Merldion wrote:
> <snip>>
> 6th of November - European Championship 2005
>
> Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
> 1 Brian Moritz 2 9 4 168
> 2 Mirko Anconitani 2 9 1 162
> 3 József Gál 3 10 0 180
> 4 Amiel Feldman 2 9 0 168
> 5 Richard Glasner 2 9 0 168
Wait a second...
Isn't there something wrong here?
I understood from other threads that the winner of the EC
was Richard Glasner with Ventrue obf, while Brian was
playing Legacy of Pander...
Can someone please clarify?
Emiliano
Sorry, I just received the correct finals for the EC 2005.
I did not have time to check...
Now it is correct:
1 Richard Glasner 2 9 4 168
2 Mirko Anconitani 2 9 1 162
3 József Gál 3 10 0 180
4 Amiel Feldman 2 9 0 168
5 Brian Moritz 2 9 0 168
"Merldion" wrote:
>5th of November - ECQ Last chance>Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
>1 Jay Kristoff 3 9.5 0.5 180
Sabbatspex 2005
Played by Jay Kristoff at the final European qualifier 11/5/2005
Billy
The Colonel
Devin Bisley
Elizabeth Westcott
General Perfidio Dios
Idalia, Prophet of Guadalajara
Mercy, Knight Inquisitor
Nicholas Chang
Piotr Andreikov
Remillard, Devout Crusader
Richard Tauber, Ayelea's Puppet
Wendy Wade
The Barrens
6x Blood Doll
2x Effective Management
The Hungry Coyote
Metro Underground
Pentex Subversion
Police Department
Powerbase: Montreal
Smiling Jack, The Anarch
4x Anima Gathering
Arson
4x Atonement
4x Zillah's Tears
4x Change of Target
4x Delaying Tactics
4x Eagle's Sight
4x Enhanced Senses
6x Forced Awakening
10x Telepathic Misdirection
6x Wake with Evening's Freshness
4x Aura Reading
5x Concealed Weapon
5x .44 Magnum
Bowl of Convergence
Palatial Estate
6x Procurer
2x War Ghoul
-------------------------------
Thanks to everyone who made this year's
EC so much fun. I had a great time!
Jay Kristoff
V:EKN Prince of Columbus, Ohio USA
Jay Kristoff wrote:
> "Merldion" wrote:
>
>>>5th of November - ECQ Last chance>
>>>Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
>>1 Jay Kristoff 3 9.5 0.5 180>
>
> Sabbatspex 2005
> Played by Jay Kristoff at the final European qualifier 11/5/2005
D´oh! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I
would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
"If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
--
johannes walch
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> Merldion wrote:
>
>>>5th of November - Legacies of Blood Prerelease>
>
> WHAT?!? Where are my LoB spoilers?
>
here's little something for you...
Quicksilver Contemplation
Action modifier/Reaction
Auspex/Temporis
[aus](reaction) +1 intercept
[tem](reaction) Reduce a bleed against you by 2
[aus][tem](action modifier/reaction) Only usable during a referendum.
Force a younger vampire to abstain from voting. This can cancel that
vampire's votes.
[AUS][TEM](action modifier) +2 bleed.
a-e wrote:
> Quicksilver Contemplation
> Action modifier/Reaction
> Auspex/Temporis
> [aus](reaction) +1 intercept
> [tem](reaction) Reduce a bleed against you by 2
> [aus][tem](action modifier/reaction) Only usable during a referendum.
> Force a younger vampire to abstain from voting. This can cancel that
> vampire's votes.
> [AUS][TEM](action modifier) +2 bleed.
almost forgot... it costs 1 blood. sorry :(
Johannes Walch wrote:
>
>
> D惱h! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I> would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>
> --
> johannes walch
sorry johannes, that shows (again) how little you understand about aus
walls.
if a 0.5 was such a sure thing how come that the last time these two
decks where in a final the final ended with a gw
fact is when time was called, bneatrix and quines where about to fall,
fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
best, so there was little to exploit.
stefan
Johannes Walch wrote:
>
>
> D惱h! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I> would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>
> --
> johannes walch[ quoted text not captured ]
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
Hey Stefan,
Unless you think it will generate too much unpleasant discussion,
I'm very curious to know what ruling you're talking about...
Ciao,
Emiliano
(still very sad about not making it to Budapest)
"a-e" <antero....@substanssi.net> wrote in message
news:O0tcf.452$JB1...@read3.inet.fi...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Of course it does... Temporis cards aren't allowed to be free! :)
- Pat
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>>>
>>
>> D´oh! With 2 of those decks in the final 0,5 for everybody was sure, I>> would call it "Wrath of the Weenie Auspex". But Jay knows how it works
>> "If you play weenie-aus better be first seed" :-))
>>
>> --
>> johannes walch>
>
>
> if a 0.5 was such a sure thing how come that the last time these two
> decks where in a final the final ended with a gw
>
> fact is when time was called, bneatrix and quines where about to fall,
My name is "Ginés" ;-) (the "G" is pronounced like the German "ch" in
"Buch", "acht", "noch"...
And the fact is that, as usual, there was too much useless table "talky
talky" >:-) which slowed down the game. And only in the last two turns
you were in a "hurry hurry" ;-)
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Damnans wrote:
> My name is "Ginés" ;-) (the "G" is pronounced like the German "ch" in
> "Buch", "acht", "noch"...
Chinés in portuguese means chinese! :-D
> I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
> after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.
What deck did you played this time? Baali? Valerius Maior? I'm
curious...
Parabéns pela classificação no europeu! :P
Abraço Luso,
.- Luís Duarte
Gentlemen, it was a great experience for me to have met so many players
and been in such a large tournament.
I'm very pleased with the experience, and certainly will be there next
year in Torino.
Thank you very very much to all the spanish players who welcomed me and
made me feel one of their own. Every one of them were great partners
and friends and have a place in my home to stay whenever they want.
Than you Ginés, David, Andrés, Iñaki, Marco & the rest. Than you
VTES Spain! you are up to the traditions! Vamos a comernos unas chumis!
Many thanks to Gabor who took me at the airport!
Many thanks David and Robyn Tatu for such a Wonderful conversation. See
you in Atlanta!
And thanks to all the american players who were so kind and respectful
players (Matt, Matt, Ben , Joshua, etc.).
Best Regards,
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
A couple of questions about this:
First, if you're trying to avoid a "confrontation" by not mentioning the
specific issue, then don't lambast someone on the public newsgroup. I
don't care who it is; that's just downright rude. If you want to make a
big deal about it, then post the issue and let it be an open discussion.
What's the rule? What mistake was made?
Second, if in fact Jay was suffering from a bad draw, I'd LOVE to see what
a good draw for him would be, since he, you know, won. Alternatively, I'd
like to be sitting at a table where a bad draw can still survive the
onslaught of other Methuselahs.
> fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
>
> fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
> best, so there was little to exploit.
And yet Jay was able to win with a bad draw? Man, either Jay is the
bestest player ever, or everyone sucked, or he didn't really have a bad
draw.
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
I can't imagine how a bad ruling could possibly affect what cards you
drew from your deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think I've pieced together that the judge had them sort their decks
so they could be matched against the decklist, and that people were
pissed off that they had a bad draw, and thought it was because the
deck had been sorted.
It doesn't matter how sorted your deck is. If it wasn't randomized
after you shuffled, then you are at fault, because it is your
responsibility to randomize your deck. Put it this way: if you arrange
your deck such that like cards are not next to each other, and then
shuffle lightly, you have not sufficiently randomized your deck - it
wouldn't be as obvious, but you would still be in violation. If your
shuffling is not sufficient to randomize when the deck is sorted, then
it wasn't sufficient to randomize even if the deck had been sequenced
in some other way.
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
[...]
>>I did not suffer from a bad draw, and I also had to shuffle my deck
>>after the judges sorted it for comparison to my decklist.>
>
> What deck did you played this time? Baali? Valerius Maior? I'm
> curious...
I played this deck:
Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos
Created By: Damnans
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 18, Max: 30, Avg: 6,16)
----------------------------------------------
2 Emerson Bridges pot DOM FOR PRE 8 Ventrue
2 Sir Walter Nash DOM FOR PRE 7 Ventrue
1 Timothy Crowley ani dom FOR PRE 7 Ventrue
1 Jan Pieterzoon pot pre DOM FOR 7 Ventrue
1 Heather Florent dom FOR PRE 6 Ventrue
1 Luccia Paciola for pre DOM 6 Ventrue
1 Ranjan Rishi for DOM PRE 5 Ventrue
1 Jazz Wentworth dom for PRE 5 Ventrue
1 Violette Prentiss dom PRE 4 Ventrue
1 Courtland Leighton dom for pre 4 Ventrue
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (13 cards)
1 Anarch Troublemaker
3 Blood Doll
1 Coven, The
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Elysium: The Arboretum
1 Giant`s Blood
1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
1 Pentex Subversion
1 Secure Haven
1 Uptown Hunting Ground
1 Ventrue Headquarters
Action (14 cards)
4 Enchant Kindred
6 Govern the Unaligned
4 Scouting Mission
Action Modifier (26 cards)
5 Bonding
8 Change of Target
3 Conditioning
3 Daring the Dawn
2 Foreshadowing Destruction
4 Freak Drive
1 Kiss of Ra, The
Political Action (8 cards)
6 Kine Resources Contested
2 Parity Shift
Reaction (17 cards)
6 Deflection
3 Redirection
8 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
Combat (12 cards)
12 Majesty
>
> Parabéns pela classificação no europeu! :P
I was already qualified ;-) But thank you anyway ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 9 Nov 2005 15:40:25 -0800, Emiliano Imeroni
<emiliano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>>> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
>> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
>> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).>
> Hey Stefan,
>
> Unless you think it will generate too much unpleasant discussion,
> I'm very curious to know what ruling you're talking about...
Well, it's sad, but I doubt Stefan would post any facts. The truth is, he
probably knows the ruling was right, but he does not have the courage to
admit that all the accusations, whining and whatnot boil down to one
thing - he was not allowed to violate the tournament rules. Stating that
he failed to perform because of that would kind of place a question mark
next to all his previous achievements, so vague accusations are probably
all you'll get from him.
So Stefan, please either post the facts about your warning, or apologize
sincerely for your unfounded accusations. You've also been very quick to
threaten with applying to VEKN - if you feel that the ruling was unjust,
please do so. But waving unfounded accusations is not a nice thing to do
even if people know you are notoriously verbal.
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Ankur Gupta" wrote:
> Second, if in fact Jay was suffering from a bad draw, I'd LOVE to see what
> a good draw for him would be, since he, you know, won. Alternatively, I'd
> like to be sitting at a table where a bad draw can still survive the
> onslaught of other Methuselahs.
>
> > fact is jay is not playing weenie auspex, his deck is a mid-cap deck.
> >
> > fact is the final was played at a high level, with only slight errors at
> > best, so there was little to exploit.
>
> And yet Jay was able to win with a bad draw? Man, either Jay is the
> bestest player ever, or everyone sucked, or he didn't really have a bad
> draw.
None of the above. My predator, Peter Vadasz, was playing Toreador-anti
with stealthy Presence bleeds (Jost & Marijava Ghouls). My deck has enough
intercept and bounce to completely trump such a deck. Even so, none of it
had showed up early in the game. It was really humilliating as 1 stealth
bleeds of
3 kept tearing into my pool. Peter was 1 bleed card away from ousting me,
but
came up short and left me with 1 pool. From there I slowly rebuilt. I
milked Blood
Doll + Palatial Estate, and was able to use Anima Gathering to get +2 int.
on Billy.
Much later on, when the round timed out at the 2.5 hour mark, no one had
been
ousted, but I probably looked the strongest.
As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
clumps in
my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly suffle the deck.
The
judges weren't about to let that happen. I'm not sure if there is a rule
for or against
what I wanted to do, so I wasn't complaining (aloud). I do know that
clumping will
occur in a random sample. At least that's what I was telling myself as I
was getting
bled like crazy.
As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
chance qualifier, the top
ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
similar fate in
Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
rules provide the
structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
in between rounds.
If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
accordingly. But as I said
in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
lack thereof) should not
keep us from playing in final rounds.
In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
they were. Scott,
what was the reason for that?
Jay
Daneel napsal:
[ quoted text not captured ]
so you were the head judge, if I read properly? speaking about your
performance, dou you remember the discussion regarding the blood cost
paid accidentally with path of night in play? later, everybody else
confirmed I was right. even another judge, to whom I spoke day after,
admitted that and apologized. I wouldnt want to open it again, I really
feel no wrong, it was actually completely irrelevant during that game,
but such a blatant failure from a head judge is little bit
disturbing..could be much more important in another situation..
I could post the details of this problem for everybody else, but I
would prefer your point of view first.
as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
the weekend.
next time,
claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
or
do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
whole game
but dont do both simultaneously.
t-shirts with funny quotes are nice, but cannot fix everything..
Vladimir
the guy with descent into darkness on saturday/weenie ani on sunday
and excuse my poor english as always
"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
> clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
> suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
ruling was?
"Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
afterward. Of course, if a thorough randomization process took place,
it wouldn't make a shred of difference. So if the ruling was that
people couldn't manually remix their sorted cards, that was a pretty
stupid ruling. But as long as everyone could randomize, shuffle,
blindly remix to their heart's content afterward, it should have made
zero difference to anyone's draw.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
> ruling was?
>
> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
> afterward. Of course, if a thorough randomization process took place,
> it wouldn't make a shred of difference. So if the ruling was that
> people couldn't manually remix their sorted cards, that was a pretty
> stupid ruling. But as long as everyone could randomize, shuffle,
> blindly remix to their heart's content afterward, it should have made
> zero difference to anyone's draw.
Sounds right.
As it doesn't make any difference, as you note, the judges may have
felt that the player(s) who wanted to de-clump or otherwise arrange
their decks of the cards were planning on not "sufficiently
randomizing" the decks.
Or they could simply have been pressed for time and decided not to
allow the players to "waste" time sorting/arranging their decks in
this-or-that fashion prior to beginning the randomizing process.
Or it could be something totally different.
It is pretty difficult to say with so few details available.
> fact is that i and asfaik also jay suffered from a very bad draw, due to
> a stupid ruling by a st...d head judge (sorry daneel you have to take
> that beating for your lack of knowledge of the vekn rules).
See Rules at 3.2. Pre-Game Procedure:
"All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be
seen. "
You saw your cards. You made a mistake. You have been judged.
"Bala" <ba...@coder.hu> wrote in message
>> news:1131654596.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[ quoted text not captured ]
Was he claiming to be shuffling at the moment he did that?
LSJ's reasoning about why the judges might have done what they did
notwithstanding, there is no actual rule that people can't adjust
their deck order *before* shuffling. (The rule you quote is not such
a rule.) As long as they thoroughly shuffle - face down, of course -
afterwards.
