What do you think: If I give my decklist to an organizer is he allowed
to publish it? Or could I insist on my copyrights? How do you handle
that in your communities?
(I made up my mind but want to have more input and opinions about that
matter).
So why should a person give the decklist to the organizer? Not that i
have a problem with it personally, but due to there being few deck
building restrictions unlike other games decklist are not generally
written down in advance.
In article <1172541356.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
nde...@aol.com wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Why would they not? I mean, like, if you go and win an event and then
refuse to give out a deck list, there really isn't anything anyone can
do about it ("Hey, Bill, can I get a deck list of your winning deck?"
"Uhh, ok, I'll, uhh, get right on that...") But as giving out your deck
list generally gets you 15 minutes of fame and the admiration of your
peers as your deck is posted in the TWDA, why would you not?
It isn't like hiding the contents of your cleverly constructed deck is
going to protect state secrets or anything. If you won a tournament, it
is likely a dozen+ people have seen your deck, and even if you don't
want to reveal its contents, it is real easy to reverse engineer
anything particularly clever in your deck, and if there is nothing
particularly clever, what is there to protect? That you used 7
Conditionings instead of 6 or 8? You have 3 Dreams of the Sphinx?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
[ quoted text not captured ]
As Johannes said a lot of organisers ask for them. They are used to
check if people don't alter their decks between rounds.
On 27 fév, 10:12, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> ndel...@aol.com schrieb:[ quoted text not captured ]
They are in every regular French tournament because of many many cases
of persons with errors in their decklists that could be assimilated to
cheating.
I will remember all my life getting 3 of my vampires burned by 3
archon investigations in a same game. And when we got into the final,
the judge checked the decks to see if there was any errors. the guy
who burned my vampires in the previous round had 93 cards in the
actual deck and 90 cards in the decklist. The 3 cards which were in
the deck and not in the decklist were the 3 archon investigations. And
this was not a big event not even a qualifier or something. Just a
regular tourney.
Arthur
On Feb 27, 10:11 am, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I will remember all my life getting 3 of my vampires burned by 3
> archon investigations in a same game.
I think the problem here was not that the guy was cheating (he could
have had 3xAI in the deck anyway). But that after getting AIed the
first time, you kept bleeding for more than 3. And then after getting
AIed the *second* time, you kept bleeding for more than 3...
-Peter
On Feb 27, 10:11 am, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> They are in every regular French tournament because of many many cases
> of persons with errors in their decklists that could be assimilated to
> cheating.
>
Yeah, because cheating is the most obvious reason why someone's
decklist might be wrong. You just keep telling yourself that. You even
go on to show exactly why someone's decklist might be wrong - he added
cards and forgot to change some meaningless statistic on a piece of
paper he made once and promptly forgot about.
> I will remember all my life getting 3 of my vampires burned by 3
> archon investigations in a same game. And when we got into the final,
> the judge checked the decks to see if there was any errors. the guy
> who burned my vampires in the previous round had 93 cards in the
> actual deck and 90 cards in the decklist. The 3 cards which were in
> the deck and not in the decklist were the 3 archon investigations. And
> this was not a big event not even a qualifier or something. Just a
> regular tourney.
>
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not entirely sure you can claim copyright on a decklist. I know
you sure as hell wouldn't want to.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Feb 27, 6:51 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 27, 10:11 am, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They are in every regular French tournament because of many many cases
> > of persons with errors in their decklists that could be assimilated to
> > cheating.
>
> Yeah, because cheating is the most obvious reason why someone's
> decklist might be wrong. You just keep telling yourself that. You even
> go on to show exactly why someone's decklist might be wrong - he added
> cards and forgot to change some meaningless statistic on a piece of
> paper he made once and promptly forgot about.
>
As soon as the stakes get higher then just a fun game, some people
will try to cheat.It's human nature.
I have, as an organiser, checked decklists in tournaments, and found
marked cards/decks. Unmistakenly, as in "know what you're looking for
on the back, and you know the top card of your library"
If you remain blind to the possibility, you will never catch the
cheaters. If you admit that it happens more often than you would like,
and ask for+check decklists, you eliminate the problem.
Simple as that.
/jo
[ quoted text not captured ]
Man, do you know a lot of people who play Archon investigation in
their deck frequently ? And if they do, do they plut more than one
AI?
I had never seen a deck, even just written with more than one AI
before.
I am not saying that this is a problem, or that the guy was cheating.
