "intuition" to choose the "best" choice, and does not thereby > violate the social contract. Look up the definitions of "rationality" and "intuition". That should suffice. > Sounds to me like an "emotional" reason to want to change something, > since you have provided no rational reason to believe that anything > needs to be changed, or that this scheme would serve any good purpose. Nothing ever needs to do anything in a purely objective sense. If having fun is defined as the goal and the way certain emotions affect the game obstruct this goal it is rational to want to remove the effect those certain emotions have on the game. To be more specific, it is rational in the context of having fun but irrational in the context of the rules. > In the situation at issue, the players have no rational basis for > their belief that emotions are having a negative effect on the table. Not liking the effect is enough of a reason to want to remove it. > If their has been a negative effect, it would be because the "bad" > emotions have somehow manifested themselves in bad conduct. But in > that case, it is the conduct which is the problem. You should target > the conduct you believe is the problem, I see the implications that favoring/disfavoring based on personal issues has on the game play as the negative effect. I'm not sure if you would equate this with conduct or not. > and not worry yourself about > private emotions, which are none of your business. I'm not going to worry about people's private emotions as long as they don't introduce those emotions as factors for me to worry about. > > But not the specific emotions that are presumed undesirable. > > You never mentioned specific emotions. I thought it was clear from the start that we're talking about the effects of personal feelings towards people or deck types. > Nor did you ever justified > your presumption that they are having an undesireable effect. I don't presume that the effect is universally undesirable. I know that I don't desire it. > > Why would it be entirely invisible? If it were, why shouldn't the > > players dislike the possibility of an invisible but real factor? > > Firstly, if it were visible, there would be specific "bad > conduct" (which includes words as well as deeds) to complain about. The effect can create a visible statistical advantage/disadvantage in the long run. > This would eliminate any need to complain of their "bad" emotions, > which are none of your business. > > Secondly, we were discussing a hypothetical situation. No bad conduct > is inherent in that situation. Indeed, no strong emotions are > inherent in the situation -- the situation is not inherently any more > emotional than is typical the case. What defines the situation is a > lack of any rational basis for choosing between the interests of > remaining players in the context of the play-to-win goal. > > If you now want to add bad conduct to the situation (whether caused by > "emotions" or not), we are now discussing a different hypothetical. I haven't talked about bad conduct. I've talked about an effect that I don't like. > > Why "must" the solution begin in my mind when I have other options? > > Your other option does not solve the problem, because, as you > admitted, you will still "feel at liberty" to ascribe "bad" motives to > other players, and speculate that they are violating the contract. Only if I feel that they aren't being sincere. > It is possible for a player to be unable to make a rational decision, > and know this. But only if "rational decision" is defined to exclude > instinct and intuition. If I said such a thing, it was on this > understanding. Intuition does not have to be excluded. > Moreover, it is NOT possible for a player to distinguish between > "absolutely no hope" and "almost no hope". As I understand it, you > would apply your contract in the former situation, but not the latter, > though this has been a bit unclear. I would apply the contract in a situation where I don't have the ability to make a choice that is rational in the context of the rules. > Moreover, it is NOT possible, in an "almost no hope" situation, for a > player to precisely calcluate, in mathematical terms, the miniscule > odds of victory for each option. He cannot prove to himself that all > options are equally mathematically, and hence know that his preference > for one option is mathematically wrong. If he feels he likes one > course of action better, he will have no rational basis for being sure > that his conduct is "rational" as opposed to "emotional". I argue that he can make the distinction between what he feels like doing and what he intuitively feels will bring him closer to winning. > > Spite implies that the reason is obvious. > > Not in the hypothetical at issue. The hypothetical at issue is simply > that a person must choose between 3 options, in the absence of a > rational basis for choice in the context of the play-to-win goal. > > It is you, and others, who have incorporated the word "spite" into the > hypothetical. To the extent this was based on an assumption of > objectively observable "bad conduct", you have never adequately > specified the "bad conduct" you had in mind. What I have in mind is the visible effect that making choices based on personal preferences has. I'm not sure what you mean by conduct in this context. > Adding new factors is cheating. It changes the hypothetical. > Obviously if, in choosing my option, I say "I'm doing this because I > hate your guts and think you are ugly," this would be bad conduct and > rude conduct. This isn't adding new factors. Spite was a factor from the beginning of this branch of the discussion when someone said "I don't like choosing out of spite". > In the context of the hypothetical at issue, a player should have the > OPTION of giving a reason for his decision, just as he has the OPTION > to make table talk. No-one should believe they have a right to an > explanation for conduct, unless there is some indication that PTW, or > some other rule, is violated, which it has not been. And no-one does. I do, however, argue that you are less likely to be punished out of spite if you yourself don't punish out of spite. > Personally, I find that I enjoy the game more when I win than when I > lose. This is an unavoidable aspect of the competitive drive. But I > do not think these emotions jusfify bad conduct on my part. In short, > I do not think I should be a whiny sore loser. Hence, when another > player's choices cause me to lose, I do not accuse them of acting with > "bad" emotions, if I have no objective reason to believe they have > done anything contrary to the rules of the game. > > Yes. It feels bad to lose, sometimes. Do not take it personally. Do > not project your bad feelings onto other players. Do you understand how someone could find certain aspects of a game less enjoyable? For example, if the rules didn't explicitly exclude arm wrestling as an in-game factor the players might want to exclude it anyway. This doesn't necessarily mean that the players in question have weak arms. > > Allowing emotions to affect the game in certain ways is > > counterproductive if it makes the game less fun and the goal is to > > have fun. > > I agree. But the key phrase here is "in certain ways". In the > hypothetical at issue, you have not shown that emotions have effected > the game in any negative way. Making the game less enjoyable to the players sounds like a negative effect to those players.