Fred
Thanks Bala,
As the judge taking care of the ECQ finals, I have warned the players
before the game preparation that their decks are stacked, because we
have checked all crypts and libraries card-by-card comparing them to
the decklists. I also told them that they have any time they need to
randomize their decks properly. I left for a few minutes but my
fellow-judge, Daneel stayed at the table. He issued a warning to
Stefan, because improper deck shuffling, because Stefan started to
shuffle his deck with the cards face up. As the rules above clearly
state this being illegal I have supported Daneel's judgement. Daneel
has also encouraged the players to shuffle as long as they like.
That's what happened.
Damnans wrote:
> Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
> > Damnans wrote:>(...)
> Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos
Errr... Ginés, can you please translate?
Is this Catalan?
.- Luis Duarte
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:22:43 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
>chance qualifier, the top
>ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
>similar fate in
>Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
>rules provide the
>structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
>in between rounds.
>If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
>accordingly. But as I said
>in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
>lack thereof) should not
>keep us from playing in final rounds.
> In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
>they were. Scott,
>what was the reason for that?
>
>Jay
Do you want tournament V:TES to be taken seriously?
If so, then people should learn how to fill out deck lists correctly
or get someone to do it for them. It's a common requirement for CCG
majors. Sure, it sometimes screws people making honest mistakes, but
so do lots of things in life.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:22:43 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last>chance qualifier, the top
>ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
>similar fate in
>Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
>rules provide the
>structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
>in between rounds.
>If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
>accordingly. But as I said
>in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
>lack thereof) should not
>keep us from playing in final rounds.
hi Jay,
i wouldn't mind getting rid of decklists myself, because I think that
99.5% of the players are well adjusted enough not to cheat by changing
their deck between rounds (especially before the final), but how are
you going to prevent the remaining .5% from cheating, if you do not
have decklists. it is impossible to tell if a player has been swapping
cards in his deck if you do not have one.
regards,
Chris.QJ
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> > As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
> > clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
> > suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
>
> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
> ruling was?
>
> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
> afterward.
We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
has any effect, it is not allowed.
As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
Frank
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>>>Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
>>>>>Damnans wrote:>>
>>(...)
>>Deck Name: Leguleyos celérrimos>
>
> Errr... Ginés, can you please translate?
> Is this Catalan?
No. It is Spanish.
Leguleyo: Pettifogging lawyer; Shyster.
Celérrimo: very fast
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jay Kristoff wrote:
> As for checking decklists. I'd like to get ride of it. In this last
> chance qualifier, the top
> ranked player was tossed out of the finals for a bad decklist. I suffered a
> similar fate in
> Heidelberg last year. I believe that even without decklists, the V:EKN
> rules provide the
> structure to properly penelize a player who is found to be changing his deck
> in between rounds.
> If a player is found to be cheating, then they should be pennalized
> accordingly. But as I said
> in Budapest, we are methuselahs, not secertaries. Our clerical skills (or
> lack thereof) should not
> keep us from playing in final rounds.
I am all for it. But we need it in the rules, else quite a few players
will be making all kind of noise about how cheaty it is not to have
decklists.
> In the 2005 NAC, decklists were not collected, whereas in previous years
> they were. Scott,
> what was the reason for that?
NAC seems to be a lot more relaxed (=non competitive) than the EC to me.
Johannes
<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1131701449.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:76Ncf.94521$Hs.7...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> > As for the bad draw; I would have prefered to manually separate the
>> > clumps in my deck after the deck check process, and then thoroughly
>> > suffle the deck. The judges weren't about to let that happen.
>>
>> They woldn't let you shuffle?!? Would someone *please* post what this
>> ruling was?
>>
>> "Manually separating clumps" after a deck sort is certainly not against
>> any rules as long as a thorough randomization process has taken place
>> afterward.>
> We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
> called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
> has any effect, it is not allowed.
Yep. I totally agree. However, it is one thing to say a thing isn't
necessary and quite another to say it should be or is illegal. If
there's no rule against it, there's no rule. And Daneel shouldn't
have issued a warning for shuffling illegally to Stefan unless Stefan
claimed to be shuffling as he was doing that. If there was some
other reason (e.g., all participants in general or Stefan in particular
had been ordered to being randomizing there deck(s) ), it might be
different.
> As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
> be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
> need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
Sure. In which case, the correct procedure is to specifically order
everybody to begin shuffling/randomizing their decks now. Otherwise,
folks are going to naturally start engaging in whatever their normal
pregame sequence is. I'd also reiterate the command directly to
anyone who didn't seem to catch it before beginning to issue warnings.
> So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
I'm not sure I agree. Of course, I'd have to have been there to
really say. If nothing else, it seems overblown, I suppose. Good
stuff for something to talk about while waiting for the release,
though.
Fred
On 11 Nov 2005 01:30:49 -0800, x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
>We had this discussion before. If stacking (how separating clumps is
>called) has no effect after randomization, it is not necessary. If it
>has any effect, it is not allowed.
>
>As a judge you usually dont care, if a deck is stacked, because it will
>be shuffled afterwards. But if a deck is not stacked, you really dont
>need to give the players time to stack it before randomizing it.
>
>So the ruling of the hungarian judges was absolutely correct.
>
>Frank
hi,
i have a different take on that:
a player gets a checked deck (all cards of same type and name clumped
together).
now there are two options:
1.) the player unclumps and shuffles thoroughly leading to a
sufficiently randomized deck
2.) the player does not unclump and shuffles thoroughly leading to a
sufficiently randomized deck
so both cases lead a sufficiently randomized deck.
if it makes the player feel better to unclump and the shuffle, fine,
let him go for it, since there is no mention in the rules that it is
forbidden to do so. the only rules concerning shuffling states that
the player has to shuffle sufficiently and face down. so basically
Stefan could just have said that he is not yet shuffling when Daneel
gave the warning.
i would have let all the players unclump, had they wanted to, and then
would have given the warning if an unclumping player does shuffle
thoroughly.
thats my take on things.
regards,
Chris.QJ
[ quoted text not captured ]
which is totally not true. you gave as our decks, and said you can
shuffle now, i check the cards and realized that the decks were sorted.
so i started to desort my deck not stack it, just seperate the masters
blood doll etc. which is as lsj stated is perfectly legal. at that point
daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
again, and got warned, at that point after i complained, tibor told
everybody, that the decks were sorted, that he advises us to shuffle
them hard, and then when i complained about the time needed to shuffle a
sorted deck like that, at that point you granted me all the time i needed.
i did not shuffle face up, therefore your warning was not just. i truly
regret (and hate myself for) not standing up and leaving the final, but
admittingly i am a ratings whore.
other wrongs around the finals.
trying to force the finalists to show a vampire from our decks to the
other finalists (to determine seating)
changing the prior announced time limit of 3 hours to at first 2 hours,
after jay and i complained to 2.5 hours AFTER seating was determined.
ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
letting at one point take peter back an announced action, when he
realized after announicing an action and tapping a vampire, that he
controlled millicent.. (jay disagreed but did not complain, neither did
gines. i didn´t care).
daneel before i apologize to you hell will freeze, because you were one
of the worsest judges i have ever met. all my accusations are just, you
were wrong because you have little knowledge of the vekn rules.
tibor, if you felt insulted by my post, i apologize. the warnings were
issued by daneel not you.
stefan
Chris.QJ wrote:
> if it makes the player feel better to unclump and the shuffle, fine,
> let him go for it, since there is no mention in the rules that it is
> forbidden to do so. the only rules concerning shuffling states that
> the player has to shuffle sufficiently and face down. so basically
> Stefan could just have said that he is not yet shuffling when Daneel
> gave the warning.
>
i told daneel "i will shuffle my deck afterwards, and will ask any
player on the table to shuffle my deck" that clearly states that at that
point i was not shuffeling my deck, but unclumping it.
s.
Damnans wrote:
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>>> Merldion wrote:>
>
> [...]
>>>
>> other wrongs around the finals.>
> [...]
>>> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.>
>
> Locations are optional by default ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.es/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510c851217e773ff
>
>
>
even though there is a different wording on the rack and the palatial
estate, and the hg? (hgs say may, rack and palatial say gain)?
s.
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> Merldion wrote:>> Thanks Bala,
>> As the judge taking care of the ECQ finals, I have warned the players
>> before the game preparation that their decks are stacked, because we
>> have checked all crypts and libraries card-by-card comparing them to
>> the decklists. I also told them that they have any time they need to
>> randomize their decks properly. I left for a few minutes but my
>> fellow-judge, Daneel stayed at the table. He issued a warning to
>> Stefan, because improper deck shuffling, because Stefan started to
>> shuffle his deck with the cards face up. As the rules above clearly
>> state this being illegal I have supported Daneel's judgement. Daneel
>> has also encouraged the players to shuffle as long as they like.
>>
>> That's what happened.
>>> which is totally not true. you gave as our decks, and said you can
> shuffle now, i check the cards and realized that the decks were sorted.
> so i started to desort my deck not stack it, just seperate the masters
Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
down.
> blood doll etc. which is as lsj stated is perfectly legal. at that point
I said it was immaterial.
It is perfectly acceptable for the judge to disallow any face up
stacking/sorting/declumping/arranging of the deck, for the reasons
I indicated.
And even that (allowing or disallowing) is immaterial unless the
player subsequently violates the VEKN rules by not sufficiently
randomizing his deck. So it really doesn't matter for the case
where the VEKN rules are followed.
And doing so helps ensure that the VEKN rules are followed, if
it gives the player an added impetus to see to it that his deck
is sufficiently randomized.
> daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
> again, and got warned, at that point after i complained, tibor told
> everybody, that the decks were sorted, that he advises us to shuffle
> them hard, and then when i complained about the time needed to shuffle a
> sorted deck like that, at that point you granted me all the time i needed.
>
> i did not shuffle face up, therefore your warning was not just. i truly
> regret (and hate myself for) not standing up and leaving the final, but
> admittingly i am a ratings whore.
Arranging your cards while looking at their faces is shuffling face up.
> other wrongs around the finals.
>
> trying to force the finalists to show a vampire from our decks to the
> other finalists (to determine seating)
Players need not show other players any cards from their decks prior
to play.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1117b512d52f9b1c> changing the prior announced time limit of 3 hours to at first 2 hours,
> after jay and i complained to 2.5 hours AFTER seating was determined.
Time limits for all rounds should be set prior to the start
of the tournament.
> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.
They were at one time (prior to CE, for the Rack, at any rate), but
they are currently not optional.
> letting at one point take peter back an announced action, when he
> realized after announicing an action and tapping a vampire, that he
> controlled millicent.. (jay disagreed but did not complain, neither did
> gines. i didn´t care).
Would depend on the representation of the game state (i.e., how clearly
Millicent was in his controlled region, and whether peter had been
apprised of the move when it occurred, etc.).
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Damnans wrote:
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>>> Merldion wrote:>
>
> [...]
>>>
>> other wrongs around the finals.>
> [...]
>>> ruling that palatial estate and rack are optional.>
>
> Locations are optional by default ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.es/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/510c851217e773ff
>
>
>
That one has been changed to hunting grounds are optional as far as
I know.
Current card-text on hunting grounds are changed to reflect this
as well (may move). Where there is no such wording the effect is
mandatory and should be enforced retroactively. I might have a
vested interest in a player being forced to use The Rack or
Momentum's Edge (Taste of Vitae and Parity Shift comes to mind).
Sten During
Alias wrote:
> Daneel napsal:> as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
> immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
> thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
> and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with disqualification.
the rest of that paragraph, i do not understand. were you part of the
final? i doubt it!
> but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
> definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
> idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
> the weekend.
>
have i met you during the ec? if not i kindly ask you not to insult me
on hearsay.
> next time,
> claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
> or
> do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
> whole game
>
> but dont do both simultaneously.
>
what are you talking about. have we played together? vekn rules require
me to play to win, even if i am qualified.
stefan
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> Alias wrote:
> > Daneel napsal:
>
>
> > as for mr.Ferenci - again, I know its bad to solve such things not
> > immediately, but few days later on the internet - but - on Saturday, I
> > thought it was just me, I was very tired after drinking whole night,
> > and not in the mood for hardcore table talk..
>
> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with disqualification.
> the rest of that paragraph, i do not understand. were you part of the
> final? i doubt it!
no
>
> > but as I see the opinions of other people on your person - yes, its
> > definitely possible, that you are really such an extremely obtrusive
> > idiot. at least compared to all the other nice people I have met during
> > the weekend.
> >
>
> have i met you during the ec? if not i kindly ask you not to insult me
> on hearsay.
yes
>
> > next time,
> > claim, that you are already qualified and that you only play for fun
> > or
> > do everything for a win, including irritating verbal harrasment during
> > whole game
> >
> > but dont do both simultaneously.
> >
>
> what are you talking about. have we played together? vekn rules require
> me to play to win, even if i am qualified.
yes, we did. qualifier, second round. I am pretty sure it was you,
because when I asked prior to the game "hi, are you Stefan Ferenci?"
(to check if I am at the right table), you replied "so? you want an
autograph or what?"
you know, a side note, just to compare, when I came to the table before
the third round of the qualifier, there was a hungarian player (my
prey) offering chocolate to everybody :) and, you know, chocolate is
always better than infantile arrogance :)
> stefan
Vladimir
Alias wrote:
> yes, we did. qualifier, second round. I am pretty sure it was you,
> because when I asked prior to the game "hi, are you Stefan Ferenci?"
> (to check if I am at the right table), you replied "so? you want an
> autograph or what?"
>>>stefan>
>
> Vladimir
>
i remember, but i didn´t reply like that however, sorry i didn´t have
any choclate for you. i´ll bring some next time.
s.
What is unclumping?
If unclumping is randomizing - why not do it face down?
If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
why should a judge allow it?
The judge told you, you should shuffle face down, so you were obviously
in the shuffling phase of the deck. It is so simple. You didnt follow
his advice, so you got a warning. What else should he do. Starting a
discussion?
Stefan, that you dont like the decisions of judges, if you dont agree,
is really your problem not theirs.
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:ck%cf.7565$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
> down.
I can understand the reasons for not accepting the results of a
shuffle/randomization technique that was done face up. I have real
questions about the expediency of a rule that purports to outlaw
reordering someone's deck at a moment prior to beginning a game AND
beginning randomization of a deck for a game.
Before a game, there is no way to regulate peoples' behavior like
that. We can say their deck needs to consist of a certain mix of
cards and we can say that the mix needs to be the same one from
one game to the next. But I don't see how anyone can outlaw
"arranging the order" of a deck. There's no rule against looking
at your deck between games and certainly before the first game;
one can look at one's deck completely unstacked between games,
and then one can restack a deck however they like - how would
THAT be any different from what you're talking about, other than
just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?
