COLLIDING IN COLLUSION

Booyaka Have been reading the enormous response to Saturdays tournament in Watford which sadly i could not make as was in Cornwall at a wedding doing wedding things. This collusion thing seems to be a fairly recent thing...when i first started playing jyhad 4 years ago it was very rare indeed...Most players seemed to have only one objective - to roll the table! With the release of recent expansions and a change in the rules plus the shear amount of people playing the game it is becoming a rare treat indeed to see a deck mop the table. I would have loved to have seen this Alrika deck in action (not from a prey point of view though!) I cant decide wether deal making is a good thing or not...but it is part of the game. Is it also possible that if you are striking a deal with someone you have to have something to offer...focus decks cant really offer anything so they are not usually approached in a deal. From what i understand in France there is a lot of very focused decks and perhaps this is why making deals is not such an occurence over there. This is obviously a very important subject which needs to be cleared up. But i have to do some work now so i cant :o] Rock on SA Jon Cooper

JON.C...@NTL.COM (JonCooper) wrote in message news:<34fe8a18.01080...@posting.google.com>... > Booyaka > Have been reading the enormous response to Saturdays tournament in > Watford which sadly i could not make as was in Cornwall at a wedding > doing wedding things. > This collusion thing seems to be a fairly recent thing...when i first > started playing jyhad 4 years ago it was very rare indeed...Most > players seemed to have only one objective - to roll the table! *cough* yeah like you'd know anything about _that_. :) green -spoiling for a rumble

Jon wrote: >>This collusion thing seems to be a fairly recent thing...when i first started playing jyhad 4 years ago it was very rare indeed...Most players seemed to have only one objective - to roll the table!>> Deal making is not collusion. Collusion is a secret deal between two or more players that exists to provide an unfair advantage to one of those players. Two players making a deal in the middle of a game to split the table is making a deal, and fully supported by the rules. Please, everyone, please, use the word collusion correctly. It refers to something very specific in the VEKN tournament rules. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

Peter D Bakija wrote: > players making a deal in the middle of a game to split the table is making a > deal, and fully supported by the rules. "Fully supported" only inasfar as the deal doesn't hinder either player's ability to get the most VPs, yes. Making a deal to get 2 VPs (and give someone else 3) isn't allowed if you could get 3 VPs otherwise, for instance. Making a deal that reduces your ability to gain VPs is not allowed, as the only reasons for doing so are unsportmanlike or based on out-of-game considerations. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: >>"Fully supported" only inasfar as the deal doesn't hinder either player's ability to get the most VPs, yes. Making a deal to get 2 VPs (and give someone else 3) isn't allowed if you could get 3 VPs otherwise, for instance.>> Determining if you could get 3VPs otherwise is the trick, then isn't it. A lot of discussion has come up surrounding the 3/2 table split as being unsportsmanlike. As I mentioned elswhere, I make 3/2 table splits (where I am getting the 2 VPs) when I feel it is the best way for me to get the most VPs in that particular game (i.e. if Idon't make the 3/2 split, I feel I'll get zero VPs). If there is room for the other players to call the judge over and say "He made a 3/2 split deal. He could have got 3 VPs otherwise. Expunge him.", just 'cause they didn't like the deal I made or can't necessarily see why I did so, that strikes me as rather problematic (but then, it strikes many people as problematic, which is why there are all these "collusion" threads of late :-). >>Making a deal that reduces your ability to gain VPs is not allowed, as the only reasons for doing so are unsportmanlike or based on out-of-game considerations.>> Which calls the question who decides if the deal you make reduces your ability to gain VPs? If I make such a deal, I'm doing to get the most VPs. I am in no way interested in having to justify my decision simply because another player questions my motives. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >>Making a deal that reduces your ability to gain VPs is not allowed, as the > only reasons for doing so are unsportmanlike or based on out-of-game > considerations.>> > > Which calls the question who decides if the deal you make reduces your ability > to gain VPs? If I make such a deal, I'm doing to get the most VPs. I am in no > way interested in having to justify my decision simply because another player > questions my motives. The judge is there for this sort of thing. If the judge judges that the deal is not legal, then there you go. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: >>If the judge judges that the deal is not legal, then there you go.>> And how are they to decide if such a deal is legal? I say that the deal I am in increases my chances of maximizing VPs. My opponents disagree, simply because they feel slighted by the deal I made, regardless of the actuality of the situation. The judge has to decide based on limited information (not having been in the game) and the unsubjective arguments of both sides. Quite a can of worms, the "Illegal Deal Smite Button" is, I tell you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >>If the judge judges that the deal is not legal, then there you go.>> > > And how are they to decide if such a deal is legal? I say that the deal I am in It's a judgment call. > increases my chances of maximizing VPs. My opponents disagree, simply because > they feel slighted by the deal I made, regardless of the actuality of the > situation. The judge has to decide based on limited information (not having > been in the game) and the unsubjective arguments of both sides. Quite a can of > worms, the "Illegal Deal Smite Button" is, I tell you. The judge can inspect the situation. The rule should enocourage players to make strictly good deals. Questionable deals should be questioned. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Making a deal to get 2 VPs (and give someone else 3) isn't allowed if you > could get 3 VPs otherwise, for instance. This could very well be invalidated by intent. For example, if your grand-predator at a 5 player table and you make a deal that he helps oust your prey and grand-prey if you help him oust his prey (your predator) and then roll over for him, giving him 3 VPs and 2 VPs, but secretly you plan to renege on the deal and nail him when he's most vulnerable. Clearly, tricking your (new) prey into leaving himself vulnerable will maximize your VPs. However, you've done it using a tactic that is considered illegal for very legal purposes. Comments? FWIW, it seems that the French metagame regarding deals is very similar to the one in Michigan, despite that an extremely wide variety of rush and intercept combat decks are very common. Perhaps it is because the nature of our players is to focus more on everyone having a good time than "maximizing VPs". Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > FWIW, it seems that the French metagame regarding deals is very similar > to the one in Michigan, despite that an extremely wide variety of rush > and intercept combat decks are very common. Perhaps it is because the > nature of our players is to focus more on everyone having a good time > than "maximizing VPs". > > Regards, > Noal McDonald > VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit I think that's exactly it Noal. Our local lads are as good as anyone else's local lads, but for the most part, even in a tournament, we remember that its a game that is played for fun. That said, I hope Bernie and Aaron roll over everyone on Saturday. Matt