I'm just saying that it was memorable and that in a more important
context like an EC or the NAC the guy would have been thrown out of
the final. No matter whether he was cheating or not.
On 27 fév, 18:09, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Man, do you know a lot of people who play Archon investigation in
their deck frequently ? And if they do, do they plut more than one
AI?
I had never seen a deck, even just written on paper with more than one
AI before.
I am not saying that this is a problem, or that the guy was cheating.
I'm just saying that it was memorable and that in a more important
context like an EC or the NAC the guy would have been thrown out of
the final. Whether he was actually cheating or not. I'm not a
detective, and a judge doesn't have to make any investigation about
that ;)
Arthur
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure, you can just ignore everything I say. But, if you do, don't
bother structuring it as a reply. Note also that checking decklists
has absolutely nothing to do with marked cards. Pretending for a
minute that you want to talk about decklists, if you don't check the
decklist of every single player at the beginning of the tournament,
you have no reason to believe that they are accurate.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Come to Origins http://www.originsgames.com/ !
No decklists. No deckchecks. No cheaters. All play.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
I think that decklist are a very good thing.
They give people who might not be that great deckbuilders themselves
ideas what winning decks should have in them.
Can't see nothing wrong with that.
Lönkka
NC Finalnd
www.ahmametal.com
On 27 feb, 20:06, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you don't check the
> decklist of every single player at the beginning of the tournament,
> you have no reason to believe that they are accurate.
unless people see those decks being played, you mean?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Are you seriously trying to tell me that, having seen a deck as your
prey, you can tell me the exact count of every single card in their
deck? Unless you only play Brinksmanship, that's pretty much
impossible.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Feb 27, 1:05 pm, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Man, do you know a lot of people who play Archon investigation in
> their deck frequently ? And if they do, do they plut more than one
> AI?
Sure. Well, have them in their deck frequently. I see AI all the time.
Granted, I don't see more than 1 in a deck all that often, but if I
see one, I'll consider that there might be more. But mostly, I was
just making trouble :-)
That being said, I'm still yet to see an answer to the question:
Why would you want to *avoid* having your winning deck design get made
public?
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
modesty?
LOL
Seriously, as for the cheating problem, once I caught a local guy
stacking his cards into combos before a friendly game, it wasn't even
a goddamn tournament..so I guess now everything is possible. But I
would much rather live with few cheaters, than have the whole
atmosphere poisoned by paranoid judges.
On Feb 28, 11:07 am, "Alias" <ransom.st...@seznam.cz> wrote:
> modesty?
>
> LOL
Heh, I mean, yeah, maybe, but as I mentioned elsewhere, there is
nothing in this game is is even remotely close to "trade secret" level
deck technology. If you are doing something really, really clever with
your deck, and you win a tournament with it, enough people are going
have seen it in action to be able to reconstruct the particularly
clever part of it (thus revealing any "trade secret"). If it is just
card numbers you are trying to protect, who cares if you have 6
Governs instead of 8 or 5? I mean, like, folks like to see winning
deck designs, but it isn't like you are handing someone the keys to
the silo if you let them see how *you* happened to put together that
winning bleed deck as opposed to someone else putting together a
similar bleed deck or whatever.
> Seriously, as for the cheating problem, once I caught a local guy
> stacking his cards into combos before a friendly game, it wasn't even
> a goddamn tournament..so I guess now everything is possible. But I
> would much rather live with few cheaters, than have the whole
> atmosphere poisoned by paranoid judges
Sure--but that is a whole other discussion. The original question here
is "do I have to let you post my winning deck for the world to see",
and I'm still confused as to why anyone would ever object to such a
thing (as "I don't want my deck posted for the world to see" is the
implication of the original question).
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
To make one thing absolutely clear: We checked the decklists of the
finalists. They were all correct.
In Germany all things you create are your "geistiges Eigentum" and are
protected by Copyright. As LSJ stated above you give that right away
by entering a tournament. So I know that it's perfectly legal to post
the finalist's lists. But for me decklists are somewhat sensible
information. So if somebody asks (begs) me to don't publish it for
some reasons shouldn't I respect that?
Until now I were always proud of my winning decks and wanted everybody
to know of it. I always wrote stories of how they did in tournaments.
I always enjoy reading other's lists and think that many players may
improve and learn by playing decks created with that help. That is why
the attitude of keeping lists secret is totally new for me.
Nonetheless I'd like to accept and honour it.