I'm confused.
If I understand the rule you're suggesting exists, it seems to a
little silly. Maybe I did not.
> It is perfectly acceptable for the judge to disallow any face up
> stacking/sorting/declumping/arranging of the deck, for the reasons
> I indicated.
I think it's probably reasonable to tell people who are seated and
almost ready to begin play that time constraints demand that they
begin randomizing their deck (hence they cannot be looking at it
face up) in immediate preparation for play. They should also deal
out 7 library cards, 4 crypt cards, and 30 pool counters as well.
But those orders should be made clear so no one receives a warning
and can say they're (legitimately) surprised by it. (Obviously I
have no idea happened in this case.)
> Arranging your cards while looking at their faces is shuffling face up.
In that case, everybody "shuffled face up" when they sorted their cards
for inspection!!! Everybody at the EC should be given a warning.
That interpretation, taken strictly, is absurd. To not take it
strictly is an ambiguous mess. "Shuffling face up" is shuffling face
up: meaning I am looking at my cards as I do whatever it is I do and
then represent it to my fellow players as a shuffle.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
> around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
> decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?
Ok, so, just to stretch it a bit further, would you say it's ok
if I went into the restroom and changed the content of my library
and crypt between round 1 and 2 and between round 2 and 3 as long
as no jugde saw me and I made certain my deck was restored to the
original state before I play in the final round?
Just curious.
Sten During
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:4374cdd3$0$41137$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> just taking longer? Will the judges follow each participant
>> around and into the restroom if they happen to be hold their
>> decks, in fear that a player will look at and reorder his deck?>
> Ok, so, just to stretch it a bit further, would you say it's ok
> if I went into the restroom and changed the content of my library
> and crypt between round 1 and 2 and between round 2 and 3 as long
> as no jugde saw me
No, of course not. But: 1) there's a good reason for such a rule;
and 2) that can spot checked for.
Fred
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:51:16 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com>
wrote:
> daneel told me i am not allowed to look at my cards, i accidently did it
> again, and got warned, at that point after i complained,
Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but I Warned you on the third
time you "accidentally" looked at you cards. At first I explained to you
the rules, just in case you weren't completely familiar with them. You
voiced your disagreement and continued doing the face up shuffling. I
then told you again that you are not allowed to shuffle face-up - which
you again ignored. It was then that I issued a Warning. Which was just
fine, as you then started to shuffle in a legal way.
> daneel before i apologize to you hell will freeze, because you were one
> of the worsest judges i have ever met. all my accusations are just, you
> were wrong because you have little knowledge of the vekn rules.
> tibor, if you felt insulted by my post, i apologize. the warnings were
> issued by daneel not you.
Well, I was the Bad Judge (TM), wasn't I? ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Chris.QJ" wrote
[ quoted text not captured ]
This .5% is a strange bunch. I doubt that they are winning much.
Swapping cards in between preliminary rounds seems like a fool's
errand. What's to say that your experiences in round 1 will at all
be like round 2 (unless you're in a 5 player event)?
It seems that the time when illegal card swapping would give a
player the most advantage is before a final round. Players may
have played other finalists earier in the day, done some scouting,
or have heard rummors as to what other finalists were playing.
I can envision someone running off to the bathroom and swapping
4 Majesty for 4 Seduction or some thing like that. To limit pre-
finals card swapping, I recomend minimizing the time between
round 3 and the final round or having the organizer collect the finalists'
decks prior to the break before the finals, and then return them as the
final round was about to begin.
Jay
[ quoted text not captured ]
I know, I was being a pain in the ***, but the basic thing here is
not if it's difficult to find out if a player did something but if
that something was ok to do or not. I'm aware some rules will be
harder to enforce than others, but that should not be the primary
criteria for wether it's an important rule or not.
Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
Now, I don't suggest that players on average deliberately try to
"cheat", but the one single reason for declumping a deck is to make
it more evenly spread after shuffling, which is NOT the same as
randomizing the deck. If the reason for this behaviour is based on
knowledge (in which case it WOULD be cheating) or superstition I
don't know. I'd like to think it's the latter -- like wearing a
lucky amulet :)
Sten During
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:43750513$0$41137$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> I know, I was being a pain in the ***, but the basic thing here is
> not if it's difficult to find out if a player did something but if
> that something was ok to do or not. I'm aware some rules will be
> harder to enforce than others, but that should not be the primary
> criteria for wether it's an important rule or not.
I agree somewhat. But this is not exactly an important rule. I
agree with LSJ's point about suspecting that people declumping
their cards may not be intending to sufficiently randomize them
afterward. But it seems to me that the answer to that is enforcing
a rule against playing an insufficiently randomized deck. Do what
you will in terms of deck order before shuffling, but we will then
watch you shuffle so you better do a good job.
And besides, the rule is patently unenforcable. I think it's James
or Legbiter or someone who likes to say, "Do not command what you
cannot enforce." And there's a good reason for that: enforcement
of such things turns on capricious matters like whether a guy had
a few minutes to wander off with his deck and unclump in secret
rather than being in a hurry and doing it where people can watch
him. Since there's no potential for spot-checking like you can
do for deck changes, it all takes on the character of a witch hunt
in my eyes. It's not something worth engaging in considering that
the real answer is just to make people shuffle thoroughly in front
of you before playing. If they do that, I don't care what they
did with their deck order beforehand.
> Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
> with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
> deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
> for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
> we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
> randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
> as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
I'm not sure I agree that four shuffles is insufficient, depending on
how they're done. But if I don't see someone randomize his deck
sufficiently IN FRONT OF ME (and I've never met the guy before so
I don't know his character), I always make a point of shuffling it
myself for exactly this reason. Don't you? Everybody should.
Fred
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Sten During wrote:
> Let's assume I'm "declumping" my deck by pairing together all wakes
> with intercept and all actions with stealth. I then shuffle the
> deck deck four times in front of your eyes and offer you the deck
> for further shuffling just prior to the start of the game. I think
> we can both agree that the deck is likely to be "not sufficidently
> randomized" when I start the game for the simple reason that used cards
> as well as used plastic sleeves tend to stick together.
>
Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
V:tES.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message>>Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
>>the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
>>is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
>>down.>
> I can understand the reasons for not accepting the results of a
> shuffle/randomization technique that was done face up. I have real
> questions about the expediency of a rule that purports to outlaw
> reordering someone's deck at a moment prior to beginning a game AND
> beginning randomization of a deck for a game.
What are these real questions?
Expediency?
Purports?
Paint it how you wish if you need to take issue with it, the
fact remains that the pre-shuffle state of the deck is immaterial,
except to those who do not understand what it means to "sufficiently
randomize" a deck.
A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
So the big question is: what of it?
The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
Net effect on the game: zero.
Play. The. Game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
> it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
>
> So the big question is: what of it?
It is unenforcable in many circumstances. Therefore, the enforcement
of it becomes capricious. Players attempting to contravene it will
do so by strategizing: sneaking off and reordering their deck. Or
arriving before the first game with an ordered deck.
Fixing this problem this way invites reliance on a means that will
only work some of the time. Fixing it by simply requiring a set
amount of randomizing works all the time. Why not rely solely on
the latter?
Furthermore, players absolutely have legitimate business inspecting
their decks face up between games, particularly for cards played
in their areas by other players and to search for their cards
played in other players' areas. By your interpretation of the
face-up-shuffle rule, they wind having to be very careful about
exactly how they handle their decks lest they be accused of a
face up shuffle when gathering up their cards for play. I think
that's a needless thing to be worrying about.
> The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
> Net effect on the game: zero.
I don't have an issue with compelling players to follow direct
orders issued by a judge, as long as he is clear about them and
clear that they are compulsorary in nature as he issues them.
> Play. The. Game.
Sure.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>A deck cannot be reordered in "a moment". It takes time. And
>>it is time wasted, if the VEKN rules are followed.
>>
>>So the big question is: what of it?>
> It is unenforcable in many circumstances. Therefore, the enforcement
> of it becomes capricious.
And still doesn't matter.
So the big question remains.
> Players attempting to contravene it will
> do so by strategizing: sneaking off and reordering their deck. Or
> arriving before the first game with an ordered deck.
And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.
> Fixing this problem this way invites reliance on a means that will
> only work some of the time. Fixing it by simply requiring a set
> amount of randomizing works all the time. Why not rely solely on
> the latter?
What problem?
Nothing is being fixed here.
If there were something being fixed, then the net effect would not
be zero. And the net effect is zero.
> Furthermore, players absolutely have legitimate business inspecting
> their decks face up between games, particularly for cards played
> in their areas by other players and to search for their cards
> played in other players' areas.
OK.
> By your interpretation of the
> face-up-shuffle rule, they wind having to be very careful about
> exactly how they handle their decks lest they be accused of a
> face up shuffle when gathering up their cards for play.
Hardly.
> I think
> that's a needless thing to be worrying about.
Good thing no one will be worrying about it, then.
>>The judge allows or disallows (additional) sorting of the deck.
>>Net effect on the game: zero.>
> I don't have an issue with compelling players to follow direct
> orders issued by a judge, as long as he is clear about them and
> clear that they are compulsorary in nature as he issues them.
Um. OK.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <1131718454.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
>why should a judge allow it?
Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at which point
it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should make no difference if
the later shuffling is good enough. If it makes a player feel better,
who cares?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:js9df.7288$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...> And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.
I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
There's really no argument one can make to dispute such an
assertion.
I suppose the one other thing I might suggest is that rule 3.2
could be a bit more straightforward in this regard. I personally
would have never thought to interpret, "All shuffling must be done
so the faces of the cards cannot be seen." as a prohibition against
declumping or otherwise doing pre-shuffle ordering - because I
don't think of such actions as "shuffling". A more consistent and
universal understanding of what rules mean is always a good thing.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:js9df.7288$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>Frederick Scott wrote:
>>
>>>>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>
>>And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.>
> I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
> of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
> don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
?
Context. Thread.
It doesn't matter if you stack your deck this way or that way
or leave it stacked in its current situation prior to randomizing
the deck.
Shorter: It doesn't matter.
Still. Again.
Maybe you'll find a new way to twist it. Maybe not.
Either way, it will remain true.
> There's really no argument one can make to dispute such an
> assertion.
>
> I suppose the one other thing I might suggest is that rule 3.2
> could be a bit more straightforward in this regard. I personally
> would have never thought to interpret, "All shuffling must be done
> so the faces of the cards cannot be seen." as a prohibition against
> declumping or otherwise doing pre-shuffle ordering
Great.
I didn't say that. The rules don't say that.
We've both said that the judge's directives are to be followed.
The directive to "get on with shuffling" (to include not looking
at the faces) is consistent with the rules.
So here we are. Saying the same thing, around and around.
But somehow, you find that it is a topic of contention.
As you like.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> See Rules at 3.2. Pre-Game Procedure:
>> "All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be
>> seen. "
>> You saw your cards. You made a mistake. You have been judged.
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>i was not shuffling dude,
LSJ wrote:
"Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
down. "
Do you have another answer? ;) Dude.
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:rybdf.7340$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>> news:js9df.7288$2y....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:Y79df.7809$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...>>>
>>>And. It. Still. Won't. Matter.>>
>> I guess if you don't think my complaints about your interpretation
>> of the meaning of the face up shuffle rule are all things that
>> don't matter then we'll have to agree to disagree about that.>
> ?
>
> Context. Thread.
In a previous article, you wrote:
# Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
# the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
# is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
# down.
According to rule 3.2, "All shuffling must be done so that the faces
of the cards cannot be seen." That is a rule in the tournament rules.
Combined with what you said above, one can logically deduce that
you think "Desort/declumping/stacking" are illegal activities at a
tournament. Possibly before a tournament, too, I don't know. If
that's not what you meant, I apologize for the misunderstanding but
you could have been more clear in thrust of your comment.
It doesn't seem to me that someone caught declumping at his leisure
long before the next game begins and with no judges around trying to
move things along need be, for instance, issued a warning for
engaging in something illegal. That was the position I was trying
to articulate.
Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
didn't mean, I apologize.
Fred
> Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
> didn't mean, I apologize.
Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
> Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
> V:tES.
I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
"perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
cards are interleaved?
Assuming there is math to show that 7 shuffles are sufficient to
randomize a 52 card deck, I'd like to know how many shuffles are enough
to randomize a 90 card deck.
Also, I've seen a lot of players "shuffle" their decks by counting them
out into 6* piles, and then stacking the piles. *Sometimes more or
less than 6. Perhaps doing that is "better" randomization than
shuffling?
I'm curious about this and I'm not sure how to do the math. I might do
some internet searching on it later, but if anyone already knows,
please post here.
Thanks,
Ira
<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131761674.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
>> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
>> V:tES.>
> I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
> I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
> "perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
> cards are interleaved?
>
My favorite shuffle trivia is this... if you make just 8 perfect
"out-shuffles" of a 52-card deck, you return it to its original order.
Reference:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Out-Shuffle.html
This page
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiffleShuffle.html
states another interesting result:
3/2 log base 2 (n) is a sufficient number of shuffles to randomize a deck of
n cards.
For n = 90, this is approximately 10.
For n = 12, this is approximately 6. (Although 12 may not be a large enough
n for the result to hold?)
- Pat
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Bad example. 7 shuffles are necessary to randomize a 52-card deck. More
>> shuffles are required for V:tES decks. 4 is NEVER enough shuffles in
>> V:tES.>
> I've heard that 7 shuffles are enough to randomize a 52-card deck, but
> I'm wondering if there's any proof of that. Also, are you assuming a
> "perfect" shuffle, where the deck is cut exactly in half, and then the
> cards are interleaved?
There was at least one study done that indicated such, although I do not
have a link or other information handy. I have not checked Google;
perhaps it's right there on page 1.
The 'perfect' riffle, of course, is not actually a shuffle at all as it
does not leave any cards in an unknown position -- which means that the
results of the study are inherently suspect, as part of any experiment
is reproducibility. Random isn't reproducible, by definition, so one of
the few useful tests would be to use a truly random shuffling method to
sort the 52 cards, and then compare the results to 7 "imperfect riffles"
to see how much more of a pattern there tends to be from the riffles...
in other words, how many times you get results that were similar to a
prior result, compared to how many times you got that with the
true-random method. But even here there's an element of uncertainty
involved about the results, as your test for "similar results" is going
to, by necessity, be a bit weak.
In short, it's pretty hard to test "random". The literal definition is
that given a deck of 52 cards numbered 1 through 52 and any given
shuffling method, the chances that the cards come up ordered as:
1, 2, 3, ... 51, 52
... should be identical to the chances they come up:
52, 51, 50, ... 2, 1
... and the chances of being ordered in ALL other possible combinations.
Easy to brute-force test with dice ... not so easy to do with cards.