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> a écrit dans le message news: 20010801220618...@ng-fq1.aol.com... > LSJ wrote: > >>If the judge judges that the deal is not legal, then there you go.>> > > And how are they to decide if such a deal is legal? I say that the deal I am in > increases my chances of maximizing VPs. My opponents disagree, simply because > they feel slighted by the deal I made, regardless of the actuality of the > situation. The judge has to decide based on limited information (not having > been in the game) and the unsubjective arguments of both sides. Quite a can of > worms, the "Illegal Deal Smite Button" is, I tell you. > > Hi guys, I would tend not to approve this kind of split. I think Methulesahs are lonely predators and only cooperate from time to time and it does not fit them to share the world in two parts. It's all or nothing ! :-) Ok i usually do nothing but that's an other point. :-) But concerning a "judgment" i'll be my own contradictor : Supposing I have a strong position and I agree with a Meth who offers me a 3/2 split in my favor. Others call the judge and argue that I could make more than 3 VP and the judge decides that my deal is illegal. But **** how can he decide that the deal is not good for me as maybe I only make this deal in order to betray my ally and to get all the VPs ?*** It's a legal although not fair way to maximize VPs. I think this is really manipulation and conditionning :-) It's hard to know about what happens in players' mind. The judge role is to make sure rules are applied but I can't imagine how an outer judge could decide whether my kind of play is legal or not. However back to my first opinion we must not forget that a deal is between *2* and not 1. If the deal is right for one, maybe the second Meth has a very good position. So a 3/2 split should only be dealt between two weaks Meths : both would not be able to make more than 2 VPs. I think it's a quite rare situation. So deals should be judged illegal most of the time. Hmmm, reading my post I find it quite unclear sorry for that :-)

Mochuda wrote: > But concerning a "judgment" i'll be my own contradictor : > > Supposing I have a strong position and I agree with a Meth who offers me a > 3/2 split in my favor. Others call the judge and argue that I could make > more than 3 VP and the judge decides that my deal is illegal. Given Scott's answer to my last post, it sounds like you needn't worry. The person dealing for 3 VP is getting enough to "win the game" and apparently doesn't have to prove that he couldn't get any more. Only the person dealing for 2 VP need prove that his chances of winning are nonexistent and this deal is therefore the best he can get. Fred

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01080...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Making a deal to get 2 VPs (and give someone else 3) isn't allowed if you > > could get 3 VPs otherwise, for instance. > > This could very well be invalidated by intent. For example, if your > grand-predator at a 5 player table and you make a deal that he helps > oust your prey and grand-prey if you help him oust his prey (your > predator) and then roll over for him, giving him 3 VPs and 2 VPs, but > secretly you plan to renege on the deal and nail him when he's most > vulnerable. Then the only way you could legally make the deal is if you plan to break it. Your partner in the deal will know that. Now, who would be your partner in such situations? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01080...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Making a deal to get 2 VPs (and give someone else 3) isn't allowed if you > > could get 3 VPs otherwise, for instance. > > This could very well be invalidated by intent. For example, if your > grand-predator at a 5 player table and you make a deal that he helps > oust your prey and grand-prey if you help him oust his prey (your > predator) and then roll over for him, giving him 3 VPs and 2 VPs, but > secretly you plan to renege on the deal and nail him when he's most > vulnerable. Then the only way you could legally make the deal is if you plan to break it. Your partner in the deal will know that. Now, who would be your partner in such situations? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

>> "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> This could very well be invalidated by intent. For example, if your >> grand-predator at a 5 player table and you make a deal that he helps >> oust your prey and grand-prey if you help him oust his prey (your >> predator) and then roll over for him, giving him 3 VPs and 2 VPs, but >> secretly you plan to renege on the deal and nail him when he's most >> vulnerable. > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Then the only way you could legally make the deal is if you plan to > break it. True. > Your partner in the deal will know that. Not necessarily. I could appear to be in a weak position (appearances can be deceiving) or my "partner" could be the victim of Jedi Mind Tricks (tm). Jay Kristoff has watched me talk opposing players into all kinds of crazy things (which is how our friendly rivalry started...I talked my predator into working backwards against Jay) so talking people into table splits that I have no intention of honoring isn't outside the realm of possibilities. Esp. since I don't have a reputation for that sort of thing. > Now, who would be your partner in such situations? Someone who doesn't know any better...possibly because I've tricked them into thinking I'm in a weaker position or I'm just being foolish. If you want a good example of Jedi Mind Tricks, watch Tatu play. I've seen people try to gag him to keep him from speaking to those with weaker minds. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > Someone who doesn't know any better...possibly because I've tricked them into > thinking I'm in a weaker position or I'm just being foolish. If you want a good > example of Jedi Mind Tricks, watch Tatu play. I've seen people try to gag him > to keep him from speaking to those with weaker minds. Is it legal to physically gag your opponent? I'd like to do that to Noal to stop him from performing his JMTs. I'd also like to gag Aaron just because it would amuse me to do so. How about applying 'blinders' to a person who always goes upstream? Know how horses with blinders always go forward? If you selectively blind someone so they can only look to their left, maybe they'll be more inclined to follow the predator-prey mechanic? And maybe I could but some of those giant sound-proof ear-thingees on Bernie just to complete the whole See-No-Evil, Hear-No-Evil, Speak-No-Evil image I've got going here... Ok, forget about it... but it seems funny to me and this newsgroup really needs to take the collective stick out of its ass right about now :) Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > > > Is it legal to physically gag your opponent? I'd like to do that to Noal to > stop him from performing his JMTs. I'd also like to gag Aaron just because > it would amuse me to do so. > > How about applying 'blinders' to a person who always goes upstream? Know how > horses with blinders always go forward? If you selectively blind someone so > they can only look to their left, maybe they'll be more inclined to follow > the predator-prey mechanic? > > And maybe I could but some of those giant sound-proof ear-thingees on Bernie > just to complete the whole See-No-Evil, Hear-No-Evil, Speak-No-Evil image > I've got going here... > > Ok, forget about it... but it seems funny to me and this newsgroup really > needs to take the collective stick out of its ass right about now :) > > Cheers, > WES Wow Wes.. I feel left out. See you Sunday Matt

