Should the dealmaking reputation count?

from tobias post 2. Jo and Dieter have broken deals in the past (AFAIK). Therefore, they have proved to be able to pursue a longer-term strategy (including deal-break) while following a shorter-term strategy of following the deal. (I am not sure how my decision would have been modified by the hypothetical knowledge that, until that point, Jo and Dieter had been pathological deal-keepers, but if that discussion is of interest, I suggest we put it in a different thread.) would it have affected your decision? stefan

[ quoted text not captured ] From my perspective, it comes down to risk analysis, as it always does. If someone habitually breaks deals, you need to weigh up the chance that they will break THIS deal, and as such, either protect yourself more, or demand more of a payoff, or demand a portion of the deal up front. I think a person's reputation as a dealbreaker/dealkeeper is as much a factor of their game as their reputation for sloppy play ("Oops, forgot the Edge gain again, guess I will tap out hunting."), or deck construction ("Blood Dolls? Pah! I like Tortured Confession and Mummify!"). I tend to try and trust people about as much as they keep deals. In our playgroup, we tend to be very deal-happy, but as a consequence, deals very rarely eventuate. More often than not, someone helps someone else as a matter of game placement. Morgan Vening

> You can't stick a reputation to someone because you don't know whether > they > are just a deal-breaker, or if they have a good reason for doing so. I am yet to see anyone forcing me to take a deal... -- Bye, Daneel

My newsreader seems to have trouble with stefan's original post, so I'll reply to this one: "Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> schreef in bericht news:dmgnm01udoe6knkmr...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:46:52 +0200, Stefan Ferenci > <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >>from tobias post >> >>2. Jo and Dieter have broken deals in the past (AFAIK). Therefore, >>they have proved to be able to pursue a longer-term strategy >>(including deal-break) while following a shorter-term strategy of >>following the deal. (I am not sure how my decision would have been >>modified by the hypothetical knowledge that, until that point, Jo and >>Dieter had been pathological deal-keepers, but if that discussion is >>of interest, I suggest we put it in a different thread.) >> >>would it have affected your decision? >> >>stefan I'd have to look back at my mental state of that point to know for sure, but I think I wouldn't have. Now that I have had time to think about it, I wouldn't do so in similar cases in the future. I'll tell you why: 1. Even if Jo had been one of the people that are, for whatever reason, incapable of breaking a deal, he would still be playing to maximise final standing, given his options at that point. 2. His partner was also playing to maximise standing. The reason to consider their nature would be because they are playing to maximise their (probability of success * margin of success) each available play option, as it comes by. If they are removing a play option (dealbreaking) by self-imposed restrictions, their optimal summed margin of success when playing out their choice of all possible game paths might be lower than not taking the deal and "giving it their last push", which would not be playing to win, which is illegal. But, even if they had never broken a deal, and spoken out loudly on not doing so, the option would still be open to them. Not acknowledging that option as valid is 'bad play', IMHO, but I cannot play their decks for them - only stop illegal deals. (So much for the specific case. I'm glad I didn't have to consider this for that final, anyway. :) ) More generally: Having the possibility of deal-breaking in your repertoire of 'moves' always increases your options to choose from. In a bizarre twist, this means that 'playing to win' might lead to 'playing to be able to deal-break'. Forcing people to break (non-maximally winning) deals to win would, however, remove the option of the game-split deal (since it cannot legally be acted out to completion), but would leave a very bad taste for many players in being forced into certain actions (this may be the reason for the 'you may honor your deal' rule, which I cannot quote right now, so shoot it down if I'm wrong here). Of course keeping deals has benefits for play as well (more likely to have deals accepted in the long run), but there are no rules concerning long-term benefits. > From my perspective, it comes down to risk analysis, as it always > does. If someone habitually breaks deals, you need to weigh up the > chance that they will break THIS deal, and as such, either protect > yourself more, or demand more of a payoff, or demand a portion of the > deal up front. True, and I do so as well. From a judge's perspective, however, there are no rules about changing your current play, in game X, so as to optimise your chances in the future, while there are "play to win now" rules in place for the short term. > I think a person's reputation as a dealbreaker/dealkeeper is as much a > factor of their game as their reputation for sloppy play ("Oops, > forgot the Edge gain again, guess I will tap out hunting."), or deck > construction ("Blood Dolls? Pah! I like Tortured Confession and > Mummify!"). Reputation on all these things changes the way you treat your opponent, I agree. Tobias Deventer

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416ba865$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] The whole dealmaking discussion misses two points: 1st. Card play and deal making arent two different things in VTES. Deal making is a result of card play. And deal making is part of a multiplayer game. 2nd. All ideas how a judge can change the game are wallpaper. A judge can rule cards, he can stop unsportsmanlike behaviour, maybe he can intervene with very obviously collusion. Thats all. He cannot play the game of other people. If two players make a deal and they can logical argue, why the deal is in their interest to maximise their VPs (or position), the deal is legal. Its not the judges job to show or even see, how the players can make more VPs. The knowledge that players break deals may change the probability, that they maybe could get more VPs. Its a mood point, for the question, if a deal is legal. Both players acted in their own interest to get more VPs, like Tobias had shown us. So the deal was legal. Point.