On Feb 27, 8:06 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com>
[ quoted text not captured ]> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't ignore everything you said. I just simply disagree with almost
every word.
You are the one claiming the most common mistakes in decklists are due
to people making simple mistakes while writing them, rather then
attempts at cheating.
If you have such faith in players in general, the you're simply
extremely naïve.
Besides, one would think for people who play a game with the
complexity of VTES, it should be realitively easy to note down the
60-90 cards right in front of them *without* mistakes.
You insist that the rest of us are incorrect and stating as fact that
contents of decklists are "meaningless statistics".
In the world I live in, people sometimes *do* try to cheat, at the
expense of the honest players. For some reason, which I still cannot
see, you seem to think that checking declists does nothing about that
situation.
If you ask for decklists, and then randomly execute deck checks
throughout the day, you simply increase the chances of catching the
cheaters who alter their decks throughout the day, or who are simply
playing an illegal deck.
It comes down to this: cheating is really really easy. Changing the
"meaningless statistics" of your deck over the course of a
tournament,or pazcking a deck which simply does not fit within the
boundaries set by the rules is about the easiest way to increase your
own chances of winning.
Checking deck prevents just that activity.
Also, give me 1 reason why checking for marked cards in a deck would
not be part of checking a deck/deklist?
/jo
"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in
news:1172689564.5...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
> On 26 Feb., 20:50, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote:>> What do you think: If I give my decklist to an organizer is he
>> allowed to publish it? Or could I insist on my copyrights? How do you
>> handle that in your communities?
>> (I made up my mind but want to have more input and opinions about
>> that matter).>
> To make one thing absolutely clear: We checked the decklists of the
> finalists. They were all correct.
>
> In Germany all things you create are your "geistiges Eigentum" and are
> protected by Copyright.
If thats true, its an almost totally un-enforceable standard,
particularly as it pertains to CCG deck-building. I think I'll push a
few hundred decklists onto forum.vekn.de once the next set releases, and
hire a lawyer to ensure that all you Germans don't infringe on my
Copyrights ;-) See my point? And (for some further absurdity), in
light of the fact that I have to ensure that my Copyrights aren't being
infringed, I must insist that _all_ tournament participants make their
decklists public... After all, my Copyrights aren't soemting you gents
have the right to give up to White Wolf by using them in some sanctioned
tournament...
I think that there may be some specific legal definitions to the idea
of "creating" which you'll find mean that they simply don't apply to
deck-building.
If its not coming across, due to the Internet or language, I'm being
absurd and facetious here...
mit Beachtungen,
Dave Braid
Atom Geweber
"Wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in
news:1172690521.2...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Then you should know that you are also disagreeing with the VEKN Judge's
Guidelines. There are seperate sections of the Penalty Guide for dealing
with Deck List Variances (section 100) and Cheating (section 160). The
VEKN doesn't conflate the two, and neither should you. A decklist variant
should not be automatically assumed to be cheating, as the "philosophy"
section of 101, 102 and 103 details;
101 Illegal Decklist
Philosophy:
The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist
lists an illegal deck, the player is playing with an illegal deck,
regardless of the actual contents of his or her deck. However, it is not in
the best interest of the event to disqualify players for illegal decklists.
Penalty: Warning
102. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist)
Philosophy:
The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist
indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not match
the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the decklist.
If the judge can determine with complete confidence that the deck/decklist
discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player is using an all
Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed on the decklist
instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide to fix the decklist
instead. A warning should be issued in this case.
Penalty: Game Loss
103. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (No Decklist Used)
Philosophy:
If the deck contains an illegal selection of cards in some manner, the
player is playing with an illegal deck. However, it is not in the best
interest of the event to disqualify players for illegal decks.
Penalty: Game Loss
Compare how those read to, say, Section 163, which is what you seem to be
implying that you are "catching" with illegal decklists...
163. Cheating - Fraud
Definition:
A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal
information, or any other relevant tournament information.
Example:
A player uses a fake name and V:EKN number when registering for a
tournament.
Philosophy:
There should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.
Penalty:
Disqualification without Prize.
full text for the Judges Guide is here;
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknjudgesguide> You are the one claiming the most common mistakes in decklists are due
> to people making simple mistakes while writing them, rather then
> attempts at cheating.
No, you are the one conflating cheating and deck list issues, and more
importantly your interpretation isn't supported by the VEKN Judge's Guide.