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Then the only way you could legally make the deal is if you plan to >break it. Your partner in the deal will know that. Now, who would >be your partner in such situations? Will the other players necessarily know that? Consider this: Situation: It's early in the game, say round three or something. I offer my prey a 3-2 table split (I get the 2). "Sure", he replies. "Judge!" the others say (and rightly so - my position doesn't really look like it would be impossible for me to win). The judge arrives. "Look, I'd like to talk about this in privacy, OK?" I tell the judge. "I don't want to give a way my deck." "OK", replies the judge. Once we're out of hearing range from the other players, I tell the judge "I don't intend to go through with the deal - I just want my prey to leave me alone for a while." "Well, alright then," says the judge. Question 1: What should the judge tell the other players? Just that the deal is OK (in which case the other players might think I managed to convince the judge my situation really *does* suck that badly)? Or should he elaborate (destroying my plan in the process, and likely setting the table against me)? Now, if it's the first case, let's go on: A good way into the game, it's clear things aren't going as they should (from my point of view). My prey is in top condition, and is strong enough to sweep the table no matter what I do. So I decide to stick to the deal, and it works out. At least I get my two VPs. Phew! The judge comes by at the end of the game. He doesn't look happy. "I thought you said you were going to break the deal", he says. "Well," I respond, "I never got a good situation to do it. Surely I'm not forbidden to keep a deal just because I intended to break it when I made it?" Question 2: Would this be acceptable? If it is, then we have a problem. Because the deal could be made regardless of the situation (as I say I'm going to break it), but nothing forces me to break the deal once I've made it. Thus, I could make a table-splitting deal even when I'm not in a losing postion.

Johan's observations are bang on target as usual. This is why the judge should be paying no attention to the deals that the players do. Except in the special case of the Succubus Club, the rules do not recognise the existence of deals. The players can say what they like and the judge need pay no attention (except for threats and other improper speech). What matters is what players actually do - what game actions do they take. If someone rolls over, e.g. by transferring out, then that is the point at which the judge should take action. Justifying this by reference to a deal is irrelevant as ordinary deals are not binding and so the player is under no obligation to keep them. He does, however, have a duty to play to win and maximise his score at all points in time. Rolling over is always unsportsmanlike. It should be outlawed and I believe that it is. Andrew -------------------------------------------------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8EDB7E2BAEB14E01.EF1B3227...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Johan's observations are bang on target as usual. This is why the >judge should be paying no attention to the deals that the players do. >Except in the special case of the Succubus Club, the rules do not >recognise the existence of deals. The tournament rules, however, do. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

>> Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >> Johan's observations are bang on target as usual. This is why the >> judge should be paying no attention to the deals that the players do. >> Except in the special case of the Succubus Club, the rules do not >> recognise the existence of deals. > James Coupe wrote: > The tournament rules, however, do. No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point out _anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that players make for in-game reasons. The rules dictate that a player attempt to "maximize his or her VPs." They do not, in any way, prevent a player from being a lying, conniving, back stabbing fiend in order to do so. Until you adress the points that Johan and I have raised regarding making losing deals with the intention to break them, this entire conversation is nothing more than mental masturbation based on a clear misunderstanding of how powerful Jedi Mind Tricks can be in a game. Say what you want, so long as a player is not making decisions based on out of game considerations, no deal, no matter how ludicrous it appears to be, is illegal carte blanche based on a strict interpretation of the rules...that is, unless you're willing to outlaw VP splitting deals altogether. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B6E2A14...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> writes >>> Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>> Johan's observations are bang on target as usual. This is why the >>> judge should be paying no attention to the deals that the players do. >>> Except in the special case of the Succubus Club, the rules do not >>> recognise the existence of deals. > >> James Coupe wrote: >> The tournament rules, however, do. > >No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point out >_anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that players >make for in-game reasons. The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. I would also note that *you* make the distinction of "in-game" - which is clearly useful. Andrew S Davidson, in his usual trollish nature, did not. Collusion is a form of deal making the rules recognise which Andrew's comment does not deal with, but yours clearly does. (On the grounds you have the ability to make a coherent point.) >Until you adress the points that Johan and I have raised regarding >making losing deals with the intention to break them, I have no particular interest in defending such, as I recognise the merits and flaws both ways. I do, however, have an interest in making sure that the current rules-set is understood. 1) If the current rules-set is universally understood, the rules-set can be applied consistently, can be applied consistently universally and can be seen to be applied consistently universally. 2) If the current rules-set is universally understood, clear, thorough, well-founded arguments can be made. I have seen many, many arguments flounder due to lack of a coherent lead rather than an inherent, irresolvable flaw in the argument itself - a point which I've discussed with LSJ in private e-mail at one point (which is sometimes why I'll take an argument up with him, to draw a point out fully, in a manner not entirely dis-similar to his own points many years ago). Insisting, as Andrew was, that the current rules don't state what they say through V:EKN and LSJ is stupid in the extreme, and unlikely to solve anything. Conceding "this is what they say, I grant you, but I think they should say X, Y and Z because of balancing factors alpha, beta and gamma, along with pieces of evidence one, two and three" is far better - hence the reason I followed up Andrew rather than any of the other posts which actually rationally argue the points. [ quoted text not captured ]