> Assuming there is math to show that 7 shuffles are sufficient to
> randomize a 52 card deck, I'd like to know how many shuffles are enough
> to randomize a 90 card deck.
Even assuming the study is accurate, it would take way more than 7, and
certainly more than players currently do.
> Also, I've seen a lot of players "shuffle" their decks by counting them
> out into 6* piles, and then stacking the piles. *Sometimes more or
> less than 6. Perhaps doing that is "better" randomization than
> shuffling?
Depends on whose point of view you're using. Many people believe it's
better randomization, and the owner of the deck will always tell you "I
get better shuffles this way."
From an objective view, it's not actually randomization at all; it's
intentional de-clumping, and as such I don't consider it to be shuffling
of any sort -- after someone does this, I expect to see them use some
form of actual shuffling on the deck. If they shuffle honestly, by the
definition of random above, it won't matter what order the cards went
into the deck.
> I'm curious about this and I'm not sure how to do the math. I might do
> some internet searching on it later, but if anyone already knows,
> please post here.
Well, you really don't need the math. What you do need to know is:
-- 90 cards are significantly more difficult to shuffle, PHYSICALLY,
than 52 cards. In Vegas, dealers do a "rough mix" prior to all
shuffling; the best way to understand THAT is to watch it on your local
Texas Hold 'Em TV program. It is the best randomization they have
available to them; the several riffle shuffles they do afterwards is
simply icing on the cake.
-- Vegas dealers have it easier than V:TES players. Vegas dealers only
really need people to not be able to predict the order the cards will
come in, and they rarely use the entire deck. V:TES players ALSO need
to have no significant bias in their deck either towards or against
clumping; if you have six Blood Dolls, it should be equally likely for
them to be all in the top 15 cards, spread out through the deck evenly,
or all in the bottom 15 -- and because V:TES players can potentially use
the entire deck, it actually matters a lot more from the viewpoint of
correct randomization *AND* from gameplay; while many decks benefit more
from having an even distribution and no cards of the same type next to
each other, others such as Giovanni powerbleed will do much better
drawing up all their Governs early, and all their Conditionings and
Foreshadowings in the later part of the deck, when the hammer really
needs to be dropped *AFTER* the block decision is made.
-- Most V:TES players will never rough-mix their cards, out of fear of
damaging the condition. Combined with their inability to shuffle a
90-card deck properly, the play of the game suffers as a result...
certainly so for those who choose not to separate their cards
beforehand, as they will be more likely to clump up. I personally note
that I get more "expected" results out of a deck after it's been played
a few times -- this is undoubtedly because combos end up next to each
other in the ash heap, and even though I do put some effort into making
my shuffle random, even my hands aren't good enough to split up EVERY
combo and create a truly random order (although remember, the
possibility must exist that some combos ARE together in the perfect play
order as well).
-- The above is not an endorsement of table-shuffling, however, as that
action biases the output of the deck in exactly the OPPOSITE fashion
from not separating cards; it makes the output much more unlikely to be
clumped than it normally would be in a random shuffle. This is just as
bad, and in fact slightly worse since it gives the separators an
advantage over the non-separators... if the non-separators' deck is
ordered in clumps, that is. If it's not ordered (say, it's been played
a bunch), the results will be unpredictable as to who will get more
"clumping", as the initial order is unknown.
(breathes)
...AS FAR AS the whole getting-a-free-ticket thing goes, which ruling
exactly do I need to disagree with to collect? I can be bribed. :D
--
Derek
[honestly? I'm disinclined to interfere with players' superstitions,
since all it ever does is annoy them and solves nothing... and a judge
should provide solutions to problems, not annoyance.
If necessary (ie, i see them fail to properly shuffle after sorting) or
asked to make a ruling by one of their opponents, I would remind the
player that sorting isn't shuffling in any way, shape, or form, and just
as much randomization will need to happen AFTER de-sorting as it would
if no sorting had occurred. I'd also advise their predator of this and
let the players try to sort it out amongst themselves.
If the process is causing someone to take too long to begin a game, you
warn them for time (the actual offense), and tell them to hurry up and
get to the actual shuffling part.]
So we are criticizing a judge because he started the shuffling process
and didnt made a player feeling better!
Do you know a better way to stop people judging tournaments in the
future?
In message <1131783015.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
Please quote appropriate context to make your posts easier to follow.
:-(
>So we are criticizing a judge because he started the shuffling process
>and didnt made a player feeling better!
No. A question was asked by you:
If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your
tastes - why should a judge allow it?
I responded:
Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at
which point it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should
make no difference if the later shuffling is good enough. If it
makes a player feel better, who cares?
The point is that it makes no difference.
Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
judgement.
>Do you know a better way to stop people judging tournaments in the
>future?
Judges in major tournaments know that they're going to get some grief
because of rulings they make - either they're right, but they don't have
the exact ruling to hand, or it's a judgement call and the player
doesn't believe them, or... It's inevitable.
Judges do, for better or worse, need to be able to take a little flack.
I have, for instance, been given grief by a player because I told them
they couldn't maneuver after having declined to do so (which could have
cost them that combat and an influential minion).
Since judges are interacting with real people, they will be dealing with
real people, real emotions and real feedback. Judges who can't deal
with that should get over it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:28:46 GMT, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com>
wrote:
> This .5% is a strange bunch. I doubt that they are winning much.
>Swapping cards in between preliminary rounds seems like a fool's
>errand. What's to say that your experiences in round 1 will at all
>be like round 2 (unless you're in a 5 player event)?
hi Jay,
I think you are overlooking something in your statement:
if you know the seating order the archon uses, then after round one
you know which players, and in what order, you are goint to sit with
in the following two rounds. all it takes is a small sheet of paper
with the seating orders of your 25 player pod for all three rounds and
a little scouting after you are ousted in round 1 (which might not
even be necessary, as you will be most likely be sitting on a table
next to them in a previous round) *. playing a tremere block deck, and
knowing that your predator in the next game is going to be pot
rush.... fine swap those .44s for sniper rifles.
I am not saying that this is done, but if you really wanted to, it can
be ridicoulusly easy and highly effective.
> It seems that the time when illegal card swapping would give a
>player the most advantage is before a final round. Players may
>have played other finalists earier in the day, done some scouting,
>or have heard rummors as to what other finalists were playing.
>I can envision someone running off to the bathroom and swapping
>4 Majesty for 4 Seduction or some thing like that. To limit pre-
>finals card swapping, I recomend minimizing the time between
>round 3 and the final round or having the organizer collect the finalists'
>decks prior to the break before the finals, and then return them as the
>final round was about to begin.
this would have to be fine tuned so that players still have the time
check their decks for completeness before they pass it to the judge.
Having your key Fame, Pentex, PB:Montreal.. hidden in someone elses
deck can be a severe disatvantage in the final. but not enough time
to scout for results and opponents in the final and alter their deck
accordingly.
I'd be inlined to say that this is unmanageable in a large tournament.
regards,
Chris.QJ
* this was also cause for much entertainment when waiting for play to
start (sometimes about half an hour) and sitting on two 5 player
tables standing head to head.
"hey cool, i can parity shift for 10 in this game"....
;-)
LSJ wrote:
>
>
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face> down.
>
than i kindly ask you to include that in tournament rules, because (i
even asked a friend of mine that studied german) shuffeling in german
means, randomizing eg a deck of cards, declumbing/stacking/desorting
would not fall in this category.
s.
On 11 Nov 2005 18:03:28 -0800, "XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com>
wrote:
>>> Again, if I've been badgering you uselessly about something you
>> didn't mean, I apologize.>
>Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!
Badger
Retainer
1 blood
Animal. 1 life.
If a judge makes a ruling you do not like, you may burn Badger to have
the judge repeat the ruling two more times.
;-)
Chris.QJ
LSJ wrote:
>
> Desorting/declumping/stacking are all in the same class: arranging
> the order (or sub orders or partial orderings) of your deck. This
> is what is called shuffling face up. Shuffling must be done face
> down.
>
a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
only look at my cards not change the order)
if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
s.
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> What is unclumping?
>
> If unclumping is randomizing - why not do it face down?> If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your tastes -
> why should a judge allow it?
>
i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
deck afterwards.
s.
Chris.QJ wrote:
> if you know the seating order the archon uses, then after round one
> you know which players, and in what order, you are goint to sit with
> in the following two rounds. all it takes is a small sheet of paper
> with the seating orders of your 25 player pod for all three rounds and
> a little scouting after you are ousted in round 1 (which might not
> even be necessary, as you will be most likely be sitting on a table
> next to them in a previous round) *. playing a tremere block deck, and
> knowing that your predator in the next game is going to be pot
> rush.... fine swap those .44s for sniper rifles.
>
> I am not saying that this is done, but if you really wanted to, it can
> be ridicoulusly easy and highly effective.
Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
sequentially).
Even when your own position is known, figuring out who you'll be
seated with and getting a good enough idea of the nature/angles
of their decks such that you can improve your own deck sufficiently
to counter it (unless you're just looking to salt in a few clan
hosers or weenie hosers or IC hosers) doesn't strike me as
ridiculously easy nor more than somewhat effective. It gets
easier the worse your deck does (i.e., when you're ousted
first, you have more time to scout and re-tool your deck), but
that hardly seems like a good thing to plan.
BTW, pods range in size all the way up to 52.
And of course, if the organizer allows any drops or adds, all bets
are off.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
> deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
> only look at my cards not change the order)
If inspect means look at the faces, then of course not.
> if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
> shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
Between rounds, it won't matter since you are to sufficiently randomize your
deck at the start of each round. If the judge inspects your deck in the
middle of a round, then he should leave the order unchanged unless there's
some reason to change the order. In the latter case, the judge should
specify what he or she is doing (and whether you are to randomize afterward
or leave the order as-is).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
No need. Because, again, it doesn't matter.
If the judge asks you to start shuffling, then do so (face down, of
course).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:24:52 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:
hi Scott,
>Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
>I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
>put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
>sequentially).
you don't do that+ almost everyone else does = easy in almost all
non-LSJ-run tournaments.
>
>Even when your own position is known, figuring out who you'll be
>seated with and getting a good enough idea of the nature/angles
>of their decks such that you can improve your own deck sufficiently
>to counter it (unless you're just looking to salt in a few clan
>hosers or weenie hosers or IC hosers) doesn't strike me as
>ridiculously easy nor more than somewhat effective. It gets
>easier the worse your deck does (i.e., when you're ousted
>first, you have more time to scout and re-tool your deck), but
>that hardly seems like a good thing to plan.
>
>BTW, pods range in size all the way up to 52.
both are no problem for mr.cheaty (tm) ;-)
1.) plan to be ousted rather soon in round 1 so that you have time to
scout. in most medium to large size tournaments 2GW and 8 or 9 VPS
(and even less in smaller ones) are enough to reach the final so it
can be achieved with 0VP in round 1 (harder, but doable)
2.) carry flash cards for all possible numbers of players. uneccessary
if you know that more than 52 players will attend.
>
>And of course, if the organizer allows any drops or adds, all bets
>are off.
I handled adds and drops in a way that only the pod to which a player
was added of dropped out of was affected (manually correcting seating
order and starting palyer issues). so if adds or drops happen outside
of you pod, you are not affected. if it happens in your pod, you're
screwed, but you propably earned it ;-)
regards,
Chris.QJ
Chris.QJ wrote:
> I handled adds and drops in a way that only the pod to which a player
> was added of dropped out of was affected (manually correcting seating
> order and starting palyer issues). so if adds or drops happen outside
> of you pod, you are not affected. if it happens in your pod, you're
> screwed, but you propably earned it ;-)
Handling a drop/add with only intra-pad swaps is usually more difficult
to do while maintaining the pred-prey-other relationship distinctiveness
and the available-VP equivalence. Using inter-pod swaps, the task is
usually trivial.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <4375ddb1$0$8024$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>, Stefan
Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
>i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
>deck afterwards.
One question:
If your later randomization is going to be thorough, why did you feel
the need to unclump?
Part of proper randomization is the possibility that clumping will
occur.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <4375dd4e$0$8024$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>, Stefan
Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
>a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
>deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i
>will only look at my cards not change the order)
Even if you could do this, how would you determine "a sufficient order
of randomization"?
A random shuffle means that it's entirely possible for your deck to come
up with all the masters first, then all the combat cards, then all the
event cards, then all... Or in alphabetical order. Or extremely
clumpy. Or flowing like water.
What, specifically, would you be looking for?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" wrote:
> Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
> >i never said unclumping is randomizing. i said i would randomize the
> >deck afterwards.
>
> One question:
>
> If your later randomization is going to be thorough, why did you feel
> the need to unclump?
>
> Part of proper randomization is the possibility that clumping will
> occur.
The science of your statement is dead on. Of course there can be
some very bad clumping after any thorough randomization. The
human element is what has a strong effect in this matter. It simply
feels good to know that all of one's bounce cards weren't next to
each other prior to suffling. Please, endulge our misguided feelings.
Jay
LSJ wrote:
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
> > a few questions: am i allowed to interrupt my shuffling to inspect my
> > deck and see if a sufficent order of randomization was achieved? (i will
> > only look at my cards not change the order)
>
> If inspect means look at the faces, then of course not.
>
> > if a hand in a perfectly randomized deck, and get it back sorted,
> > shouldn´t the judge tell the players that their decks were sorted?
>
> Between rounds, it won't matter since you are to sufficiently randomize your
> deck at the start of each round.
Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
-Robert
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:37:04 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com>
wrote:
> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with
> disqualification.
Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but if "the judge" refers to
me, I never threatened you with anything, disqualification or other.
--
Bye,
Daneel
[ quoted text not captured ]
one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified, qualifies
as a threat (at least for me)
your lack of memory is frightning.
i don´t mind any warnings, but threatning disqualification for such a
minor offense, is what i am pissed about.
s.
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:35:16 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com>
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:37:04 +0100, Stefan Ferenci
>> <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>>>> its hard to solve a thing if the judge threatens you with
>>> disqualification.>>
>>
>> Not trying to be hairsplitting or anything, but if "the judge" refers to
>> me, I never threatened you with anything, disqualification or other.>
> one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified, qualifies
> as a threat (at least for me)
While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
these lines. One reason for this is that a repeated offence is only
escalated to the next higher level (which, in the case of a Warning, would
be a Game Loss). Hence, had I really wished to "threaten" you, I would
have
"threatened" you with the Game Loss.
But I didn't do either. I never threatened you with anything. I'm not sure
why you need to plummet the crux of your argument deeper and deeper into
the realm of fiction in a fervert attempt to prove something. I'm also not
sure why you assume nobody else recalls the events, and you can get away
with stating falsehood.
> your lack of memory is frightning.