A Deck List variance may be an indicator of the possiblity cheating, but it
is not conclusive proof, nor is it cheating in and of itself. If it were,
deck list variances would be in the Judge's Guide as examples under 163,
rather than getting a seperate section to themselves.
> If you have such faith in players in general, the you're simply> extremely naďve.
If you're applying 163 when you should be applying 101, 102, or 103, then
you're simply being a bad Judge.
> Also, give me 1 reason why checking for marked cards in a deck would
> not be part of checking a deck/deklist?
>
These are two different activities. The fact that they cna be done
simultaneously doesn't change that fact. Marked Cards have their own
section in the Penalty Guide, as well, Section 130 (again, _not_ a sub-
section of Cheating). I think you might be well served by a read through
the whole document. It seems that you are confusing what you are actually
catching and penalizing as a Judge...
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
On 28 Feb., 20:22, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In Germany all things you create are your "geistiges Eigentum" and are
> > protected by Copyright.
>
> If thats true, its an almost totally un-enforceable standard,
> particularly as it pertains to CCG deck-building. I think I'll push a
> few hundred decklists onto forum.vekn.de once the next set releases, and
> hire a lawyer to ensure that all you Germans don't infringe on my
> Copyrights ;-) See my point?
Hell no, if you give away information freely you waive your rights of
course :op.
This case is different, because the winners did not want to deliver a
list but had to to take part in the tournament.
On Feb 28, 9:34 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]> > extremely naïve.>
> If you're applying 163 when you should be applying 101, 102, or 103, then
> you're simply being a bad Judge.
>
> > Also, give me 1 reason why checking for marked cards in a deck would
> > not be part of checking a deck/deklist?
>
> These are two different activities. The fact that they cna be done
> simultaneously doesn't change that fact. Marked Cards have their own
> section in the Penalty Guide, as well, Section 130 (again, _not_ a sub-
> section of Cheating). I think you might be well served by a read through
> the whole document. It seems that you are confusing what you are actually
> catching and penalizing as a Judge...
>
> Regards
> DaveZ> Atom Weaver- Hide quoted text ->
> - Show quoted text -
And how, my I ask, would you penalise, according to these giudelines,
people who change their decks in beween rounds to better suit the
situation?
Things are not always as clear cut in reality
I have seen situations where people have a correct deck between 2
rounds, and then turn out to have an incorrect deck in between the
next 2?
I not saying I would automatcially disqualify people for wrong
decklists, sorry if I implied that. I will automaticaly disqualify for
stuff like changing decks in between for example.
All I'm saying is:in my opinion, checking decklists and decks simply
limits /discourages cheating.(which *does* happen, contrary to what
some people seem to believe)
Oh, and btw: if I recall correctly, some continental championship
qualifiers and championships over the past few years have seen people
eliminated from finals because of errors in decklists.And it wasn't
me judging in any of those.
regards,
jo
"Wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in
news:1172771279....@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> And how, my I ask, would you penalise, according to these giudelines,
> people who change their decks in beween rounds to better suit the
> situation?
> Things are not always as clear cut in reality
> I have seen situations where people have a correct deck between 2
> rounds, and then turn out to have an incorrect deck in between the
> next 2?
If you checked the deck twice in a tourney, and found different cards
(assuming the player didn't pick up someone else's Disarm at the end of
a previous game, or some such), then you've got evidence for cheating.
Up to now, your examples implied a single deck check to me, where the
content varied from the decklist.
> I not saying I would automatcially disqualify people for wrong
> decklists, sorry if I implied that.
Great to hear, and yeah, when you were equating dekc problems with
catching cheaters, that did imply to me that you were throwing them out
of tourneys...
> I will automaticaly disqualify for
> stuff like changing decks in between for example.
Hey, if you've got the proof (2 deck checks and a clear idea that the
cards picked up weren't accidental) would certainly be proof to me. 163
'em to the Wall...
> All I'm saying is:in my opinion, checking decklists and decks simply
> limits /discourages cheating.(which *does* happen, contrary to what
> some people seem to believe)
>
You would think so... :-) But then, if you've actually caught a guy
with two deck checks, apparently at least a few still think they can get
away with something.
That brings me back to my other point, which is; how disruptive can
you actually be with between-round deck changes? I don't see a clear
case for any leveraged advantage by changing a deck mid-tourney. You'd
have to know what your upcoming opponents are running, and in the
prelim. rounds that is (or should be) inaccessible information. To me,
it just strikes me as incredibly stupid, but not something that can
result in any clear in-game advantage. I'm open to hearing examples
which would show otherwise. Indeed, if I Judge a future tournament,
such examples would be helpful to know what to watch for...