First, I'd like to apologize for any abrasiveness in the prior post. It was late at night (or early in the morning) and I was frustrated by a perceived lack of a constructive disagreement. >> No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point out >> _anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that players >> make for in-game reasons. > > The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. I kindly request supporting evidence to this statement. The relevent section of the tournament rules (copied below) say that a player must seek to gain the most VPs in a game (at least 3 in a 4-5 player game) and may act on _only_ in-game considerations. Collusion is, by definition, a deal based on out of game considerations and is adequately addressed by the rules. Making a losing deal that one does not intend to honor in order to gain at least 3 VPs, however, is permissible by a strict interpretation of the rules. (That is not to say that a judge should not privately question a player for his reasons for making a losing deal.) "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game. Players must not act on concerns outside the current game (attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)." If Scott would like the rules to be interpreted otherwise, the language must be changed in order to support his statements. Interpreting the rules to say something other than what they really do on the newsgroup without foundation, even if, and esp. because he is, he is the official VTES Net Rep, undermines the official VEKN tournament rules, undermines his authority and creates confusion and anger in the players. By the way, if Scott is determining the VEKN tournament rules, what is Robert Goudie's function? It seems that, as the chairman of VEKN, he should be setting the rules by which the organization functions. > Andrew S Davidson, in his usual trollish nature, did not. Perhaps we need to stop bashing Andrew carte blanche and actually read what he says with an objective point of view. In recent weeks he has not been trolling the newsgroup and has been engaged in concstructive discussion. If he does make comments for the sole purpose of inciting others, either ignore him or provide reasonable counterpoints with supporting evidence. In this case, he was agreeing with what Johan had to say, which did, in fact, refer to deals only made with in-game considerations. > 2) If the current rules-set is universally understood, clear, thorough, > well-founded arguments can be made. They look pretty simple to me. Further interpreations by LSJ regarding player deals have clouded the issue beyond recognition. > I have seen many, many arguments flounder due to lack of a coherent lead > rather than an inherent, irresolvable flaw in the argument itself However, this is not one of those arguments. > Conceding "this is what they say, I grant you, but I think they > should say X, Y and Z because of balancing factors alpha, beta > and gamma, along with pieces of evidence one, two and three" is > far better - hence the reason I followed up Andrew rather than > any of the other posts which actually rationally argue the > points. However, by failing to respond to the arguments that you have labeled "rational," you have effectively ignored them, prohibiting further constructive (and, I believe, essential) discussion on this issue. As I said before, without such discussion, this is all so much mental masturbation that does not adequately address our legitimate concerns. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bb705c59.01080...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >>> No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point >out >>> _anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that >players >>> make for in-game reasons. >> >> The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. > >I kindly request supporting evidence to this statement. LSJ's posts, all over the place, on this subject, talking about VP maximising deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>>> No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point >>>> out _anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that >>>> players make for in-game reasons. >>> >>> The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. >> >> I kindly request supporting evidence to this statement. > > LSJ's posts, all over the place, on this subject, talking about VP > maximising deals. And again, none of those posts are supported, in the slightest, by the rulebook or the official tournament rules. I asked for supporting evidence for the basis of his posts. Unless you're a lot more stupid than I...*breathes deep and counts to 10 v...e...r...y s...l...o...w...l...y.* James, posts made by LSJ on the matter cannot themselves be used as evidence supporting them. That's like saying an orange is an orange because it's called an orange. It's that kind of bullshit that pisses people off and leads to flaring tempers in this forum. I think it best that you stop trying to get in the last word and refrain from posting further on this subject, since the answer I want should come from LSJ himself and you haven't posted anything more constructive than circular arguments on this thread. He can go ahead and make up all sorts of rules willy-nilly all he likes without any supporting material on the official web site, rule book, card text or printed material of any kind. But that's the kind of crap that pissed off a significant part of the VTES community (incl. me) back in 7/7/98 and started the NJL and while I'm not threatening that the NJL (like the South) will rise again, I am saying, quite seriously, that I had strongly hoped that were some lessons had been learned then. The newsgroup is not, contrary to its own in-bred popular opinion, the first place people look at when referencing rules. Scott should be using strict interpretation of the rules until he, at the very least, gets the next batch or rulings and errata on the White Wolf web site. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B6F6659...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> writes >>>> The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. >>> >>> I kindly request supporting evidence to this statement. >> >> LSJ's posts, all over the place, on this subject, talking about VP >> maximising deals. > >And again, none of those posts are supported, in the slightest, by the >rulebook or the official tournament rules. Hence the careful choice of phrasing I used. (>>>> above) [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > >>>> No, they do not. Perhaps you, or LSJ, would be so kind as to point > >>>> out _anywhere_ in the rules that discusses the merits of deals that > >>>> players make for in-game reasons. > >>> > >>> The current interpretation of the maximising VP rules clearly do. > >> > >> I kindly request supporting evidence to this statement. > > > > LSJ's posts, all over the place, on this subject, talking about VP > > maximising deals. > > And again, none of those posts are supported, in the slightest, by the > rulebook or the official tournament rules. I asked for supporting > evidence for the basis of his posts. [...] > since the answer I want > should come from LSJ himself and you haven't posted anything more > constructive than circular arguments on this thread. Players must play to win. Not playing to win is against the V:EKN rules. [VEKN 5.2] This support has been stated before. Scott should be using > strict interpretation of the rules until he, at the very least, gets the > next batch or rulings and errata on the White Wolf web site. I agree. My support: [VEKN 5.2] No errata needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Players must play to win. > Not playing to win is against the V:EKN rules. [VEKN 5.2] I agree. No argument there. My only point is that the rules, as written, do not prohibit one from taking a losing deal, even if you can possibly get a majority of the VPs, if (and only if) it is your intention to not honor the deal, either by letter or by the spirit. An example of each is below: Assuming that in a 5 player table (players A, B, C, D and E), you, player A, strike a deal with player D to work together to oust players B, C & E and you roll over for player D. If your intention is to not honor the letter of the deal and, instead of rolling over, you plan to oust an unsuspecting player D, you are "playing to win," which, as you stated, is not against the rules. If you inention is not honor the spirit , but rather the letter of the deal, and you intend to play a Kindred Restructure or Dramatic Upheaval so that you end up with the majority of the VPs, you are also "playing to win." In both instances, accepting a losing deal is not, as you stated earlier, against the rules in and of itself. I certainly don't dispute that a judge is well within his rights to question it. My objection is regarding the seemingly carte blanche restriction on the type of *in-game* deals. Scott, do you disagree with the *entirety* of my assertions? [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > Players must play to win. > > Not playing to win is against the V:EKN rules. [VEKN 5.2] > > I agree. No argument there. > > My only point is that the rules, as written, do not prohibit one from > taking a losing deal, even