"Decebalus" <x5m...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:fb7de752.04101...@posting.google.com... > Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:<416ba865$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... >> from tobias post >> >> 2. Jo and Dieter have broken deals in the past (AFAIK). Therefore, >> they have proved to be able to pursue a longer-term strategy >> (including deal-break) while following a shorter-term strategy of >> following the deal. (I am not sure how my decision would have been >> modified by the hypothetical knowledge that, until that point, Jo and >> Dieter had been pathological deal-keepers, but if that discussion is >> of interest, I suggest we put it in a different thread.) >> > > The whole dealmaking discussion misses two points: > 1st. Card play and deal making arent two different things in VTES. > Deal making is a result of card play. And deal making is part of a > multiplayer game. Agreed. Deal making not based on the current game and maximising VPs might be collusion or bad play or unsportsmanlike... > 2nd. All ideas how a judge can change the game are wallpaper. A judge > can rule cards, he can stop unsportsmanlike behaviour, maybe he can > intervene with very obviously collusion. Thats all. He cannot play the > game of other people. Ermm. It's the judge's job to 'change the current game' when needed, like you mention. Sometimes, there are grey areas about the factors a judge needs to consider when making a decision - especially in VP deals. Which is why I'm exploring this topic. I agree I cannot play the game for anyone - but shutting down certain options IS playing the game for them, to a degree. It can also be assumed that all players are trying to win (without needing judge's intervention) at all times, except for those moments that their actions are based on the things you mention: 1. card interaction ruling 2. unsportsmanlike behaviour 3. (very obvious) collusion If that is so, then any deal under negotiation must also be assumed to be that player's vision on how to maximise VP - so proposing the deal is always legal. Other players should know, though, that final execution of the deal may be impossible under the play to win rule. I personally cannot resolve the tension between the 'you may keep your deal' rule (which is why I would like an official link to that rule from someone) and the 'you must play to win rule'. > If two players make a deal and they can logical argue, why the deal is > in their interest to maximise their VPs (or position), the deal is > legal. Its not the judges job to show or even see, how the players can > make more VPs. Agreed, if the argument is sound. What if the argument isn't, though? What if it's one-on-one, Player A's turn, both players have empty hands (so also empty library), no more vampires. Player A has 2 pool, Player B has 2 pool, player A has 1 uncontrolled vampire, and there are no other cards in play besides 2 anarch revolts? If player A stops his turn, player B will be ousted, guaranteed. What if player A makes a deal with B to transfer himself out, based on some kind of (logical) idea that he cannot oust B - and call over the judge to explain his logic? Must the judge then say: "no can do, you may not self-oust"? This is a silly example, but you can imagine more vague situation where the line isn't that clear. The judge has to say no more than "I am not allowing this deal", but he should have at least some internal method of knowing why he's making that decision. He cannot just rely on the arguing power of the player to decide whether a deal is legal or not. To use the earlier definition of the three moments a judge may be needed, is player A: 1. making a card interaction / game sequence mistake (I don't think so)? 2. playing in an unsportsmanlike fashion (in this case it's more like a 'stupid' fashion, but in more vague cases (the 'spend yourself down from 9 pool' example in the 'Deal, Deals' thread is a possible example) it's less clear)? 3. Colluding (who knows?)? > The knowledge that players break deals may change the probability, > that they maybe could get more VPs. Its a mood point, for the > question, if a deal is legal. If the knowledge changes the probability of a VP outcome, that effectively changes the VP outcome, and if the judge must try to enforce 'maximise VP' play, then the question is not moot. But maybe the judge doesn't need to enforce 'maximise VP' play. Maybe the judge only needs to enforce 'sportsmanlike' execution of the principle of 'maximise VP play' which is what any player is assumed to be doing. If any possible in-game action by a player who is "clearly" not going to get any more VPs as-is is automatically sportsmanlike (since it's explicitly allowed), there's no problem. (Of course, throwing beer or somesuch would not be in-game). I wonder if much of the distaste (some) players are currently expressing at the way tables/finals are resolved is because they feel deals are not very sportsmanlike? And other players have no issues with the deals as the current rules stand, because they see them as perfectly sportsmanlike methods? Tobias Deventer - who is, as stated earlier, pondering all this through a bit more, so warning signpost: possible apparent flip-flops ahead. :) )