...especially of events that never transpired. I'm not sure what you are
trying to get at; first, you claim that I Warned you unjustly for illegal
shuffling. Then you claim that you weren't even shuffling at all; now you
claim that I threatened to disqualify you. What's next? You weren't even
playing at the EC? ;)
> i don´t mind any warnings, but threatning disqualification for such a> minor offense, is what i am pissed about.
Interesting. Until now you extracted sufficient pissitude out of having
been Warned. Alas, just for your information, it is possible to get
Disqualified for even a very minor violation, if you repeat it enough
times, because the punishment is getting more and more severe for
repeating the very same violation. For more information, refer to the
VEKN rules.
--
Bye,
Daneel
In message <1131820018.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> writes:
>Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
>rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
>sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
In theory, it shouldn't. If your shuffling is sufficient, it will take
any deck ordering and produce an entirely different one.
The very common "Deal into a few different piles then an overhand
shuffle" as one part of your shuffling would, in fact, deal rather well
with a sorted deck. 8 piles, for example, would mean that each one of
your 8 Deflections would end up in a different pile - and thus be
unclumped, at that point.
If your thorough randomization process needs more work for a deck in a
specific order, it's *not* a randomization process. It's taking an
unclumped deck and keeping it mostly unclumped but in a different order.
That is, you don't know the order of your deck but it is not a random
order.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <opsz5a83...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
> must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
> these lines. One reason for this is that a repeated offence is only
> escalated to the next higher level (which, in the case of a Warning, would
> be a Game Loss). Hence, had I really wished to "threaten" you, I would
>have
> "threatened" you with the Game Loss.
This is the default recommendation. It is not "only escalated" in such
a fashion in the real world.
The rules make quite clear, however, that a judge can award a repeated
offence without escalation or that they can skip to a higher penalty.
The recommended penalty for the first offense is listed in the
"Penalty" portion of each infraction. For the second offense of
the same infraction, the next highest penalty is recommended.
In a given situation without further explanation or clarification, a
player does NOT know how you are going to apply the next penalty and the
rules do not allow for them to know. Guess, perhaps, but they can never
know.
One reason behind this is obvious. If a player knows they can get away
with something due to a rigid application of the rules, they can save up
their warning for a particularly egregious breach of the rules. As the
rules stand, players cannot do that because the judge can respond
appropriately, not mechanically.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Robert Goudie wrote:
> Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
Which is another way of saying that players grow accustomed to inadequate
shuffling and therefore seek to apply the advantage of having a declumped
ordering to start with.
This is not a good thing.
Players should always conduct themselves as if lots of shuffling is
going to be needed, because lot s of shuffling is always needed to
ensure sufficient randomization.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> > rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> > sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
>
> Which is another way of saying that players grow accustomed to inadequate
> shuffling
Yeah, I'd say I'm in that camp.
> and therefore seek to apply the advantage of having a declumped
> ordering to start with.
...but not in that camp! Frankly I don't recall ever watching a player
riffle shuffle their 90-card deck 12 times (assuming that's what it
takes to sufficiently randomize). And just because they don't do that
doesn't mean they are trying to take advantage of a declumped order.
Maybe the placement of my response is getting me labled as a promoter
of declumping?
I personally just don't shuffle enough times, I guess. Maybe its just
lazy. It just seems that in practice, after a few blind riffles and a
cut, I know nothing about the order of the cards and am ready to play.
I get plenty of clumps--both good ones and bad ones.
-Robert
In message <1131870881.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bala
<ba...@coder.hu> writes:
>dude, my post was earlier than you, see the date and te time. ;-)
Welcome to Usenet, where your posts make very little sense if you refuse
to quote context so that other people can follow your posts.
If you're engaging in 1 to 1 conversation, please use e-mail.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> x5m...@gmx.de writes:
...
> >So we are criticizing a judge because he started the shuffling process
> >and didnt made a player feeling better!
>
> No. A question was asked by you:
>
> If unclumping is sorting in an order, that better suits your
> tastes - why should a judge allow it?
>
> I responded:
>
> Because it is then followed by a thorough randomization, at
> which point it's not a question of "allowing" it. It should
> make no difference if the later shuffling is good enough. If it
> makes a player feel better, who cares?
>
> The point is that it makes no difference.
And because it makes no difference, a judge can start the shuffling
without waiting for players to "unclump" their decks - something that
was introduced as a new thing in this thread. And he has every right to
do that, after the final will probably go until midnight.
If the judges says: "Please, shuffle your deck face down." he has
stated three things:
- The shuffling process has started and has to happen after the
tournament rules. (Stefan, it is not you, who can say, when randomizing
starts, it is the judge.)
- He will not tolerate that decks are shuffled face up.
- He will not tolerate that his decision and in general the authority
of judgement in tournaments is ignored.
Yes, the judge could have said: Lets play until 1 AM, so you have 30min
for unclumping and then 30 min for randomizing the sorting done by the
unclumping. But he could also choose to start shuffling immediately.
> Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
> judgement.
How do you call discussing a decision of a judge and stating that it
could have done better?
> Judges do, for better or worse, need to be able to take a little flack.
Yes, and players have to learn that a judgement has not to be
discussed, keeps the game going and doesnt need to be discussed
afterwards on the internet, if it was correct.
And it is a different thing to tell a judge afterwards that a concrete
decision was wrong, so he or other judges can do it next time better,
or to condemn his person.
Daneel wrote:
>>
>>
>> one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified,
>> qualifies as a threat (at least for me)>
>
> While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone), I
> must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything along
> these lines.
well since you deny threatening me with disqualification, i´ll stop
arguing with you because there is not point in arguing with someone who
is either a dirty liar and not man enough to back up his words and
actions or a complete retard. (or maybe both who knows).
s.
Robert Goudie wrote:
> Sure. We all agree the directive is to sufficiently randomize between
> rounds. But how much shuffling is "sufficient"? Knowing your deck was
> sorted would be a tip that lots of shuffling is going to be needed.
No more shuffling is needed to sufficiently randomize a sorted deck
than to randomize an unsorted deck. You should always shuffle your
cards as completely as if they had just been sorted.
In message <1131892839....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>> Note that at no point did I go on to criticise the judge or the
>> judgement.>
>How do you call discussing a decision of a judge and stating that it
>could have done better?
I'm afraid you're reading posts I'm not making. You asked "Why should a
judge allow it?" I addressed that point i.e. in the abstract, because
it was asked about the general point of unclumping and why it should or
shouldn't be allowed.
When you're reading posts I actually make, feel free to carry on. If
you'd prefer to continue inventing things I didn't say, however,
alt.dev.null is there for your convenience. It's filled with posts I
didn't make, and you won't trouble anyone with your ramblings there.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> A random shuffle means that it's entirely possible for your deck to come
> up with all the masters first, then all the combat cards, then all the
> event cards, then all... Or in alphabetical order. Or extremely
> clumpy. Or flowing like water.
Right on target James. Essentially what Stephen is asking is "can I
check my deck is non-randomised" because he's looking for a specific
pattern in the card order, namely: an evenly spread.
I hate it when I see players deliberately changing the order of their
ash heaps to unclump it as it means you have to ask them to shuffle
when you sit down to play them- then they ask if you think they're
cheating. On balance i'd rather be seen to hardball someone into
shuffling than lose to someone who is more likely than I am to have a
non-randomised deck. I just wish more people realised it and insisted
on shuffling.
Matt
In message <1131909484....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mgreen02 <mgre...@entomology-mansions.co.uk> writes:
>I hate it when I see players deliberately changing the order of their
>ash heaps to unclump it as it means you have to ask them to shuffle
>when you sit down to play them- then they ask if you think they're
>cheating. On balance i'd rather be seen to hardball someone into
>shuffling than lose to someone who is more likely than I am to have a
>non-randomised deck. I just wish more people realised it and insisted
>on shuffling.
I wish there was a decent-but-quick way of shuffling 90 cards in
sleeves, like an automated card shuffler or something. I doubt many
people would be willing to put 10 War Ghouls into a machine, however.
Beyond that, table shuffles aren't bad.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
> I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
> put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
> sequentially).
Not a bad idea, but in a 100+ player tournament that is not feasible.
--
johannes walch
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1131870881.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bala
> <ba...@coder.hu> writes:
>>>dude, my post was earlier than you, see the date and te time. ;-)>
>
> Welcome to Usenet, where your posts make very little sense if you refuse
> to quote context so that other people can follow your posts.
>
> If you're engaging in 1 to 1 conversation, please use e-mail.
>
Obviously they have started to throw shit against each other, so the
actual content of the post doesn´t matter so much, just the existence of
over and over replies is enough ;-)
--
johannes walch
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:27:43 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com>
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>>>> one more word or lock at your cards and you are disqualified,
>>> qualifies as a threat (at least for me)>>
>> While it does not necessarily qualify (probably depending on the tone),
>> I
>> must point out that the point is moot, because I never said anything
>> along
>> these lines.>
> well since you deny threatening me with disqualification, i´ll stop
> arguing with you
Good boy. By the way, how is your complaint to VEKN faring? ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Johannes Walch wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>>> Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
>> I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
>> put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
>> sequentially).>
>
> Not a bad idea, but in a 100+ player tournament that is not feasible.
It is. I've done it. Each player hands in a 3x5 card with name/VEKN
as part/all of "registration". Shuffle those up. Use them for seating
the first round (before even entering the info in Archon).
First round then starts in fewer than 15 minutes from the close of
registration.
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
>>> Easy if you knew at what table number you were seated at, perhaps.
>>> I don't disclose that information when seating players -- i just
>>> put their place card on the tables (and I don't lay out the tables
>>> sequentially).>>
>>
>>
>> Not a bad idea, but in a 100+ player tournament that is not feasible.>
>
> It is. I've done it. Each player hands in a 3x5 card with name/VEKN
> as part/all of "registration". Shuffle those up. Use them for seating
> the first round (before even entering the info in Archon).
Ah I see. How are they "created"? Do they players fill them out for
themselves or did you use the regular GenCON tickets for that? Sorry,
but I really can´t remember ... If it is the GenCON tickets that is a
"feature" normally not available, but can be simulated by printing out
something like that.
> First round then starts in fewer than 15 minutes from the close of
> registration.
15 minutes for walking through 30 tables in possibly different rooms
with more than hundred players trailing behind you? I don´t know but the
print-outs were rather helpfull in our experience.
Johannes
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dl1ovq$g6v$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> NAC seems to be a lot more relaxed (=non competitive) than the EC to me.
less uptight != non competitive
Decklists serve little purpose in VTES tournaments, other than as a clerical
means of dropping players, since the possibility of abusing the game somehow
in the abscence of decklists is not significant. But hell, it is a
_European_ Championship, so an event cannot be an *Event* if it doesn't
contain a fair bit of needless bureaucracy (...and accolades, fanfare,
signatories, committees, consulates, advisors, etc.) right? ;-)
I think we'll all be happy accept decklists as one of the quirks of the EC
if you like them so much, but I'd prefer to see a demonstrated _need_ for
them, before their re-introduction to the NAC.
DZ
AW
In message <dla632$fiv$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>Ah I see. How are they "created"? Do they players fill them out for
>themselves or did you use the regular GenCON tickets for that? Sorry,
>but I really can´t remember ... If it is the GenCON tickets that is a
>"feature" normally not available, but can be simulated by printing out
>something like that.
Index cards are commonly available in many stationery shops over here.
Packs of 50 can be bought for not much money at all.
<http://froogle.google.co.uk/froogle?btnG=Search+Froogle&lnk=qsugt&q=whi
te+3+x+5+index+cards+100+pack>
When a player turns up, hand them that. Ask them to write their name,
location and V:EKN ID on it. Take money and completed index cards off
people.
In a 100+ player tournament, you could also print out sticky labels
which go on them with relevant information. Or you could have a second
organiser helping out giving those out to players as they turn up, with
instructions. Or a large sheet of paper with the required details on
next to the registration point, then just hand people a blank index card
and they can follow the instructions.
None of this requires special GenCon tickets. Or, indeed, anything
special.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
David Zopf wrote:
>>NAC seems to be a lot more relaxed (=non competitive) than the EC to me.>
>
> less uptight != non competitive
>
> Decklists serve little purpose in VTES tournaments, other than as a clerical
> means of dropping players, since the possibility of abusing the game somehow
> in the abscence of decklists is not significant. But hell, it is a
> _European_ Championship, so an event cannot be an *Event* if it doesn't
> contain a fair bit of needless bureaucracy (...and accolades, fanfare,
> signatories, committees, consulates, advisors, etc.) right? ;-)
Funny, while the European championship involved a fair bit of needless
bureaucracy the NAC involved a fair bit of needles capitalism (=costs in
this case) for a $$$ GenCON ticket. Isn´t it interesting that the
schemas work out on both sides ;-)
> I think we'll all be happy accept decklists as one of the quirks of the EC
> if you like them so much, but I'd prefer to see a demonstrated _need_ for
> them, before their re-introduction to the NAC.
Didn´t you know about our long term plan of integrating the NAC into the
EC as a side event? Never underestimate the bureaucrats! :-)))
--
johannes walch
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <dla632$fiv$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>>>Ah I see. How are they "created"? Do they players fill them out for
>>themselves or did you use the regular GenCON tickets for that? Sorry,
>>but I really can´t remember ... If it is the GenCON tickets that is a
>>"feature" normally not available, but can be simulated by printing out
>>something like that.>
>
> Index cards are commonly available in many stationery shops over here.
> Packs of 50 can be bought for not much money at all.
>
> <http://froogle.google.co.uk/froogle?btnG=Search+Froogle&lnk=qsugt&q=whi
> te+3+x+5+index+cards+100+pack>
>
> When a player turns up, hand them that. Ask them to write their name,
> location and V:EKN ID on it. Take money and completed index cards off
> people.
>
> In a 100+ player tournament, you could also print out sticky labels
> which go on them with relevant information. Or you could have a second
> organiser helping out giving those out to players as they turn up, with
> instructions. Or a large sheet of paper with the required details on
> next to the registration point, then just hand people a blank index card
> and they can follow the instructions.
>
> None of this requires special GenCon tickets. Or, indeed, anything
> special.
Thank you for enlightening me how to print/create such tickets if you
don´t have them.
The problems with index cards are that it will be all handwriting, some
of it barely readable and that people love to get instructions wrong ;-)
The printing would require some sort of label printer, not a device
common to every houshold.
The advantage of GenCON is that the tickets are just THERE without any
additional effort like providing pens and paper and point out to people
what they have to do, as well as not having to struggle with getting the
money from every player because GenCON handles all the entry fees.
--
johannes walch
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dlc6kg$s84$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> Funny, while the European championship involved a fair bit of needless bureaucracy the NAC involved a fair bit of needles
> capitalism (=costs in this case) for a $$$ GenCON ticket.
Eh? And here GenCon put on thousands of *other* events all just for your
satisfaction and all you can do is quibble about the price of the ticket.