> Oh, and btw: if I recall correctly, some continental championship
> qualifiers and championships over the past few years have seen people
> eliminated from finals because of errors in decklists.And it wasn't
> me judging in any of those.
Sure, heh. The infamous disqualification of a US player flying over for
the EC, due to what was a typographical error (or even if not, it wasn't
clear evidence of cheating, what with a single deck check involved), is
a large part of why these threads never just die out in five posts or
less. ;-)
That, and I personally think that dialogue on appropriate penalties is
incredibly helpful for raising the quality and consistency of Judging.
DZ
AW
"Peter D Bakija"
>
> Why would you want to *avoid* having your winning deck design get made
> public?
I know a guy who's card flow is amazing. His ratios must be immaculate.
He has a policy of not posting decklists, even when he wins tournaments.
Whatever he's got going on; he's not sharing. It's too bad for us, but it
should be his choice.
Jay Kristoff
atomweaver wrote:
> You'd
> have to know what your upcoming opponents are running, and in the
> prelim. rounds that is (or should be) inaccessible information.
I'm with you on this, Dave, but I felt that it should be pointed out
that scouting other peoples' decks during and between rounds is
totally legal.
John Eno
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1172783243.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, yeah I hear you John, but unless you're snooping on the organizer's
Archon, you shouldn't know which of those players you've scouted are the
ones you'll be sitting down against... until the organizer slaps those
index cards down and annouces the table's seating. By then, any last
minute muddling with your deck should grab somebodies attention (I would
hope... maybe not *shrug*).
DZ
AW
atomweaver schrieb:
>> Oh, and btw: if I recall correctly, some continental championship
>> qualifiers and championships over the past few years have seen people
>> eliminated from finals because of errors in decklists.And it wasn't
>> me judging in any of those.>
> Sure, heh. The infamous disqualification of a US player flying over for
> the EC, due to what was a typographical error (or even if not, it wasn't
> clear evidence of cheating, what with a single deck check involved), is
> a large part of why these threads never just die out in five posts or
> less. ;-)
Please get your facts right.
The player was not disqualified, he got a game loss (for the final), so
he ranked 6th (or 7th).
It was certainly not a typographical error. He had Atonement in his deck
which wasn´t on his decklist. Quite an important card if you consider
that a lot of Embrace decks were seen on that day. I do not say I KNOW
he was cheating but there was a possibility. But certainly it doesn´t
matter since he wasn´t disqualified but got the appropriate game loss.
That he was an US player flying over is not interesting at all, players
are to be treated equally.
Also, there was another player to play in the finals with severe errors
in the decklist. For him it was a must to get a game loss and the
organizers felt that it would cause a lot more controversy if they
treated them differently based on the number of cards they had wrong.
Johannes
Get.Your.List.Right
atomweaver schrieb:
> "Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1172783243.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
>>> atomweaver wrote:>>> You'd
>>> have to know what your upcoming opponents are running, and in the
>>> prelim. rounds that is (or should be) inaccessible information.>> I'm with you on this, Dave, but I felt that it should be pointed out
>> that scouting other peoples' decks during and between rounds is
>> totally legal.
But still easily possible, even by just leaving the room. e.g Embrace
decks leave a large footprint on a tabler.
> Well, yeah I hear you John, but unless you're snooping on the organizer's
> Archon, you shouldn't know which of those players you've scouted are the
> ones you'll be sitting down against... until the organizer slaps those
> index cards down and annouces the table's seating.
You just need to know your table from the first round, your seat on the
table and the number of players. Then you can refer to your own Archon
and you don´t need to snoop the organizers one.
> By then, any last
> minute muddling with your deck should grab somebodies attention (I would
> hope... maybe not *shrug*).
Unless you do it in the toilet ;-) Anyway you might be ousted 30min
early, so plenty of time. Sometimes there is even a lunch break so you
can do it splendidly in a restaurant.
Johannes
Heck,Cheating.Is.Possible
"Wolflord" wrote:
>It comes down to this: cheating is really really easy.
>Changing the "meaningless statistics" of your deck over
>the course of a tournament,or pazcking a deck which
>simply does not fit within the boundaries set by the rules
>is about the easiest way to increase your own chances of
>winning. Checking deck prevents just that activity.