"Decebalus" <x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:fb7de752.04101...@posting.google.com... > If two players make a deal and they can logical argue, why the deal is > in their interest to maximise their VPs (or position), the deal is > legal. Its not the judges job to show or even see, how the players can > make more VPs. This is not true. The players' opinions as to what is or is not maximizing their VPs are not part of the test for legality. The judge's job (or part of it) is to "see" whether it is legal or not, based on his or her own evaluation of the game state (he or she can solicit "logical arguments" from the players if he or she likes, but ultimately the decision rests with him or her, not with the players). It is correct that the judge's job doesn't require him or her to show (i.e., "prove") that a deal is legal -- he or she need only declare his or her findings (judgment). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Hmm. I've re-read the whole 'deals-deals' thread (or at least, those posts involving discussions with LSJ), and the 'chatter during tournaments' thread (same method). I've come to the conclusion I've probably mis-interpreted the 'you may keep your deal' statement. The brevity with which LSJ posts, and his return to simple statements which can seem like equivocating on complex issues (but aren't!) had me confused. Now I am less so, but still wrapping my head around which exact action you should take, as a player, when a previously legal 3-2 deal in the finals (where you are getting 2) becomes illegal because you can gain more VPs (playing to win) by breaking the deal (after all your internal calculations on probability and payoff). Now, I think you must break the deal to play legally. Maybe the following will clarify this for those who find this uncomfortable: the deal means nothing. The deal is hot air. The deal has no stature under the rules. You may use the (mis)information you gain through the deal to alter your assesment of the probabilities of certain actions, and the return you expect for different actions, but that's a wholly internal assement. You are still to play to win, and if, in the opinion of the judge, your decision is flawed to the point of being illegal given the knowledge you have, he will tell you so. This means that yes, your decision to honor a deal may become illegal, even if the deal was legal at the time you made it. As a judge, it is more complex, because at some point it will become unclear whether a player is still truly honoring a deal which has become illegal, or faking it, or is even aware of the fact (several possible permutations of player knowledge, intent, etc. exist). Since the player can be assumed to be playing to win, it's probably best to err on the side of non-intervention until a play comes by that is blatantly illegal (rolling over or self-ousting being possible examples). LSJ, could you confirm or deny any of this? Does this also mean that, in the finals, if there are 2 players left, both MUST attempt to oust each other (if this improves their final standing)? And that every action they take from that point is assumed to be doing so (from their perspective)? And that a judge should block play that he considers illegal because they are not, in his opinion, 'play to win'? It can then still be a fine line for the judge to not be "playing that person's deck", but he can at least shoot down blatantly illegal play (because there may be no way to differentiate bad play from illegal play at some points). Tobias Deventer

"Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:2t2k3aF...@uni-berlin.de... > Now I am less so, but still wrapping my head around which exact action you > should take, as a player, when a previously legal 3-2 deal in the finals > (where you are getting 2) becomes illegal because you can gain more VPs > (playing to win) by breaking the deal (after all your internal calculations > on probability and payoff). Now, I think you must break the deal to play > legally. A legally-made deal remains legal. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4015C040.2030001%40white-wolf.com > Maybe the following will clarify this for those who find this uncomfortable: > the deal means nothing. The deal is hot air. The deal has no stature under > the rules. You may use the (mis)information you gain through the deal to > alter your assesment of the probabilities of certain actions, and the return > you expect for different actions, but that's a wholly internal assement. You > are still to play to win, and if, in the opinion of the judge, your decision > is flawed to the point of being illegal given the knowledge you have, he > will tell you so. This means that yes, your decision to honor a deal may > become illegal, even if the deal was legal at the time you made it. This is not the way the VEKN rules work, and would be tantamount to simply saying that all deals are illegal (since any something now for something later results in nothing later). The VEKN rules are deal aware. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E92DDE2.3040203%40white-wolf.com > As a judge, it is more complex, because at some point it will become unclear > whether a player is still truly honoring a deal which has become illegal, or > faking it, or is even aware of the fact (several possible permutations of > player knowledge, intent, etc. exist). Since the player can be assumed to be > playing to win, it's probably best to err on the side of non-intervention > until a play comes by that is blatantly illegal (rolling over or > self-ousting being possible examples). It is not a given that the player can be assumed to be playing to win. The judge/other players need not wait until something blatant happens. Any illegal activity, blatant or subtle, should be corrected. > LSJ, could you confirm or deny any of this? See above. > Does this also mean that, in the finals, if there are 2 players left, both > MUST attempt to oust each other (if this improves their final standing)? And > that every action they take from that point is assumed to be doing so (from > their perspective)? And that a judge should block play that he considers > illegal because they are not, in his opinion, 'play to win'? A judge should block any illegal play. Given a lack of any out-of-game considerations, the lack of which is much more likely in a final round than in other rounds, it is more likely that the players will be playing to win, yes. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DFF321E.C2DFEA25%40white-wolf.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HRgkc.4291%24Xj6.68503%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2md5v3Flft3dU1%40uni-berlin.de > It can then still be a fine line for the judge to not be "playing that > person's deck", but he can at least shoot down blatantly illegal play > (because there may be no way to differentiate bad play from illegal play at > some points). There is always judgment to differentiate illegal play (in the judge's judgment) from legal play (in the judge's judgment). [ quoted text not captured ]