Fred, whose strange definition of "necessary capitalism" isn't quite so
VtES-centric
Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
> news:dlc6kg$s84$1...@news01.versatel.de...
>>>Funny, while the European championship involved a fair bit of needless bureaucracy the NAC involved a fair bit of needles
>>capitalism (=costs in this case) for a $$$ GenCON ticket.>
>
> Eh? And here GenCon put on thousands of *other* events all just for your
> satisfaction and all you can do is quibble about the price of the ticket.
That I can attend while playing vtes. I love being a split pesonality :)
But that problem has been solved by moving the thing to ATL ...
> Fred, whose strange definition of "necessary capitalism" isn't quite so
> VtES-centric
Anyway, my post was rather humorous. At least intended so, but my
bureaucratic humor combined with my poor englisch skills doesn´t make it
over to everybody I fear :-/
--
johannes walch
David Zopf wrote:
> Decklists serve little purpose in VTES tournaments, other than as a clerical> means of dropping players, ...
If a wrong decklist is usually not indicating that a player wanted to
cheat, why do we always punish them with a disqualification.
I can remember the times, when a player only had to make his deck
conforming to the decklist and gets a warning. Why force the judge not
to judge the situation but to make a radical decision.
Frank
[ quoted text not captured ]
In fact the judge doesn´t have to disqualify the player. But some judges
have chosen to do so for various reasons based on their judgement.
Either we should get rid of the decklists or face the fact that some
players are DQed because the judge chooses to do so.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch wrote:
>
> In fact the judge doesn´t have to disqualify the player. But some judges
> have chosen to do so for various reasons based on their judgement.
> Either we should get rid of the decklists or face the fact that some
> players are DQed because the judge chooses to do so.
>
> --
> johannes walch
We'll DQ more or less automatically if this happens during an ECQ in
Sweden. This is information available to players when we announce the
ECQ, it's available on the persistent WWW-information for each ECQ and
it's announced prior to seating when each player is given 15 minutes
to control the contents of their decks with their decklist should they
want to. We have yet to see a decklist that didn't conform to the
actual deck, probably because players are told beforehand in no
uncertain ways what will happen if there is a discrepancy.
As a sidenote: Of course we supply each player with sheets to fill in
their decklists -- this is the least we can do if we require a decklist.
(Yes, that was a deliberate insult as we were prepared to write
decklists but not prepared to find sheets of paper at 9.30 AM somewhere
in Budapest a saturday morning and be back in time for seating)
Sten During
Johannes Walch wrote:
> The advantage of GenCON is that the tickets are just THERE without any
> additional effort like providing pens and paper and point out to people
> what they have to do
No. A good portion of the Gen*Con attendees use generic tickets (the
kind that do not have their names on them).
Pen, instructions, and handwriting recognition are required, and not at
all difficult.
The tickets are also not uniformly sized, so I stuff them into card
sleeves.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Johannes Walch wrote:
> Didn´t you know about our long term plan of integrating the NAC into the EC
> as a side event? Never underestimate the bureaucrats! :-)))
That would be great. I love attending the EC, but I wish there were more
events. Can we make it a draft?
Matt Morgan
> Funny, while the European championship involved a fair bit of needless
> bureaucracy the NAC involved a fair bit of needles capitalism (=costs in
> this case) for a $$$ GenCON ticket. Isn´t it interesting that the
> schemas work out on both sides ;-)
Johannes,
This is possibly the *best* post ever. I couldn't have said it better
myself. :) You are now my personal hero.
> Didn´t you know about our long term plan of integrating the NAC into the
> EC as a side event? Never underestimate the bureaucrats! :-)))
Please let me know when you get these plans off the ground. I'd love to be
involved. :)
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dlc9dp$uc2$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> Fred, whose strange definition of "necessary capitalism" isn't quite so
>> VtES-centric>
> Anyway, my post was rather humorous.
I know. So was mine.
That argument is over. Next year, you may be reassured that the NAC
ticket won't so...er...capitalistic.
Fred
Sten During wrote:
> We'll DQ more or less automatically if this happens during an ECQ in
> Sweden. This is information available to players when we announce the
> ECQ, it's available on the persistent WWW-information for each ECQ and
> it's announced prior to seating when each player is given 15 minutes
> to control the contents of their decks with their decklist should they> want to. ...
So if we announce prior to playing that every player who immediately
redraws his WWEF is DQed, it is ok?
The question is not, if players know before playing, what happens with
a wrong decklist. The question is, if a player is not cheating (judge
decision), is a disqualification because of a wrong decklist
appropriate.
Frank
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dlc6se$sal$1...@news01.versatel.de...
>> None of this requires special GenCon tickets. Or, indeed, anything
>> special.>
> Thank you for enlightening me how to print/create such tickets if you
> don´t have them.
>
> The problems with index cards are that it will be all handwriting, some of
> it barely readable and that people love to get instructions wrong ;-)
C'mon, Johannes, you're missing out on an opportunity for a little more
bureaucracy here!! :-) A decklist involves a lot more writing (and
opportunity for error) than an index card with your name, location and VEKN
ID number. And hey, this is one more thing that you could potentially
disqualify a person for in the event of a clerical error... Doubly EC Good
(tm)!!!
DaveZ
Red Tape Weaver
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dlc6kg$s84$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> David Zopf wrote:
>>>>NAC seems to be a lot more relaxed (=non competitive) than the EC to me.>>
>>
>> less uptight != non competitive
>>
>> Decklists serve little purpose in VTES tournaments, other than as a
>> clerical means of dropping players, since the possibility of abusing the
>> game somehow in the abscence of decklists is not significant. But hell,
>> it is a _European_ Championship, so an event cannot be an *Event* if it
>> doesn't contain a fair bit of needless bureaucracy (...and accolades,
>> fanfare, signatories, committees, consulates, advisors, etc.) right? ;-)>
> Funny, while the European championship involved a fair bit of needless
> bureaucracy the NAC involved a fair bit of needles capitalism (=costs in
> this case) for a $$$ GenCON ticket. Isn´t it interesting that the schemas
> work out on both sides ;-)
>
Ahh, but in the abscence of needless buraucracytic process, progress can be
made to minimize the impact of needless greedy capitalism;
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?articleid=261
Check.
>> I think we'll all be happy accept decklists as one of the quirks of the
>> EC if you like them so much, but I'd prefer to see a demonstrated _need_
>> for them, before their re-introduction to the NAC.>
> Didn´t you know about our long term plan of integrating the NAC into the
> EC as a side event? Never underestimate the bureaucrats! :-)))
LOL! :-)
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
>>>We'll DQ more or less automatically if this happens during an ECQ in
>>Sweden. This is information available to players when we announce the
>>ECQ, it's available on the persistent WWW-information for each ECQ and
>>it's announced prior to seating when each player is given 15 minutes
>>to control the contents of their decks with their decklist should they
>>want to. ...>> The question is not, if players know before playing, what happens with> a wrong decklist. The question is, if a player is not cheating (judge
> decision), is a disqualification because of a wrong decklist
> appropriate.
>
> Frank
>
i think everybody, who wants to take part in a vekn event should be able
to write a decklist. if not face the consequences, i agree that the dq悲
players might not have been cheating, but you never know. writing a
correct decklist shouldn愒 be too hard.
s.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Johannes Walch wrote:
>>> Didn´t you know about our long term plan of integrating the NAC into the
>>> EC as a side event? Never underestimate the bureaucrats! :-)))>>
>>
>> That would be great. I love attending the EC, but I wish there were more
>> events. Can we make it a draft?>> In fact I would opt for making it a duffin draft :-))
Genius. I think the world is finally ready for competative Duffin Draft.
We could run the entire event in 2 hours.
Matt Morgan
"Stefan Ferenci" <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:437a1714$0$10578$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at...
> x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> i think everybody, who wants to take part in a vekn event should be able> to write a decklist. if not face the consequences, i agree that the dq´d> players might not have been cheating, but you never know. writing a> correct decklist shouldn´t be too hard.
>
OTOH, in the abscence of supporting evidence of cheating, I reserve my
power as a judge to reduce the penalty to an appropriate level, and NOT
apply a blanket (knee-jerk, over the top, disproportionate) penalty. To do
less than execute my full discretion would be doing a disservice to the
players for whom I volunteer, and _might_ paint me as some self-absorbed,
power-mad bureaucrat...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
news:dld8qh$na4$1...@news01.versatel.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, really you should drink *during* the Duffin Draft, but if that's not
feasible, then yeah, at least you would have more time available after such
a nice short draft event. :-)
Josh
the best part is, each round could be its own draft!
for only $9 (retail) for three preliminary rounds and another $3 for
finalists!
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tusk6F...@individual.net...
> "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message
> news:dld8qh$na4$1...@news01.versatel.de...>> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:>>> Genius. I think the world is finally ready for competative Duffin Draft. We could run the entire event in 2 hours.>>>> Great, leaves more time for drinking.>
> Well, really you should drink *during* the Duffin Draft,
...
> the best part is, each round could be its own draft!
> for only $9 (retail) for three preliminary rounds and another $3 for
> finalists!
Cool. And how much for the beer?
...er...or where you talking about the beer?
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
The question in question is one of the most inflamed since the EC in
Vienna, so yes, it is most definitely a matter of players knowing
before playing what happens if they fail to submit a correct decklist.
What happens might be nothing at all. I judge, I disqualify. I'd do the
players a severe disservice if I failed to tell them so beforehand.
The severity of the penalty corresponds directly to the amount of time
a player will spend avoiding said penalty. The more lenient you are the
less need for clear information in advance.
Sten During
In message <1132046686....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
x5m...@gmx.de writes:
>If a wrong decklist is usually not indicating that a player wanted to
>cheat, why do we always punish them with a disqualification.
There are two reasons that spring to my mind, principally.
First of all, it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between an
honest mistake and intentional cheating, in this instance. All you have
to go on is the player's say-so. With - for example - an in-game form
of cheating, you may have witnessed it yourself or you may be able to
ask other players for their opinions of what happened.
Secondly, unlike a situation where a player makes an honest mistake
about something on the spur of the moment (e.g. mis-interprets a card
they're unfamiliar with vs actively tries to cheat on a card they're
very familiar with - but it's hard to tell which one it is), a player
handing in an incorrect deck list has typically had a long time to write
it down. This is particularly so with major tournaments where the
requirement for a deck list is advertised well in advance, when people
can create it the night before and check it in the ten minutes before
they register and make any manual corrections. You might be more
lenient with a player who was drafted in at the last minute to avoid a
problem number of players (e.g. you wanted one extra, to avoid having
the 11-player tournament issue) - but that would be where judgement
comes into play. There should, however, usually be plenty of time to
get it right. It's not very hard.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> i think everybody, who wants to take part in a vekn event should be able> to write a decklist. if not face the consequences, i agree that the dq´d> players might not have been cheating, but you never know. writing a> correct decklist shouldn´t be too hard.
It's hard for me.
I usually have a case of the DT shakes (that's detox not delaying
tactics). :)
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, James Coupe wrote:
> Secondly, unlike a situation where a player makes an honest mistake
> about something on the spur of the moment (e.g. mis-interprets a card
> they're unfamiliar with vs actively tries to cheat on a card they're
> very familiar with - but it's hard to tell which one it is), a player
> handing in an incorrect deck list has typically had a long time to write
> it down. This is particularly so with major tournaments where the
> requirement for a deck list is advertised well in advance, when people
> can create it the night before and check it in the ten minutes before
> they register and make any manual corrections. You might be more
> lenient with a player who was drafted in at the last minute to avoid a
> problem number of players (e.g. you wanted one extra, to avoid having
> the 11-player tournament issue) - but that would be where judgement
> comes into play. There should, however, usually be plenty of time to
> get it right. It's not very hard.
>
So, I'm all set for my first EC. I've got my awesome deck, I've got my
decklist, and while I'm in Europe, trading with people I've never met
before and - since I made the decklist before I left - add the card to my
deck and forget to change the decklist. I mean, why should I, I don't
normally keep a decklist for every deck I built at any given moment.
Later, I play in the tournament, make it to the final, and whip out my
decklist - having completely forgotten that it's now wrong.
This is not an unreasonable scenario. This is, in fact, a
particularly mundane scenario. I *should* expect to be able to
trade right before a major tournament. I *shouldn't* expect to worry
about the contents of every one of those trades in regards to my
deck, and I *shouldn't* be expected to show up at the tournament
an hour early to handwrite an up-to-the-minute correct copy. Decklist
rules are easy to break accidentally *because* they exist so far
in advance.
Right before a tournament large enough to care about Decklists, I
shouldn't be hassled by Decklists. I should be spending it meeting with,
trading with, and relaxing with people I've never met before or since, or
people I go to these tournaments to see.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:
> So, I'm all set for my first EC. I've got my awesome deck, I've got
> my decklist, and while I'm in Europe, trading with people I've never
> met before and - since I made the decklist before I left - add the
> card to my deck and forget to change the decklist. I mean, why should
> I, I don't normally keep a decklist for every deck I built at any
> given moment.
The rules are that you need an accurate decklist. It's not that hard to
cross out whatever card(s) you removed from the decklist and add the new
card(s) to the decklist.
> I *should* expect to be able to trade right before a major
> tournament. I *shouldn't* expect to worry about the contents of every> one of those trades in regards to my deck...
If you're too stupid to keep track of what changes you've made to your
deck, since you wrote the decklist, then obviously you can't make ad hoc
changes to your deck prior to a tournament.
Not that it's probably a very sensible idea to be making ad hoc changes
to your deck, prior to using it in a tournament anyway.
> Right before a tournament large enough to care about Decklists, I
> shouldn't be hassled by Decklists. I should be spending it meeting
> with, trading with, and relaxing with people I've never met before or
> since, or people I go to these tournaments to see.
If you can apparently plan your accommodation and travel to be able to
attend the tournament and you can manage to bring any cards at all with
you, why can't you plan your deck in advance too? If you do, then indeed
you won't be "hassled by decklists".
Are you lazy or stupid?
--
* lehrbuch
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, lehrbuch wrote:
> Not that it's probably a very sensible idea to be making ad hoc changes
> to your deck, prior to using it in a tournament anyway.
>
Right, because everyone has 90 copies of every card already.
> Are you lazy or stupid?
>
I'll have the chicken.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:08:05 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote:
> OTOH, in the abscence of supporting evidence of cheating, I reserve my
> power as a judge to reduce the penalty to an appropriate level, and NOT
> apply a blanket (knee-jerk, over the top, disproportionate) penalty. To
> do
> less than execute my full discretion would be doing a disservice to the
> players for whom I volunteer, and _might_ paint me as some self-absorbed,
> power-mad bureaucrat...