if you can possibly get a majority of the > VPs, if (and only if) it is your intention to not honor the deal, either > by letter or by the spirit. An example of each is below: I agree with this. I have never disagreed with this. I also question: "who would take a deal that the other player is bound (by the rules) to break?" > Assuming that in a 5 player table (players A, B, C, D and E), you, > player A, strike a deal with player D to work together to oust players > B, C & E and you roll over for player D. Which you cannot do, with the intention of honoring the deal, if you could make 3 VPs (or more) some other way. Therefore, if you are bound to break the deal, the motives of D making this deal with you, knowing you have to break it, are suspect, since it in all likelyhood decreases his chances of winning. > If your intention is to not honor the letter of the deal and, instead of > rolling over, you plan to oust an unsuspecting player D, you are > "playing to win," which, as you stated, is not against the rules. OK. It would be very difficult to find a situation in which D is unsuspecting (assuming D knows the rules). > If you inention is not honor the spirit , but rather the letter of the > deal, and you intend to play a Kindred Restructure or Dramatic Upheaval > so that you end up with the majority of the VPs, you are also "playing > to win." Yes. > In both instances, accepting a losing deal is not, as you stated > earlier, against the rules in and of itself. I certainly don't dispute > that a judge is well within his rights to question it. My objection is > regarding the seemingly carte blanche restriction on the type of > *in-game* deals. My earlier statements were part of an assumed "and honoring it" deal. When questioned previously about breaking the deal, I relented the point at that point, with a statement similar to the above regarding the difficulty of finding a partner/sucker for the deal. > Scott, do you disagree with the *entirety* of my assertions? Only the ones that suggest that I have disputed the make-to-break-a-deal tactic before. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Which you cannot do, with the intention of honoring the deal, if you > could make 3 VPs (or more) some other way. > > Therefore, if you are bound to break the deal, the motives of D making this > deal with you, knowing you have to break it, are suspect, since it in > all likelyhood decreases his chances of winning. True, which is why you'd have to either represent yourself as either being in a hopelss situation or completely foolish. A deck that takes a while to set up or intentionally gives mass quantities of pool away to accomplish its means (i.e., Uriah Winter, Trojan Horse deck) can create a false impression that you are on the ropes. While I'm not in the class of Tatu, as he could probably talk a player into doing the hokey-pokey as part of the deal, I am known for Jedi Mind Tricks, so I doubt I could sell foolish easily. > My earlier statements were part of an assumed "and honoring it" > deal. May I kindly remind you of the breakdown of the word, "assume?" The problem with assumptions in the newsgroup is that a participant may be unaware of them and take your statements literally and out of context. In this case, I had explicitly suspended that assumption. In your effort to be brief and exact, you are sometimes *too* brief and come off as brushing people aside. Witness your "discussion" with Matt Latham, probably one of the most important people to the gaming scene, as a whole, in SE Michigan. A _lot_ of people, including myself, value his opinion above any other. Your argument with him was akin to his saying, "The sky is blue!" and you responding, "No, the apples are red!" Neither of you were disagreeing. You just were not responding in any meaningful way to each other, creating a lot of ill feelings. Purely in the spirit of constructive criticism, I'd like to suggest that you may want to spend a little more time answering the spirit of peoples' inquiries and not so much the letter. It tends to cut down on misunderstandings and goes a long way towards preventing people from perceiving you as intentionally brusque (a complaint I've heard made by several different people over the years), and instead makes you more apporachable as a person. Of course, that's my opinion. I could be wrong. > When questioned previously about breaking the deal, I relented > the point at that point, with a statement similar to the above > regarding the difficulty of finding a partner/sucker for the deal. You didn't relent, per se. You just didn't respond. I was after a public concession of my point as there were, quite obviously, people that had a false impression of the entirety of your ruling on this issue. >> Scott, do you disagree with the *entirety* of my assertions? > > Only the ones that suggest that I have disputed the > make-to-break-a-deal tactic before. You didn't dipsute them, no. You just never contradicted James Coupe when he did, creating the impression that he had your silent agreement. I just wanted an explicit statement, one way or the other. May thanks, [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > My earlier statements were part of an assumed "and honoring it" > > deal. > > May I kindly remind you of the breakdown of the word, "assume?" The > problem with assumptions in the newsgroup is that a participant may be > unaware of them and take your statements literally and out of context. > In this case, I had explicitly suspended that assumption. As had someone else before, when I responded in kind. The "and honoring it" was part of the thread up until that point. When someone asked about not honoring it, I responded as I did above. > In your effort to be brief and exact, you are sometimes *too* brief and > come off as brushing people aside. Witness your "discussion" with Matt Doing my job completely requires being concise. > Latham, probably one of the most important people to the gaming scene, > as a whole, in SE Michigan. A _lot_ of people, including myself, value > his opinion above any other. Your argument with him was akin to his > saying, "The sky is blue!" and you responding, "No, the apples are red!" > Neither of you were disagreeing. You just were not responding in any > meaningful way to each other, creating a lot of ill feelings. I responded directly to his inquirings re: trickling down (noting that such a system produces more incentive to king-make). How is this not meaningful (except that the responses were ignored)? > Purely in the spirit of constructive criticism, I'd like to suggest that > you may want to spend a little more time answering the spirit of > peoples' inquiries and not so much the letter. It tends to cut down on What was his spirit that I did not answer? He: What about Trickling down? Me: Kingmaking becomes more problematic. > misunderstandings and goes a long way towards preventing people from > perceiving you as intentionally brusque (a complaint I've heard made by > several different people over the years), and instead makes you more > apporachable as a person. Of course, that's my opinion. I could be > wrong. I have a lot of work to do. I can't babysit every player. My apologies to those who feel that the work I do is not enough. > > When questioned previously about breaking the deal, I relented > > the point at that point, with a statement similar to the above > > regarding the difficulty of finding a partner/sucker for the deal. > > You didn't relent, per se. You just didn't respond. I was after a public > concession of my point as there were, quite obviously, people that had a > false impression of the entirety of your ruling on this issue. I did respond. To you, in fact. [LSJ 20010803] > >> Scott, do you disagree with the *entirety* of my assertions? > > > > Only the ones that suggest that I have disputed the > > make-to-break-a-deal tactic before. > > You didn't dipsute them, no. You just never contradicted James Coupe > when he did, creating the impression that he had your silent agreement. > I just wanted an explicit statement, one way or the other. My post cited above contradicts James. And I didn't contradict you when you posted, which similarly gives the impression that you had my silent agreement. May I remind you of the breakdown of the word 'assume'. If I say something (as in the post cited above) and someone later in the same thread says the opposite, I do not feel oblided to repeat my post. My answers stand until retracted or reversed. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> In your effort to be brief and exact, you are sometimes *too* brief and >> come off as brushing people aside. Witness your "discussion" with Matt > > Doing my job completely requires being concise. Yes, but lately many of your answers have not been fully answering the questions being asked. > What was his spirit that I did not answer? > He: What about Trickling down? > Me: Kingmaking becomes more problematic. From reading the converstation, it was apparent to me that both of you were letting your tempers flare and not really listening to what the other person was trying to say. >> misunderstandings and goes a long way towards preventing people from >> perceiving you as intentionally brusque (a complaint I've heard made by >> several different people over the years), and instead makes you more >> apporachable as a person. Of course, that's my opinion. I could be >> wrong. > > I have a lot of work to do. I can't babysit every player. > My apologies to those who feel that the work I do is not enough. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you want to come off as a condescending martyr, by all means keep it up. However, an aspect of your White Wolf job as Net Rep is customer support, whether you like it or not. As such, sometimes you _do_ have to "babysit" a (and this is important) paying customer. Remember, you represent the White Wolf and the players are paying customers. You don't always have to agree with paying customers, but you should always be polite to them. You have been failing to do that lately and I'm simply trying to call your attention to it as you may be unaware of it. I think we can all agree that we don't want to lose new players because they think the people that represent White Wolf are a bunch of assholes. >> You didn't relent, per se. You just didn't respond. I was after a public >> concession of my point as there were, quite obviously, people that had a >> false impression of the entirety of your ruling on this issue. > > I did respond. To you, in fact. [LSJ 20010803] After re-reading it, I see that your words when reading the first sentence, show that you are correct. My apologies. The entire paragraph, when taken a whole, gives a different impression and that's what James and I were basing our conversation on. > If I say something (as in the post cited above) and someone later > in the same thread says the opposite, I do not feel oblided to > repeat my post. My answers stand until retracted or reversed. There are times when you should repeat yourself, whether you feel obliged or not. There are times that one can say something that leaves an impression other than what was intended. By patiently repeating yourself with different phrasings, you can clarify what you are trying to communicate and eliminate further misunderstangs. Again, please don't take any of this as a personal attack. I am just trying to provide constructive criticism of your communication style. Someone made a complaint to some of the people on the Michigan mailing list about his perception of your attitude towards players and many of them agreed with responses that indicated that they felt that you had always been like that. As a person that is attempting to spread the Good Word of VEKN in Michigan, I felt I would be remiss if I didn't let you know. Warm Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > If I say something (as in the post cited above) and someone later > > in the same thread says the opposite, I do not feel [obliged] to > > repeat my post. My answers stand until retracted or reversed. > > There are times when you should repeat yourself, whether you feel > obliged or not. There are times that one can say something that leaves > an impression other than what was intended. By patiently repeating > yourself with different phrasings, you can clarify what you are trying > to communicate and eliminate further misunderstangs. Well, I repeated myself as soon as I got back from Gen*Con. While at Gen*Con, I barely had enough time to answer new questions, much less repeat myself unnecessarily. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B7120E9...@white-wolf.com>... > Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > My earlier statements were part of an assumed "and honoring it" > > > deal. > > > > May I kindly remind you of the breakdown of the word, "assume?" The > > problem with assumptions in the newsgroup is that a participant may be > > unaware of them and take your statements literally and out of context. > > In this case, I had explicitly suspended that assumption. > > As had someone else before, when I responded in kind. > The "and honoring it" was part of the thread up until that point. > When someone asked about not honoring it, I responded as I did above. > > > In your effort to be brief and exact, you are sometimes *too* brief and > > come off as brushing people aside. Witness your "discussion" with Matt > > Doing my job completely requires being concise. Fully sympathise with this. Have often admired the fact that your answers are succinct and yet provide the answer to the question at hand within them. > > > Latham, probably one of the most important people to the gaming scene, > > as a whole, in SE Michigan. A _lot_ of people, including myself, value > > his opinion above any other. Your argument with him was akin to his > > saying, "The sky is blue!" and you responding, "No, the apples are red!" > > Neither of you were disagreeing. You just were not responding in any > > meaningful way to each other, creating a lot of ill feelings. > > I responded directly to his inquirings re: trickling down (noting that > such a system produces more incentive to king-make). How is this not > meaningful (except that the responses were ignored)? > > > Purely in the spirit of constructive criticism, I'd like to suggest that > > you may want to spend a little more time answering the spirit of > > peoples' inquiries and not so much the letter. It tends to cut down on > > What was his spirit that I did not answer? > He: What about Trickling down? > Me: Kingmaking becomes more problematic. > > > misunderstandings and goes a long way towards preventing people from > > perceiving you as intentionally brusque (a complaint I've heard made by > > several different people over the years), and instead makes you more > > apporachable as a person. Of course, that's my opinion. I could be > > wrong. > > I have a lot of work to do. I can't babysit every player. > My apologies to those who feel that the work I do is not enough. > And here I think is the reason why people should also sympathise with the conciseness of LSJ's answers at times. If you need further clarification, then a question prompting further information about the area misunderstood, will it seems, from what I have seen in the past, lead to LSJ responding again to this specific area. My past experience in conducting help desk for an ISP taught me that although it seems harsh to not generally chat with customers or even digress into side issues from their actual problem, it is necessary to ensure the most customers are helped in the most efficient amount of time. In the end, answering everyone's questions, so no one gets missed out, is probably more important than covering each person's question exhaustively. Note also, that answering a question concisely is often clearer than rambling posts and is quite an artform (one at which it can be seen I lack skill in, help desk calls I can answer briefly but posts seem to produce in me a tendency to ramble :) If you look at how many posts LSJ responds to in the range of forums and no doubt direct emails, as well as I am sure his range of other duties such as organising play-testing and so on, then you will see he overs a LOT of work each day. I for one appreciate the input (am fearful of what we'd do without his rulings if we ever lost his input) (Incidently, it also worries me that the WW VTES forum doesn't seem to archive stuff and hence the often useful answers to questions LSJ provides there with his valued time are lost after a week or so. Perhaps some enterprising web developer would care to record and archive his posts there to be referenced later on? I thought about it but don't have enough time tp spend on the Succubus Club site right now as it is) Yes he gets paid for it, but even when paid for a job, there are only so many hours in the day folks, (especially for someone who has a young child I hear?) give him a break yeah? There is nothing worse for someone who does a lot of work efficiently and with skill than people suggesting they need to be doing even more or aren't doing their duties properly. Only makes them feel unappreciated and frankly without wanting to sound like a suck here, I for one appreciate the high level of effort LSJ puts into this game. > > > When questioned previously about breaking the deal, I relented > > > the point at that point, with a statement similar to the above > > > regarding the difficulty of finding a partner/sucker for the deal. > > > > You didn't relent, per se. You just didn't respond. I was after a public > > concession of my point as there were, quite obviously, people that had a > > false impression of the entirety of your ruling on this issue. > > I did respond. To you, in fact. [LSJ 20010803] > > > >> Scott, do you disagree with the *entirety* of my assertions? > > > > > > Only the ones that suggest that I have disputed the > > > make-to-break-a-deal tactic before. > > > > You didn't dipsute them, no. You just never contradicted James Coupe > > when he did, creating the impression that he had your silent agreement. > > I just wanted an explicit statement, one way or the other. > > My post cited above contradicts James. > And I didn't contradict you when you posted, which similarly gives > the impression that you had my silent agreement. > > May I remind you of the breakdown of the word 'assume'. > > If I say something (as in the post cited above) and someone later > in the same thread says the opposite, I do not feel oblided to > repeat my post. My answers stand until retracted or reversed. Simidh