Decebalus wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2t2fomF...@uni-berlin.de>... >>"Decebalus" <x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message >>>If two players make a deal and they can logical argue, why the deal is >>>in their interest to maximise their VPs (or position), the deal is >>>legal. Its not the judges job to show or even see, how the players can >>>make more VPs. >> >>This is not true. >> >>The players' opinions as to what is or is not maximizing their VPs >>are not part of the test for legality. The judge's job (or part of >>it) is to "see" whether it is legal or not, based on his or her own >>evaluation of the game state (he or she can solicit "logical >>arguments" from the players if he or she likes, but ultimately >>the decision rests with him or her, not with the players). It is >>correct that the judge's job doesn't require him or her to show >>(i.e., "prove") that a deal is legal -- he or she need only >>declare his or her findings (judgment). > > Sorry, we dont need a confirmation that the judge makes the decisions. > I know that. The question is, on what arguments he bases his decision. That's not what you said above, where you said that the players' opinions determined legality. > The question is, on what arguments he bases his decision. On game state, not arguments, as I said above. > So all depends on the intention of the players. But you cannot know > their thoughts, so you have to hear their arguments. And they make the > difference. You cannot know their thoughts, true. Their thoughts make no difference, though, to the game state. The judge need not even ask to hear their arguments. The judge need only examine the game state. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:2t2pv9F...@uni-berlin.de... > "Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:2t2k3aF...@uni-berlin.de... >> Now I am less so, but still wrapping my head around which exact action > you >> should take, as a player, when a previously legal 3-2 deal in the finals >> (where you are getting 2) becomes illegal because you can gain more VPs >> (playing to win) by breaking the deal (after all your internal > calculations >> on probability and payoff). Now, I think you must break the deal to play >> legally. > > A legally-made deal remains legal. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4015C040.2030001%40white-wolf.com Ah, well at least that means that my earlier thought ("you are allowed to keep the deal") was correct. Bad Google-fu later in not finding the above link on my side, then. A different question: may I (as player) propose a 3-2 split (where I get 2), intending to break that deal and getting at least 3VP? (In a situation where I might get more than 2VP on my own, but I stand to gain from luring the other player into believing the deal is genuine) I think I know the answer, but I'd like to be sure. > This is not the way the VEKN rules work, and would be tantamount to simply > saying that all deals are illegal (since any something now for something > later results in nothing later). > > The VEKN rules are deal aware. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E92DDE2.3040203%40white-wolf.com Right, thanks. There could've been a difference between 'illegal' and 'meaningless', of course. Rest of post snipped - thanks.

Tobias op den Brouw wrote: > A different question: may I (as player) propose a 3-2 split (where I get 2), > intending to break that deal and getting at least 3VP? (In a situation where > I might get more than 2VP on my own, but I stand to gain from luring the > other player into believing the deal is genuine) > > I think I know the answer, but I'd like to be sure. Yes. The difficulty comes in making a deal if the other player knows it isn't "playing to win" and therefore you will be obliged to break the deal. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:37:56 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Tobias op den Brouw wrote: >> A different question: may I (as player) propose a 3-2 split (where I >> get 2), intending to break that deal and getting at least 3VP? (In a >> situation where I might get more than 2VP on my own, but I stand to >> gain from luring the other player into believing the deal is genuine) >> >> I think I know the answer, but I'd like to be sure. > > Yes. The difficulty comes in making a deal if the other player knows > it isn't "playing to win" and therefore you will be obliged to break > the deal. The other player may still call the judge and ask whether the deal is legal. If it isn't there is no point keeping it, because the opponent could not lay down even if he wanted to (at least in a legal, sportsmanlike manner). -- Bye, Daneel

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:8MNbd.701068$Gx4.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Tobias op den Brouw wrote: >> A different question: may I (as player) propose a 3-2 split (where I get >> 2), intending to break that deal and getting at least 3VP? (In a >> situation where I might get more than 2VP on my own, but I stand to gain >> from luring the other player into believing the deal is genuine) >> >> I think I know the answer, but I'd like to be sure. > > Yes. The difficulty comes in making a deal if the other player knows > it isn't "playing to win" and therefore you will be obliged to break > the deal. Ok. So there are 3-2 deals (with me getting 2) that I may be obliged to break, and there are 3-2 deals which I may keep, even if the situation changes later on (to my benefit and the sudden chance to gain a third VP)? And whether or not this obligation exists is based on whether the deal would be a 'play to win' (if completed) at the time the deal was struck?

"Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:2t9o4pF...@uni-berlin.de... > So there are 3-2 deals (with me getting 2) that I may be obliged to break, > and there are 3-2 deals which I may keep, even if the situation changes > later on (to my benefit and the sudden chance to gain a third VP)? > > And whether or not this obligation exists is based on whether the deal would > be a 'play to win' (if completed) at the time the deal was struck? Correct. See the thread surrounding this post for more: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9keddu%2446hbf%241%40ID-99714.news.dfncis.de -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> schreef in bericht news:88f9561d.04101...@posting.google.com... > Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message > news:<416ba865$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] > Why doesn't anyone ever seem to ask: Would it have changed you > decision, knowing both Dieter and Myself have played thousands of > games, and kept our deals in virtually all those cases? Shall I answer this question, since it could be implicitly pointed at me as well? (with which I have no problem). As in my earlier answer, I find it hard to think back to what I would've done back then. At that time my guidelines for judging were very clear to me, and only after Derek's questions have I re-examined them again (to come to many of the same conclusions, only now with more clarity. Ok, it took splicing out things with LSJ and a referral to a post in 2001, but finally I'm there). The amount of deals you've both made or broken were irrelevant to me. The only thing I needed to know was that you were capable both of breaking it, and keeping it. > Also,again, I have no problem whatsoever with it to be publicly known > I have indeed broken 2 deals in 3 years in the past. > I do however, and now we're coming back to an old old issue, have a > problem with people who have no personal knowledge of those facts or > any other facts involving my play (nor Dieter's if I'm any good at > guessing) or deals in previous years, but choose to widely spread > their "knowledge" throughout the whole VTES community.Most of the > times, on top of that, not even providing the slightest ounce of > information about the context whatsoever-moreover because they > themselves don't even have that info. If you were bothered by my mentioning that I was aware of you and Dieter having broken deals in the past, then I'm sorry that is so. I intend no value judgement, and I cannot even remember with detail which deal-make and deal-breaks I've been, or not been present at, either of yours or Dieter's. (hell, I remember only 1 deal-break from someone else (Hi Wes!) in my entire life in specific. And some general 'have had deal broken by' stuff for different players.) Possibly 0. However, from reading tournament reports and your own posts, I was aware of the fact. > Where I come from you call that gossip, lies, and twisting the truth, > basically slander in general. Well, I at least have knowledge of your play. > Another point that people not seem to realise is this: being a > deal-keeper does not exclude being a deal-breaker, as we are, as far > as good, intelligent players like Dieter, Kamel etc are concerned, not > talking about people with some kind of compulsive "I have to break > this deal 'cause I'm a compulsive deal-breaker" syndrome. > No, we're talking about people with the brains, experience and > capability to judge each and every table and situation separately. > Hence, there is no way of knowing whether someone, regardless of their > history will keep or brake a specific certain deal given the > circumstances. Thus my earlier statement/question on whether reputation (either way) would have mattered for my decision, since being compulsive about either breaking or keeping deals would possibly (have) lead to illegal play. (Of which I saw 0 at the ECQ final). Otherwise, no disagreement with your statements. I'm not interested in global analysis or reputations (although I don't care if people know I break more deals than you (or whoever) do. There's plenty people out there that know I keep them as well, thank goodness.) Tobias Deventer

LSJ wrote: > The judge's judgment as to whether it is a legally-honorable deal for > the player accepting the 2VP (loss) may factor in information that > is hidden from the other player (the contents of hands, uncontrolled > regions, etc.). > The judge need only inform the players when it comes time for the > deal to be honored when honoring it runs contrary the play to win > rule if the deal was not "legally-made (to be honorable). Thank you for this clarification. It's the most useful bit of judging advice I've picked up in a while. -- David Cherryholmes

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:2t9vu3F...@uni-berlin.de... > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsfwrh4...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] > The judge's judgment as to whether it is a legally-honorable deal for > the player accepting the 2VP (loss) may factor in information that > is hidden from the other player (the contents of hands, uncontrolled > regions, etc.). > The judge need only inform the players when it comes time for the > deal to be honored when honoring it runs contrary the play to win > rule if the deal was not "legally-made (to be honorable). Ok, one more hypothetical situation. 5 player tabel, A and B at the table. A offers B a 3-2 deal where B takes 3 VP. At the point the deal is offered, the judge examines the situation, and finds the deal illegal to honor (but not to make) - therefore, A must intend to break the deal later. The judge does not need to communicate this to his players, but must (?) do so if asked? (This would be a method of forcing the judge to provide extra information to B, since B will have an extra estimate of A's relative power). (Alternative: likewise, if the deal is legal, must the judge reveal this information if asked?) Play progresses, and A and B are the last ones left. A has 1 VP, B has 2 VP. The judge now tells A he must break his deal, because it was illegal So far, no problems, but: What if, at this point due to the developments of play, A's results are actually (likely) better if he withdraws? Must A still break the initially illegal-to-honor deal, or was the judge's assesment of that legality of the losing deal in error (thus the judge should not force a deal-break)? What if A, expecting to be allowed to keep the deal, had thrown away key cards (that in fact made the deal with B illegal to honor) that now make him effectively helpless against B?

"Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:2taboiF...@uni-berlin.de... > Ok, one more hypothetical situation. > > 5 player tabel, A and B at the table. > > A offers B a 3-2 deal where B takes 3 VP. > > At the point the deal is offered, the judge examines the situation, and > finds the deal illegal to honor (but not to make) - therefore, A must intend > to break the deal later. Actually A could honor the deal, so long as doing so when the time comes is still "playing to win" (i.e., if he could do so without having made the deal). The only thing a "legally-made (to honor) deal" gets you is some relief from the "must play to win" rule when the time comes to honor the deal. > The judge does not need to communicate this to his > players, but must (?) do so if asked? No. To the player making the (losing) deal, privately, sure. But be forced to disclose non-public information on demand? Of course not. > (This would be a method of forcing the > judge to provide extra information to B, since B will have an extra estimate > of A's relative power). > > (Alternative: likewise, if the deal is legal, must the judge reveal this > information if asked?) Equivalent: no. > Play progresses, and A and B are the last ones left. A has 1 VP, B has 2 VP. > > The judge now tells A he must break his deal, because it was illegal No. At some point A attempts to do something that violates the "play to win" deal and appeals to the previously-made "deal" as justification. At this point, the judge steps in an points out that the play is, in fact, illegal (a fact that the player already knew from the judge's private ruling given earlier). > So far, no problems, but: > > What if, at this point due to the developments of play, A's results are > actually (likely) better if he withdraws? Must A still break the initially > illegal-to-honor deal, or was the judge's assesment of that legality of the > losing deal in error (thus the judge should not force a deal-break)? What if > A, expecting to be allowed to keep the deal, had thrown away key cards (that > in fact made the deal with B illegal to honor) that now make him effectively > helpless against B? If everything that A does is "playing to win" (in absence of the deal), then the presence or absence of the deal makes no difference. "Throwing away key cards" is likely not an example of "playing to win". -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] And one of the most confusing ones, by the way. Allow me to sound properly confused. The issues are sportsmanship vs. poor play, and legal vs. illegal deal. LSJ, please read through the following points and tell me where I went wrong. 1. A 3-2 deal can not, by definition, be illegal for the player gaining 3 VPs (as 3 VPs equal the Game Win, which is the succesful fulfillment of "winning" for the current round). 2. A 3-2 deal can be illegal for the player taking 2 VPs if that player has a reasonable chance of gaining the 3rd VP. 3. Judges are required to uphold the tournament rules. They should detect and correct instances of collusion, unsportsmanship and generate rulings, but they should not interfere with decisions resulting from player skill or style (neither during deck construction, and neither during actual play, though both deck construction and behavior during play must not violate the rules of VTES or the given Tournament). 4. Judges must be aware of the fact that players base their decisions on inclomplete information, and therefor their decisions may occasionally hinder their obtention of the Game Win, even if made with the sincere intention of maximizing their chances to win. This is part of the game. 5. So if all this is basically true (as I think it is), then how on earth can a judge not tell the player taking the losing part of the deal that he thinks it is illegal? What sort of outside consideration may he rely on that could act as a spoiler for that player? I mean, the player is required to consider only those factors that he is aware of. So, the judge must limit his analysis to those very factors if he is to judge whether the player seems to be in a losing position or not. I'm absolutely sure that the following scenario is wrong: JUDGE: Sorry, you cannot transfer out. When you made the deal five rounds ago, John had no wakes and you could have ousted him, so the deal was illegal to begin with. ...I feel kind of lost... -- Bye, Daneel

In message <2t9vu3F...@uni-berlin.de>, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >The judge need only inform the players when it comes time for the >deal to be honored when honoring it runs contrary the play to win >rule if the deal was not "legally-made (to be honorable). So, AFTER the table has been completely disrupted. How do you manage the rest of the table on this one? Players A and C agree to a 3-2 split on turn 3. Player C is in a solid position, so this deal is not legally made unless player C intends to snap it like a twig after player A erases his predator and then sits there on idle spin until the endgame. But you aren't going to tell player C this unless he actually FAILS to break the deal? What do you tell players B, D, and E, all of whom believe the deal is completely illegal and are seeing their game go in the toilet? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Derek Ray wrote: > What do you tell players B, D, and E, all of whom believe the deal is > completely illegal and are seeing their game go in the toilet? Explain the rules to them: that an illegal deal cannot be used to circumvent "play to win" later. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > The issues are sportsmanship vs. poor play, and legal vs. illegal deal. > 5. So if all this is basically true (as I think it is), then how on earth > can a judge not tell the player taking the losing part of the deal that > he thinks it is illegal? What sort of outside consideration may he rely > on that could act as a spoiler for that player? I mean, the player is > required to consider only those factors that he is aware of. So, the > judge must limit his analysis to those very factors if he is to judge > whether the player seems to be in a losing position or not. > I'm absolutely sure that the following scenario is wrong: > JUDGE: Sorry, you cannot transfer out. When you made the deal five rounds > ago, John had no wakes and you could have ousted him, so the deal was > illegal to begin with. A deal gets made, and someone calls for a judge and asks for a ruling on its legality. That much is necessarily going to happen, and it's just a question of whether you make that decision now (inevitably injecting new information into the game state, as far as I can see), or you make it later, when and *if* someone actually acts on it. A lot of deals are a lot of hot air, and I think the goal as a judge is to interact as little as possible. Still, I could see arguments for declaring either way, either as the deal is cut or as it is fulfilled, so it is good to know that the "correct" way is the one that keeps your nose out of the game the longest. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] That's no answer. It is true, but it does not answer the problem at hand. Plus, it could be very aggravating. The only thing that relaxes me is that most judges would not interfere in the game except for the most blatant cases of unsportsmanship (leaving a very wide grey area for what is legal, most likely ensuring that no sincere deal be erroneously judged illegal). If the aggravating cornercase came up (me promising a deal that would be judged illegal later on) I would possibly reconsider my further participation in the event at hand. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The judge need only inform the players when it comes time for the > deal to be honored when honoring it runs contrary the play to win > rule if the deal was not "legally-made (to be honorable). OK, let's assume Derek's argument of it being turn 3 (or whenever) and you make a 2/3VP split with your grand-predator[GP]. Your statement above seems to indicate that it would be legal for your GP to oust his prey, then leave me, his prey, alone while he continues to attack cross-table, earning me 2VPs, but then the judge would be forced to rule against me when I tried to honor the deal by ousting myself, because I'm capable of killing another prey (my GP), and my reason(s) for making the "losing" deal in the first place (presumably my prey and/or grand-prey's deck types) have now been removed. Is this correct reasoning? What if my GP is playing a deck I feel I can't deal with (permanent intercept, whatever) and therefore the deal *now* falls into the "If you believe 0VPs is the most you can get, you are free to get 0VPs in any manner you wish"-type of deal? Do you just say to the judge that you're breaking the old 2/3 illegal deal and now going with the new 2/3 legal deal, 'cause it's legal? Seems like that'd work. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