The problem is, there is the judge guidelines that details the various
violations and recommended punishments. People participating in a VEKN
tournament probably assume that they will play according to the VEKN
rules, and assume the judges will judge them based on that.
So I feel that if an event requires a decklist, it should use the
appropriate punishment; the question is IMHO more along the lines of,
is it worth it to use decklists at an event?
--
Bye,
Daneel
In message <ops0bxwo...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>So I feel that if an event requires a decklist, it should use the
> appropriate punishment;
The appropriate punishment is the appropriate punishment. Note that
this is not the same as the recommended punishment. The V:EKN
guidelines make it quite clear that the recommendations are only that,
and that the judge has discretion to vary them as necessary depending on
the circumstances.
Focusing on only one aspect of the guidelines (the recommended
punishments) because players will expect that, but not on other aspects
of the guidelines (using your discretion based on the circumstances) for
some arbitrary reason, isn't terribly logical. If players expect the
rules to be enforced, you can't just apply recommended punishments
without allowing for circumstances (which may - of course - warrant no
change) because that's *not* what the rules say.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <200511152...@sidehack.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart
Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> writes:
>So, I'm all set for my first EC. I've got my awesome deck, I've got my
>decklist, and while I'm in Europe, trading with people I've never met
>before and - since I made the decklist before I left - add the card to
>my deck and forget to change the decklist.
Then you sift through the deck and double-check the decklist before you
hand it to the judge/other tournament official. For any errors you
find, you manually correct the deck list.
You don't need to keep it up to date every single day whilst fiddling
with it (though you may prefer to do that anyway - it might help you
keep track of the overall composition more easily, for instance). You
just need an accurate deck list when it's handed in, so spend all of
five minutes before you register and re-shuffle your deck checking it.
What's hard about that?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <dlc6se$sal$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>The problems with index cards are that it will be all handwriting,
When they hand it in, hand it back if it's unreadable. Or ask them if
you're unsure. You can even do this when you're collecting the cards
back up afterwards - the player should be able to recognise their own
hand-writing when sitting down for the first game.
>some of it barely readable and that people love to get instructions
>wrong ;-)
Then hand it back until they get it right.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:53:42 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
> In message <ops0bxwo...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:>> So I feel that if an event requires a decklist, it should use the
>> appropriate punishment;>
> The appropriate punishment is the appropriate punishment. Note that
> this is not the same as the recommended punishment. The V:EKN
> guidelines make it quite clear that the recommendations are only that,
> and that the judge has discretion to vary them as necessary depending on
> the circumstances.
Sure. The judge does that. But that does not change the fact that if
the judge decides that a certain violation, in his opinion, generally
warrants a different punishment, and he is issuing that punishment
instead of the recommended in the majority of [general] cases, he is
deliberately disregarding a part of the judge guidelines.
I guess we can agree on this one. Sure, I have given less severe
punishments for decklist error if I thought that the error was apparently
a mistake; but for that the error needed to be sufficiently trivial (like,
listing a vampire who is completely unusable for the deck instead of the
similar named, usable included vampire, in the right quantity). But
missing
some card(s) and having other card(s) included always has the option that
the player tuned his deck and thinks he can get away with it.
> Focusing on only one aspect of the guidelines (the recommended
> punishments) because players will expect that, but not on other aspects
> of the guidelines (using your discretion based on the circumstances) for
> some arbitrary reason, isn't terribly logical. If players expect the
> rules to be enforced, you can't just apply recommended punishments
> without allowing for circumstances (which may - of course - warrant no
> change) because that's *not* what the rules say.
Again, the point is - do not mistake the judge's ability to change the
applied penalty based on the _circumstance_ and the exact _specifics_ of
the violation (a right and obligation of the judge) to be the same thing
as using a completely different base punishment for a general violation
of some sort (which goes against the judge guidelines).
There are points where I do not agree with the Penalty Guidelines. I'm
sure everybody has those points. I'm just not sure that using a completely
different reasoning and line of thought on a per judge basis is really
desired. Therefor I've been adhering to the guidelines as best as I could
on sanctioned events. But I guess it is never too late to learn; if the
consensus is that the guidelines are not to be taken seriously, and a
judge can (and should) devise his own set of "guidelines", so to speak,
I'll happily devise my own set of guidelines and use them from now on.
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:ops0dkry...@news.chello.hu...
> I guess we can agree on this one. Sure, I have given less severe
> punishments for decklist error if I thought that the error was apparently
> a mistake; but for that the error needed to be sufficiently trivial
> (like,
> listing a vampire who is completely unusable for the deck instead of the
> similar named, usable included vampire, in the right quantity). But
> missing
> some card(s) and having other card(s) included always has the option that
> the player tuned his deck and thinks he can get away with it.
>
In the former case, you've applyed your Judgement rationally and fairly.
In the latter, you've abandoned the use of your Judgement, in favor of
saying that you have no way of Judging if the player's infraction is
accidental of intentional. I guess this is my problem with the use of the
Judge's guidelines in this fashion. If you are a Judge, make the call. One
should either have confidence enough in one's Judgely evaluation of the
person and the circumstances to call the offending player a Cheater (and
apply penalties under section 163) if they believe that he is
misrepresenting his deck, _or_ have the confidence in their Judgement of the
player and the circumtances to call the error unintentional, and correct the
issue with a deck or decklist adjustment and a formal warning.
But no judge should shy away from Judging by saying "we'll _I_ have no way
of knowing, so therefore I'll just apply this default penalty", using the
Penlty Guide as a shield for the inability to arrive at an affirmative
conclusion. That strikes me as simply a cop-out from actually Judging the
situation. Be a Judge. Make the call.
As for me, to arrive at the conclusion that a person is cheating by way of
altering his deck mid-game, I would require affirmative evidence of such,
and an error on a decklist is insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion,
since errors (the majority of errors, in fact) may be arrived at by a myriad
of ways not related to cheating.
Note also, given the mode and frequency of decklist verification used in
the EC (check decks of finalists against their decklists before entering the
finals, no checks of those same decks before), the default penalty (Game
Loss) is essentially no different to the player at fault than a Full
Disqualification. (quite possibly its Worse, since the party you penalize
will have basically wasted three preliminary rounds and six hours of their
own time in getting to that finals position). _That_ is a implementation of
decklist checking which was entirely established by the administrator(s) of
the event, and is lacking IMO. If I was going to apply a Game Loss to a
finalist of a major event, then I'd want a baseline deck check of that
player in place *before the first round*, so as to be able to verify that
the deck actually _had_ been altered over the course of the event. If I
lacked that baseline check, I'd need more evidence of foul play to indicate
that a Game Loss (again, equivalent to a Full Disqualification, in this
circumstance) was the appropriate penalty.
> There are points where I do not agree with the Penalty Guidelines. I'm
> sure everybody has those points. I'm just not sure that using a
> completely
> different reasoning and line of thought on a per judge basis is really
> desired.
Nor is it intended. In order to apply a judgement, though, you must first
Judge the situation...
> Therefor I've been adhering to the guidelines as best as I could
> on sanctioned events. But I guess it is never too late to learn; if the
> consensus is that the guidelines are not to be taken seriously, and a
> judge can (and should) devise his own set of "guidelines", so to speak,
> I'll happily devise my own set of guidelines and use them from now on.
A Straw Man, Daneel, and you're better than that... Look, I'm not getting
down on you or anyone else in particular here. It seems that this
interpretation of decklists is pretty comprehensively applied to the whole
of the European community. Fine, IMO it detracts from the game
tremendously, but its your event. To take arguments against this _specific_
means of implementing decklist checks as meaning that _any_ adjustment from
a default penalty is somehow an indication of a rogue Judge establishing his
own guidelines, is fallacy.
The greater problem is with how the deck-checking method has been set up,
anyways, as it offers no baseline for the Judge to make a clear call as to
whether the decklist has a clerical error, or if the player has altered the
deck mid-tournament. I think if this shortcoming of the decklist-checking
methodology were addressed, there would be no issue for anyone with how the
penalties were applied...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
<snip>
This should be archived.
****
i personally shuffle by sorting the cards randomly into piles. i try to
deal them out in an unpredictable order onto the piles. Then i assemble
the piles in a random manner. Of course in reality it is not random -
instead there is a little ritual i undergo [eg stacking alternate piles
onto each other].
The first time **** *** [1] saw me do this he got very upset that the
number of piles i had was even. Instinctively i felt he was right to be
upset, and ever since i have used an odd number of piles. Do you,
Derek, or anyone, have any mathematical reason to commend the
***/Legbiter instinct, or instead to condemn it as risible
superstition?
****
On a different topic, people DO cheat during shuffling. i will name no
names, but you know who you are. i do not think any discussion about
judging, at least on this side of the Atlantic, can be conducted
without realising that there IS a real problem with this sort of thing
here.
[1] A spy for the US Navy, whose name will be known to some of us here,
including Derek.
<legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:1132258555.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> This should be archived.
>
> ****
>
> i personally shuffle by sorting the cards randomly into piles. i try to
> deal them out in an unpredictable order onto the piles. Then i assemble
> the piles in a random manner. Of course in reality it is not random -
> instead there is a little ritual i undergo [eg stacking alternate piles
> onto each other].
>
> The first time **** *** [1] saw me do this he got very upset that the
> number of piles i had was even. Instinctively i felt he was right to be
> upset, and ever since i have used an odd number of piles. Do you,
> Derek, or anyone, have any mathematical reason to commend the
> ***/Legbiter instinct, or instead to condemn it as risible
> superstition?
I thought I did, but then I did some quick experiments and now I think I
don't.
My theory before was that you should use a number of piles that is prime
relative to the number of cards in your library, on the idea that a number
of piles that factors evenly into the size of your library, if you always
stack the piles back together in the same order as you placed them down,
would more quickly return to the original pre-shuffling order.
My idea that prime numbers of piles avoided this problem appears to be
entirely wrong. Looking at a twenty-card library, it seems to take 9
pile-shuffles (see Appendix A for details) to return to the original order
using either 4 or 5 piles; 18 pile-shuffles to return to the original order
with 2 or 10 piles; but only 4 pile-shuffles to return to the original order
with either 3 or 7 piles. I *really* don't know why this is, but then my
matrix math isn't all that good. (I tried 6 piles, and got tired of typing
(after 58 'shuffles') without reaching a point where the order repeats
exactly, but there are some dramatic repeating patterns in there
nonetheless - notably that the seventeenth card (damn you letter Q!) is
*always* in the same place.)
I think now that you are very much right to try to deal your cards randomly
onto the piles, and that any deterministic pile-shuffle must be pretty
severely flawed as a randomizing method. (One obvious problem is that your
top and bottom cards always stay on the top and bottom if your cards deal
out evenly into non-random piles, but there seem to be lots of patterns
along the way besides that one.)
As a side-note, a pile shuffle with two piles is exactly the same as a
"perfect" riffle shuffle (and has the same problems as a "perfect" riffle
shuffle would).
Josh
easily distracted by puzzles involving cards
Appendix A:
Think of your piles of cards as a matrix that gets reordered by transposing
its elements with each pile-shuffle and consider a 20-card library running
from A to T. You start with the ordering:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
Then you pile it into four piles and it looks like:
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
M N O P
Q R S T
If you re-stack the piles from first to last, and repeat the process, your
next set of piles will look like:
A E I M
Q B F J
N R C G
K O S D
H L P T
See the diagonal pattern? You'll come back to the starting order in a few
more repetitions.
A Q N K
H E B R
O L I F
C S P M
J G D T
A H O C
J Q E L
S G N B
I P D K
R F M T
A J S I
R H Q G
P F O E
N D M C
L B K T
A R P N
L J H F
D B S Q
O M K I
G E C T
A L D O
G R J B
M E P H
S K C N
F Q I T
A G M S
F L R E
K Q D J
P C I O
B H N T
A F K P
B G L Q
C H M R
D I N S
E J O T
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Just as matter of perfect shuffling, as you note.
Better is to overhand shuffle between each pass of pile shuffling.
Then, just to really thwart the numer-arrangers, use a different
prime number in each subsequent piling. (e.g., 7 then 11 then 13
piles, each one as "random" as you can manage -- not in order --
and each one picked up with overhand shuffling).
Let's see you run the numbers on that one, Josh. :-)
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
legb...@mailandnews.com wrote:
> The first time **** *** [1] saw me do this he got very upset that the
> number of piles i had was even. Instinctively i felt he was right to be
> upset, and ever since i have used an odd number of piles. Do you,
> Derek, or anyone, have any mathematical reason to commend the
> ***/Legbiter instinct, or instead to condemn it as risible
> superstition?
It's mostly superstition, but there is a grain of usefulness in it:
Say, for example, that of your 6 Governs, 4 Blood Dolls, and 8
Conditionings, ... and other such cards that make up your deck, NONE of
the groupings has exactly 7 cards of any given type.
Table-shuffling into 7 piles will, then, give you the greatest chance of
some unintentional randomization in the process... such that you will
not end up with a perfect set of "govern next to conditioning" too
often. Selecting 6 or 8 makes it possible to have one Govern in every
pile followed by one Conditioning in every pile, then followed by two
Conditionings -- an obviously more 'ideal' start.
However, the grain of usefulness it provides is no substitute for
actually shuffling the hell out of the cards properly. :)
> On a different topic, people DO cheat during shuffling. i will name no
> names, but you know who you are. i do not think any discussion about
> judging, at least on this side of the Atlantic, can be conducted
> without realising that there IS a real problem with this sort of thing
> here.
Oh, of course. Everyone is politely stepping around the issue, but I am
well aware of the (admittedly few) known cheaters on this side of the
pond at least, and HAVE paid particularly close attention to them in the
past. And will in the future, too.
We are very lucky, as a community. We don't have almost ANY overt
cheating, and not a whole lot of covert cheating. But we _do_ have a
couple mechanics among us, and we do have a couple people who routinely
"forget" card text and/or carry one-too-many cards in their hands.
Fortunately it can be easily policed at the table when it occurs, with
no need for a judge -- but the fact that any exist at all means that we
do need to have a protocol in place should someone catch one and
actually grow significantly upset.
--
Derek
insert clever quotation here
LSJ wrote:
> Just as matter of perfect shuffling, as you note.
Yes. The problem is really that any perfect shuffle repeated repeatedly
will eventually cycle back to the original order in short order.
(giggle)
> Better is to overhand shuffle between each pass of pile shuffling.
> Then, just to really thwart the numer-arrangers, use a different
> prime number in each subsequent piling. (e.g., 7 then 11 then 13
> piles, each one as "random" as you can manage -- not in order --
> and each one picked up with overhand shuffling).
I personally pile-shuffle once at the start, then alternate riffle and
overhand for awhile until I'm tired of doing it. I also always do one
overhand last so that I can't see the card on the bottom, because I will
automatically note where in the deck my predator cut it to -- and I
really do prefer not to cheat. :) If it's a Govern, no biggie -- but
if it's a unique, ... well, that's information I can use.