>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> If I say something (as in the post cited above) and someone later >>> in the same thread says the opposite, I do not feel [obliged] to >>> repeat my post. My answers stand until retracted or reversed. >> >> Noal McDonald wrote: >> There are times when you should repeat yourself, whether you feel >> obliged or not. There are times that one can say something that leaves >> an impression other than what was intended. By patiently repeating >> yourself with different phrasings, you can clarify what you are trying >> to communicate and eliminate further misunderstangs. > > LSJ wrote: > Well, I repeated myself as soon as I got back from Gen*Con. > While at Gen*Con, I barely had enough time to answer new questions, > much less repeat myself unnecessarily. *deep sighs* Scott, I know that with GenCon and fatherhood you are a busy man and that you post in here at all hours of the day and night. There is no need to get defensive. I am attempting to provide constructive feedback, not bash you over the head. You know that I have the utmost respect for you and your performance. The whole NJL rules team gig was quite enough for me and I certainly don't envy you your job. I am simply trying to point out, since tempers seem to be flaring lately, areas that you could improve how you communicate to others so that you don't become an unwitting contributor to it. However, I've probably belabored this far more than is warranted and, for that, I apologize. [ quoted text not captured ]

Simidh wrote: > My past experience in conducting help desk for an ISP taught me that > although it seems harsh to not generally chat with customers or even > digress into side issues from their actual problem, it is necessary to > ensure the most customers are helped in the most efficient amount of > time. As a person who is in charge of all Unix issues worldwide for a major Tier 1 automotive company and one who has extensive experience in telemarketing and customer service, I am well aware of the need to respond to customers as quickly as possible. However, efficiency is NEVER a valid excuse for being impolite or failing to adequately respond to a paying customer's questions or concerns. That's a quick way to watch your customers take their business elsewhere in a hurry. That is not to say that Scott is being outright rude to people; it's just that people tend to expect more friendliness in a company's representative. Customers that leave with warm fuzzies tend to return. > Yes he gets paid for it, but even when paid for a job, there are only > so many hours in the day folks, (especially for someone who has a young > child I hear?) give him a break yeah? There is nothing worse for someone > who does a lot of work efficiently and with skill than people suggesting > they need to be doing even more or aren't doing their duties properly. As a representative of White Wolf, it is his responsibility to be polite and helpful to paying customers. As a paying customer, it is my responsibility to speak up if I do not feel like I am being treated properly. If you are an experienced customer service representative, you should know that already. > I for one appreciate the high level of effort LSJ puts into this game. As one of the (now defunct) NJL's rules team members, I am quite familiar with the effort that Scott puts into the job I never called that into question. Scott busts his ass for this game and so do a lot of others. I'll certainly be his cheerleader on that issue. However, if someone has some constructive suggestions on how I, as a VEKN Prince, can do my job better, I'm always glad to give them an objective listen. From past experience, I know that Scott feels the same way and I was voicing my concerns. Nothing more. Now that it's been beaten into the ground, let's all go talk about something fun like deck strategies. Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B71D53F...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> writes >That is not to say that Scott is being outright rude to people; it's >just that people tend to expect more friendliness in a company's >representative. Customers that leave with warm fuzzies tend to return. Unless it's one of those restaurants I've heard about in some places in America where you can go for an argument with your meal[0]. If you left with warm fuzzies then, I'd demand a refund. [0] Intentionally. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6 Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D

Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:<3B71D53F...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you by the way. (I am fully aware of your longstanding contribution here and to the game (i should really have added this to my original post but it was long enough as it was)) My post was more to just express the opinion that maybe the use of brevity (through necessity) was perhaps being misconstrued as rudeness or tardiness where it was merely the act of efficiency. Anyway, I will leave it here as I am also fully aware that I have steppe into an arena with luminaries and I feel more than a little uncomfortable bringing this up amongst such established contributors to the game and this newsgroup. (I have followed the group for several years now but have not posted that often, as I have found that answers I was able to provide were often answered faster, and certainly more ably by contributors such as yourself and James Coupe and the other luminaries. Anyway suffice to say, no offence was meant, I know that respect from newer players such as I is due to you and the other long time contributors. I just would not like to see LSJ become disillusioned either. :) > > Regards, > Noal McDonald > VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit respectfully, Simon Burton aka Simidh

sim...@succubusclub.net (Simidh) wrote: > Anyway suffice to say, no offence was meant, None was taken, I assure you. Had I perceived it as a personal attack, my response may have been less than polite. *grin* > I know that respect from newer players such as I is due to you > and the other long time contributors. No more so than anyone else. I'm actually rather uncomfortable with the idea that because I've been around for a few years that I somehow should receive preferential treatment or reverence, hence my lack of comment on the matter when it was brought up in another thread. Newer players should be treated more respectfully since, after all the apathy we suffered from WotC, it's obvious we older players aren't going anywhere. Btw, running the Succubus Club deserves huge kudos and for that you have my respect. Keep up the good work. *smiles* > I just would not like to see LSJ become disillusioned either. :) Heh. LSJ has suffered much more scathing remarks from me in the past and we still have plenty of productive conversations. If LSJ, or anyone else for that matter, becomes disillusioned because of something that I've said, they are taking me entirely too seriously. Respectively, [ quoted text not captured ]

"Simidh" <sim...@succubusclub.net> wrote in message news:458e9b1c.01080...@posting.google.com... > Anyway, I will leave it here as I am also fully aware that I have steppe > into an arena with luminaries and I feel more than a little uncomfortable > bringing this up amongst such established contributors to the game and this > newsgroup. (I have followed the group for several years now but have not > posted that often, as I have found that answers I was able to provide were > often answered faster, and certainly more ably by contributors such as > yourself and James Coupe and the other luminaries. Simon, No one on this group is more worthy than anyone else. Every single one of us, with every question, concern, deck concept, newsletter, et al are contributing to a greater whole. We are contributing to a community. Yes, there are people who have done much for this community (LSJ, James, Noal, and on and on and on...) but that does not make their input more inherently valuable than you own. The great play goes on, and you may contribute a verse. Our VTES community grows stronger with every verse. Matt