In message <ndbcd.704784$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> What do you tell players B, D, and E, all of whom believe the deal is >> completely illegal and are seeing their game go in the toilet? > >Explain the rules to them: that an illegal deal cannot be used to >circumvent "play to win" later. And by doing so, effectively rule at the time that the deal is illegal to make in the first place, since taking players B, D, and E aside to preserve the integrity of C's gambit is not impossible but more than a little bit inconvenient -- not to mention that the very act of taking them aside in the first place provides that information. I'm not sure why you went for the strange wording; allowing players to disrupt a game when they believe they're going to be able to honor a particular deal can't possibly be good. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>The judge need only inform the players when it comes time for the >>deal to be honored when honoring it runs contrary the play to win >>rule if the deal was not "legally-made (to be honorable). > > OK, let's assume Derek's argument of it being turn 3 (or whenever) and you > make a 2/3VP split with your grand-predator[GP]. > > Your statement above seems to indicate that it would be legal for your GP > to oust his prey, then leave me, his prey, alone while he continues to > attack cross-table, earning me 2VPs, but then the judge would be forced to > rule against me when I tried to honor the deal by ousting myself, because > I'm capable of killing another prey (my GP), and my reason(s) for making > the "losing" deal in the first place (presumably my prey and/or > grand-prey's deck types) have now been removed. Is this correct > reasoning? Yes. Provided you find some GP to be willing to take all of those actions (i.e., somehow the state of the game at turn 3 (or whenever) was enough to convince GP that your position was "lost" so that you could honor the deal, which is (virtually) impossible). > What if my GP is playing a deck I feel I can't deal with (permanent > intercept, whatever) and therefore the deal *now* falls into the "If you > believe 0VPs is the most you can get, you are free to get 0VPs in any > manner you wish"-type of deal? What you believe is immaterial. What the judge "believes" is what counts. It is (virtually) impossible to be in a lost position that early in the game. And you typically don't know the exact composition of anyone else's deck, anyhow. > Do you just say to the judge that you're > breaking the old 2/3 illegal deal and now going with the new 2/3 legal > deal, 'cause it's legal? Seems like that'd work. ? What "new 2/3 deal"? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >>Derek Ray wrote: >> >>>What do you tell players B, D, and E, all of whom believe the deal is >>>completely illegal and are seeing their game go in the toilet? >> >>Explain the rules to them: that an illegal deal cannot be used to >>circumvent "play to win" later. > > And by doing so, effectively rule at the time that the deal is illegal > to make in the first place, since taking players B, D, and E aside to > preserve the integrity of C's gambit is not impossible but more than a > little bit inconvenient -- not to mention that the very act of taking > them aside in the first place provides that information. ? You needn't take them away. You can explain the rules of the game to everyone at the same time: You can only bleed your prey. An illegal deal cannot be used to circumvent "play to win" Allies recruited to the uncontrolled region are controlled (face up). And so on. > I'm not sure why you went for the strange wording; allowing players to > disrupt a game when they believe they're going to be able to honor a > particular deal can't possibly be good. The player making the deal will either be told that game state sans his privileged information voids the deal (in the presence of the other players) or will take the judge aside to discuss his privileged information (cards in hand or whatever) and receive the ruling then. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> > >> 2. Jo and Dieter have broken deals in the past (AFAIK). Therefore, > >> they have proved to be able to pursue a longer-term strategy > >> (including deal-break) while following a shorter-term strategy of > >> following the deal. (I am not sure how my decision would have been > >> modified by the hypothetical knowledge that, until that point, Jo and > >> Dieter had been pathological deal-keepers, but if that discussion is > >> of interest, I suggest we put it in a different thread.) > >> > >> would it have affected your decision? > >> > >> stefan > > > > > > Why doesn't anyone ever seem to ask: Would it have changed you > > decision, knowing both Dieter and Myself have played thousands of > > games, and kept our deals in virtually all those cases? > > Shall I answer this question, since it could be implicitly pointed at me as > well? (with which I have no problem). I have to say Tobias, it was clearly *not* directed at you. You were not the one putting this question in such a typical way "again" > > As in my earlier answer, I find it hard to think back to what I would've > done back then. At that time my guidelines for judging were very clear to > me, and only after Derek's questions have I re-examined them again (to come > to many of the same conclusions, only now with more clarity. Ok, it took > splicing out things with LSJ and a referral to a post in 2001, but finally > I'm there). > > The amount of deals you've both made or broken were irrelevant to me. The > only thing I needed to know was that you were capable both of breaking it, > and keeping it. If you mean "mentally capable", I disagree.Even this should not make any difference, because you can never tell, even with someone who has never broken any deals, whether or not (s)he will next time..If you mean "capable in the game", I agree > > > Also,again, I have no problem whatsoever with it to be publicly known > > I have indeed broken 2 deals in 3 years in the past. > > I do however, and now we're coming back to an old old issue, have a > > problem with people who have no personal knowledge of those facts or > > any other facts involving my play (nor Dieter's if I'm any good at > > guessing) or deals in previous years, but choose to widely spread > > their "knowledge" throughout the whole VTES community.Most of the > > times, on top of that, not even providing the slightest ounce of > > information about the context whatsoever-moreover because they > > themselves don't even have that info. > > If you were bothered by my mentioning that I was aware of you and Dieter > having broken deals in the past, then I'm sorry that is so. > Nope,I wasn't. What bothers me is that some people constantly try to rephrase/reinitiate this issue with no personal knowledge of it. Not bothered by you at all.. > I intend no value judgement, and I cannot even remember with detail which > deal-make and deal-breaks I've been, or not been present at, either of yours > or Dieter's. (hell, I remember only 1 deal-break from someone else (Hi Wes!) > in my entire life in specific. And some general 'have had deal broken by' > stuff for different players.) Possibly 0. However, from reading tournament > reports and your own posts, I was aware of the fact. > > > Where I come from you call that gossip, lies, and twisting the truth, > > basically slander in general. > > Well, I at least have knowledge of your play. If you mean "by those means, I have acquired knowledge of your play":that depends on who has told you which story.It may very well be you have no knowledge of it at all, but have been duped. On the other hand, if you ean by personal experience, I agree :-)) > > > Another point that people not seem to realise is this: being a > > deal-keeper does not exclude being a deal-breaker, as we are, as far > > as good, intelligent players like Dieter, Kamel etc are concerned, not > > talking about people with some kind of compulsive "I have to break > > this deal 'cause I'm a compulsive deal-breaker" syndrome. > > No, we're talking about people with the brains, experience and > > capability to judge each and every table and situation separately. > > Hence, there is no way of knowing whether someone, regardless of their > > history will keep or brake a specific certain deal given the > > circumstances. > > Thus my earlier statement/question on whether reputation (either way) would > have mattered for my decision, since being compulsive about either breaking > or keeping deals would possibly (have) lead to illegal play. (Of which I saw > 0 at the ECQ final). T, I'm just saying there is IMHO no such thing as compulsive dealmaking/breaking > > Otherwise, no disagreement with your statements. > > I'm not interested in global analysis or reputations (although I don't care > if people know I break more deals than you (or whoever) do. There's plenty > people out there that know I keep them as well, thank goodness.) > > Tobias > Deventer Greetz jo