> Let's see you run the numbers on that one, Josh. :-)
Wait! I'll fetch popcorn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K8ydnU4V9PP...@giganews.com...
> LSJ wrote:>> Just as matter of perfect shuffling, as you note.>
> Yes. The problem is really that any perfect shuffle repeated repeatedly
> will eventually cycle back to the original order in short order.
Just so. I now think that mixing up the shuffle to get some randomness is
important no matter what kind of shuffling you use. It's easy to have some
randomness with riffles and overhand shuffles (indeed, very difficult to
avoid it), but pile shuffles are inherently nonrandom (though good at not
letting cards stick together the way riffles and overhands can).
>> Better is to overhand shuffle between each pass of pile shuffling.
>> Then, just to really thwart the numer-arrangers, use a different
>> prime number in each subsequent piling. (e.g., 7 then 11 then 13
>> piles, each one as "random" as you can manage -- not in order --
>> and each one picked up with overhand shuffling).>
> I personally pile-shuffle once at the start, then alternate riffle and
> overhand for awhile until I'm tired of doing it. I also always do one
> overhand last so that I can't see the card on the bottom, because I will
> automatically note where in the deck my predator cut it to -- and I really
> do prefer not to cheat. :) If it's a Govern, no biggie -- but if it's a
> unique, ... well, that's information I can use.
>>> Let's see you run the numbers on that one, Josh. :-)>
> Wait! I'll fetch popcorn.
Run the numbers?! I only wish I had the math skills for that! My
"investigation" of pile shuffling yesterday was nothing but empirically
trying out different numbers of piles with a "test library" of 20 cards.
Your advice and Scott's advice both seem sound to me - any method where you
start to incorporate random elements should take care of the predictability
problem of a basic pile shuffle.
Josh
has the additional problem that his riffle shuffles tend to show *other*
players his bottom cards, too
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:54:29 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:ops0dkry...@news.chello.hu...>> I guess we can agree on this one. Sure, I have given less severe
>> punishments for decklist error if I thought that the error was
>> apparently
>> a mistake; but for that the error needed to be sufficiently trivial
>> (like,
>> listing a vampire who is completely unusable for the deck instead of
>> the
>> similar named, usable included vampire, in the right quantity). But
>> missing
>> some card(s) and having other card(s) included always has the option
>> that
>> the player tuned his deck and thinks he can get away with it.>
> In the former case, you've applyed your Judgement rationally and fairly.
> In the latter, you've abandoned the use of your Judgement, in favor of
> saying that you have no way of Judging if the player's infraction is
> accidental of intentional. I guess this is my problem with the use of
> the Judge's guidelines in this fashion. If you are a Judge, make the
> call.
Okay, you go on to illustrate this point in multiple ways. I see the
point, but I guess the inevitable question then becomes, what is the
purpose of the judge guidelines?
My interpretation is something like a set of benchmarks that give a
uniform philosophy and resolution to most general rules violations.
Violations that do not match a given described typical violation
reasonably closely should be judged on a case-by case basis based
on the judgement of the judge and the philosophy of the guidelines.
This interpretation basically says that a general case described in
the guidelines should always receive the same treatment irrespective
of the judge making the decision.
> As for me, to arrive at the conclusion that a person is cheating by
> way of
> altering his deck mid-game, I would require affirmative evidence of such,
> and an error on a decklist is insufficient evidence to draw that
> conclusion,
> since errors (the majority of errors, in fact) may be arrived at by a
> myriad
> of ways not related to cheating.
Note that the rules are there exactly because no judge can be hold
liable to collect evidence for each and every case. The judgements
must be made based on limited information; that is why guidelines
and common practices are very helpful.
> Note also, given the mode and frequency of decklist verification used
> in
> the EC (check decks of finalists against their decklists before entering
> the
> finals, no checks of those same decks before), the default penalty (Game
> Loss) is essentially no different to the player at fault than a Full
> Disqualification.
No. If a would-be finalist recieves a Game Loss, he or she will be
ranked 6th place in the tournament. If there are prizes for the
place, they will recieve it. If the event is a qualifier, they will
be qualified. If they give a damn about ratings, well, they get some
rating points for the GWs and VPS scored (contrary to DQWP only).
> (quite possibly its Worse, since the party you penalize
> will have basically wasted three preliminary rounds and six hours of
> their
> own time in getting to that finals position).
Now, I don't get this. You've wasted the preliminary rounds any way.
>> There are points where I do not agree with the Penalty Guidelines. I'm
>> sure everybody has those points. I'm just not sure that using a
>> completely
>> different reasoning and line of thought on a per judge basis is really
>> desired.>
> Nor is it intended. In order to apply a judgement, though, you must
> first Judge the situation...
But you must be fair. I mean, as a judge, you may sincerely believe
that Jack is known for his subtle attempts at cheating, while Bill
is known for his immaculate sportsmanship. So if you judge that
Jack gets the Game Loss and Bill gets a Warning for the same
violation (because you assume that Jack is cheating, and Bill made
a mistake), you are basically being unfair, because as a judge you
should always judge and penalize the *given* infraction, and not
any real or percieved infractions that were committed, say, before
the event.
>> Therefor I've been adhering to the guidelines as best as I could
>> on sanctioned events. But I guess it is never too late to learn; if the
>> consensus is that the guidelines are not to be taken seriously, and a
>> judge can (and should) devise his own set of "guidelines", so to speak,
>> I'll happily devise my own set of guidelines and use them from now on.>
> A Straw Man, Daneel, and you're better than that...
Oh, why, thank you. ;)
> Look, I'm not getting
> down on you or anyone else in particular here. It seems that this
> interpretation of decklists is pretty comprehensively applied to the
> whole
> of the European community. Fine, IMO it detracts from the game
> tremendously, but its your event. To take arguments against this
> _specific_
> means of implementing decklist checks as meaning that _any_ adjustment
> from
> a default penalty is somehow an indication of a rogue Judge establishing
> his
> own guidelines, is fallacy.
We are talking about the basic, general case with no special
circumstances or features. That is when the judgement of the judge
is in theory matching that indicated in the guidelines.
> The greater problem is with how the deck-checking method has been set
> up,
> anyways, as it offers no baseline for the Judge to make a clear call as
> to
> whether the decklist has a clerical error, or if the player has altered
> the
> deck mid-tournament. I think if this shortcoming of the
> decklist-checking
> methodology were addressed, there would be no issue for anyone with how
> the
> penalties were applied...
Okay, this is a somewhat valid point. Another, IMHO more valid point
would be, "why collect decklists at all?". But if we do collect
decklists (a decision of the tournament organiser), the judge should
IMHO adhere to the official guidelines set forth for that.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:54:29 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote:
>
> > As for me, to arrive at the conclusion that a person is cheating by
> > way of
> > altering his deck mid-game, I would require affirmative evidence of such,
> > and an error on a decklist is insufficient evidence to draw that
> > conclusion,
> > since errors (the majority of errors, in fact) may be arrived at by a
> > myriad
> > of ways not related to cheating.
>
> Note that the rules are there exactly because no judge can be hold
> liable to collect evidence for each and every case. The judgements
> must be made based on limited information; that is why guidelines
> and common practices are very helpful.
>
Hrrm. I don't think that the _Penalty_ guidelines are anything more to
do with what your should apply as a penaly, once a conclusion is
reached. The penalty guidelines don't address information collection
at all. Following that line of thought, the judge has to be assumed to
collect a sufficient amount of information to be able to arrive at a
judgement that an impartial party can find to be fair.
> > Note also, given the mode and frequency of decklist verification used
> > in
> > the EC (check decks of finalists against their decklists before entering
> > the
> > finals, no checks of those same decks before), the default penalty (Game
> > Loss) is essentially no different to the player at fault than a Full
> > Disqualification.
>
> No. If a would-be finalist recieves a Game Loss, he or she will be
> ranked 6th place in the tournament.
LOL. and who do you know who heads to a tournament (much less heads to
the EC) with the intent of coming in sixth..? :-)
> If there are prizes for the
> place, they will recieve it. If the event is a qualifier, they will
> be qualified. If they give a damn about ratings, well, they get some
> rating points for the GWs and VPS scored (contrary to DQWP only).
>
> > (quite possibly its Worse, since the party you penalize
> > will have basically wasted three preliminary rounds and six hours of
> > their
> > own time in getting to that finals position).
>
> Now, I don't get this. You've wasted the preliminary rounds any way.
>
To go to a major event, and have your chance at winning snatched from
you by an administrative clerical error (despite being a very
"European" experience) is vastly worse for a fair number of people than
not having gone at all...
> >> There are points where I do not agree with the Penalty Guidelines. I'm
> >> sure everybody has those points. I'm just not sure that using a
> >> completely
> >> different reasoning and line of thought on a per judge basis is really
> >> desired.
> >
> > Nor is it intended. In order to apply a judgement, though, you must
> > first Judge the situation...
>
> But you must be fair. I mean, as a judge, you may sincerely believe
> that Jack is known for his subtle attempts at cheating, while Bill
> is known for his immaculate sportsmanship. So if you judge that
> Jack gets the Game Loss and Bill gets a Warning for the same
> violation (because you assume that Jack is cheating, and Bill made
> a mistake), you are basically being unfair, because as a judge you
> should always judge and penalize the *given* infraction, and not
> any real or percieved infractions that were committed, say, before
> the event.
>
I _did_ say to "judge the situation", and not just the people
involved...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, after looking over the tournament rules, there really aren't
_any_ administrative guidelines to the use of decklists, at all...
Here is absolutely everything we have to go on:
"6.3. Constructed Deck Registration
The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register
their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the
original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives
a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly
register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate
provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that
organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists
each round."
That's it... implementation is up to the tournament organizer or head
judge, and there's a _lot_ of ways you can implement decklists poorly.
This section of the rules needs to be fleshed out more. Namely, I'd
suggest the following addition; if a tournament organizer chooses to
make use of decklists (particualrly to check contents for finalists),
then those decklists should be verified against contents before the
first round of the tournament. You can require the players to have
their decks sorted to correspond with their decklist when submitting
them for review, to speed the review process (a written decklist with
sorted contents alongside would take less than one minute to review).
At least then, Judges can then safely assume that the decks matched
their lists before the finals, and can apply a more specific ruling
regarding altered deck contents.
I know that this is a migration of this discussion, but as we've
talked this one around, I find myself taking more issue with the lack
of detail in section 6.3 of the Tournament Rules, than I am with
anything found in the Penalty Guidelines.
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
On 20 Nov 2005 15:41:45 -0800, Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>> > Note also, given the mode and frequency of decklist verification
>> used
>> > in
>> > the EC (check decks of finalists against their decklists before
>> entering
>> > the
>> > finals, no checks of those same decks before), the default penalty
>> (Game
>> > Loss) is essentially no different to the player at fault than a Full
>> > Disqualification.
>>
>> No. If a would-be finalist recieves a Game Loss, he or she will be
>> ranked 6th place in the tournament.>
> LOL. and who do you know who heads to a tournament (much less heads to
> the EC) with the intent of coming in sixth..? :-)
Strawman, I think. ;) Your point (no difference) was clearly addressed
(by describing the points where there is a difference). Practical point
1: the player who recieved a Game Loss on Saturday was still qualified
(as he came in 6th) whereas he wouldn't have been had he been
disqualified. Practical point 2: some tournaments do not limit prizes
to 1-5 but give out prizes for 6th+.
>> > (quite possibly its Worse, since the party you penalize
>> > will have basically wasted three preliminary rounds and six hours of
>> > their
>> > own time in getting to that finals position).
>>
>> Now, I don't get this. You've wasted the preliminary rounds any way.>
> To go to a major event, and have your chance at winning snatched from
> you by an administrative clerical error (despite being a very
> "European" experience) is vastly worse for a fair number of people than
> not having gone at all...
Okay, I really was under the impression that you were comparing being
DQ-ed with recieving a Game Loss. If I misunderstood your original point,
and it was more like "not having gone at all is better than getting a
Game Loss before the finals", then I can say that for many players I
know, playing at the tournament and not getting into the finals is
worse than not playing at all. In fact, some prize-crazy players
actually *drop* from a tournament if they don't make at least 1 GW
and lots of VPs in the first two rounds. I guess it all depends on
where you draw the line.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Which is, still, a valid point. I mostly agree with you on these.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2005 15:41:45 -0800, Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Note also, given the mode and frequency of decklist verification
> >> used
> >> > in
> >> > the EC (check decks of finalists against their decklists before
> >> entering
> >> > the
> >> > finals, no checks of those same decks before), the default penalty
> >> (Game
> >> > Loss) is essentially no different to the player at fault than a Full
> >> > Disqualification.
> >>
> >> No. If a would-be finalist recieves a Game Loss, he or she will be
> >> ranked 6th place in the tournament.
> >
> > LOL. and who do you know who heads to a tournament (much less heads to
> > the EC) with the intent of coming in sixth..? :-)
>
> Strawman, I think. ;)
Nope.
> Your point (no difference) was clearly addressed
> (by describing the points where there is a difference). Practical point
> 1: the player who recieved a Game Loss on Saturday was still qualified
> (as he came in 6th) whereas he wouldn't have been had he been
> disqualified. Practical point 2: some tournaments do not limit prizes
> to 1-5 but give out prizes for 6th+.
>
Perhaps the real point was obfuscated by my verbiage. The real point
is; by applying a default penalty without adequate evidence of an
actual rules infraction, you've messed with a player's standing in a
tournament in a manner that is excessive. Vastly escessive, in fact,
in light of the fact that no one I know of has yet to apply a decklist
penalty for anything _other_ than a clerical error (are there instances
of confirmed deck manipulation out there? I'd like to hear about it,
if so...) No one goes to a game (any game) to get "lawyered" out of
competing. I have to imagine, after all the money and time spent on
travel to a major event like the EC, pizes are a secondary
consideration for those who are at the highest levels of play quality.
What matters is having an opportunity to compete, and to test your
skills against the best in the field. In light of that, what you take
away is simply _everything_ that they have come for... Thats where my
original verbige came from, I suppose.
Yah well, this is minor compared to the rest of what I snipped. The
real solution lies in a more complete policy regarding the
implementation of decklists...
Righteous conversation, Daneel. I really feel like we had a strong
initial difference of opinion, and yet it didn't degenerate into a
flamewar. Yay, us...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
On 27 Nov 2005 08:46:44 -0800, Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Righteous conversation, Daneel. I really feel like we had a strong> initial difference of opinion, and yet it didn't degenerate into a
> flamewar. Yay, us...
Shit, my image.
*khm*
Shadowfist is waaay cooler than VtES.
XD
--
Bye,
Daneel