This is quite incredible. You (Jo) is one of the best players in Europe, AND one of most trustworthy I know. It seems that half of Europe thinks that you a crazy break dealer. Really incredible. There is someone somewhere who doesn't like you... Kamel.

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.04102...@posting.google.com>... > I have to say Tobias, it was clearly *not* directed at you. You were > not the one putting this question in such a typical way "again" Thought that. Also thought it would be better to be complete and answer anyway - and to show the world that I am not one of those people that think you're evil incarnate. Hope you're not disappointed by that last bit. :) > > The amount of deals you've both made or broken were irrelevant to me. The > > only thing I needed to know was that you were capable both of breaking it, > > and keeping it. > If you mean "mentally capable", I disagree.Even this should not make > any difference, because you can never tell, even with someone who has > never broken any deals, whether or not (s)he will next time..If you > mean "capable in the game", I agree I agree with you that it shouldn't make a difference (especially as people can change, the potential's always there). However, in practise, it may, as we can see in some posts about compulsive deal-keeping. (However, in the end compulsive deal-keeping doesn't matter, as the judge can just rule any of that illegal). > > Well, I at least have knowledge of your play. > If you mean "by those means, I have acquired knowledge of your > play":that depends on who has told you which story.It may very well be > you have no knowledge of it at all, but have been duped. > On the other hand, if you ean by personal experience, I agree :-)) I mean by personal experience - and your own posts on this forum. > T, I'm just saying there is IMHO no such thing as compulsive > dealmaking/breaking I'd like to think you're right. :)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2tadv4F...@uni-berlin.de>... Thans for those clarifications. > "Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message > news:2taboiF...@uni-berlin.de... > > Ok, one more hypothetical situation. > > > > 5 player tabel, A and B at the table. > > > > A offers B a 3-2 deal where B takes 3 VP. > > > > At the point the deal is offered, the judge examines the situation, and > > finds the deal illegal to honor (but not to make) - therefore, A must > intend > > to break the deal later. > > > The judge does not need to communicate this to his > > players, but must (?) do so if asked? > > No. To the player making the (losing) deal, privately, sure. > But be forced to disclose non-public information on demand? > Of course not. Wouldn't this give the player making the losing deal information he normally wouldn't have? (Apologies if this has been asked somewhere else in the thread, I'm on bussiness trip with a shortage of time but don't want the thread to lapse into oblivion either). Tobias Deventer

"Tobias" <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8aa6db00.04102...@posting.google.com... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<2tadv4F...@uni-berlin.de>... > > "Tobias op den Brouw" <tobiasop...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message > > > The judge does not need to communicate this to his > > > players, but must (?) do so if asked? > > > > No. To the player making the (losing) deal, privately, sure. > > But be forced to disclose non-public information on demand? > > Of course not. > > Wouldn't this give the player making the losing deal information he > normally wouldn't have? No. The judge's decision on whether a player is playing to win would be based only on things that the player in question knows (not on any information he doesn't have). [ quoted text not captured ]