The time when changing cards would be most effective
is before a final round; as a finalist may have an idea about
what some of his competitors are playing. Changing one's
deck in between preliminary rounds seems silly and futile,
even if you have a print out of the Archon's optimal seating
chart. With that in mind, I recommend that if there is going
to be a break before the final round of a tournament, then
the judge should simply hold the finalists' decks until the
final round begins (instead of collecting and checking decklists).
I think this policy thwarts the most effective type of cheating
and prevents players from being ejected for having poor clarical
skills.
Jay Kristoff, V:EKN Prince of Columbus, Ohio USA
atomweaver wrote:
> > I'm with you on this, Dave, but I felt that it should be pointed out
> > that scouting other peoples' decks during and between rounds is
> > totally legal.
> >
>
> Well, yeah I hear you John, but unless you're snooping on the organizer's
> Archon, you shouldn't know which of those players you've scouted are the
> ones you'll be sitting down against...
Ah, okay. I misintrepreted what you wrote above a little. To me,
keeping general track of what everyone is playing isn't too tough
until you start pushing the 20-25+ player range at a tournament. But,
yeah, you wouldn't know who you were going to be sitting with, which
is the part that I misread.
> until the organizer slaps those
> index cards down and annouces the table's seating. By then, any last
> minute muddling with your deck should grab somebodies attention (I would
> hope... maybe not *shrug*).
I still have a really tough time envisioning anyone who'd be enough of
a dick to cheat at this game, but yeah, I'd hope they'd be caught with
their hands in the deckbox if this came up.
John Eno
"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45e756e3$0$16941$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> I think this policy thwarts the most effective type of cheating> and prevents players from being ejected for having poor clarical [*]
> skills.
>
[*] Jay, I hope you won't take offense if I point out that this was a
particularly amusing place to have a typo in a post. :)
- Pat
On Mar 1, 9:26 pm, "Pat" wrote:
> > I think this policy thwarts the most effective type of cheating
> > and prevents players from being ejected for having poor clarical [*]
> > skills.
>
> [*] Jay, I hope you won't take offense if I point out that this was a
> particularly amusing place to have a typo in a post. :)
>
> - Pat
No offense taken. I agree, my typo showed up at a funny point. It
also displays the big disadvantage I have at anything written :)
Jay
<snip>
>
> > All I'm saying is:in my opinion, checking decklists and decks simply
> > limits /discourages cheating.(which *does* happen, contrary to what
> > some people seem to believe)
>
> You would think so... :-) But then, if you've actually caught a guy
> with two deck checks, apparently at least a few still think they can get
> away with something.
> That brings me back to my other point, which is; how disruptive can
> you actually be with between-round deck changes? I don't see a clear
> case for any leveraged advantage by changing a deck mid-tourney. You'd
> have to know what your upcoming opponents are running, and in the
> prelim. rounds that is (or should be) inaccessible information. To me,
> it just strikes me as incredibly stupid, but not something that can
> result in any clear in-game advantage. I'm open to hearing examples
> which would show otherwise. Indeed, if I Judge a future tournament,
> such examples would be helpful to know what to watch for...> dialogue on appropriate penalties is
> incredibly helpful for raising the quality and consistency of Judging.
>
Well, simplest examples include:
*Adding 4 Delaying tactics when you happen to know your opponents are
playing weenie politics
*Adding Centralised Background Check when you're playing against
concealed weapon+gun decks
*Adding Aranthebes and/or Atonement when you're up against weenies..
...
There's lots of small additions and/or changes which can, if not
outright "hose", then at the very least severely impede specific
decks, which are under other circumstances, simply not all that
usefull..
/jo
> DZ
> AW
[ quoted text not captured ]
i'd be counting that guys ash heap, nay etching it, into my memory. and,
if it's particularly awe inspiring as it sounds like, play a millstone
deck next time just to see what he's doing. a secret that good is too
good to leave it be... or would card counting be naughty of me? ;)
On Mar 1, 3:55 pm, "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> I know a guy who's card flow is amazing. His ratios must be immaculate.
> He has a policy of not posting decklists, even when he wins tournaments.
> Whatever he's got going on; he's not sharing. It's too bad for us, but it
> should be his choice.
Sure--I'm not saying folks should be *forced* to post deck lists
(although apparently, winning a tournament gives the organizer some
sort of warrant or writ to post it or something), and it is really
easy to avoid, ya know, writing one and giving it to someone when they
ask for it. But I'm unconvinced that anyone is actually accomplishing
anything by hiding their deck lists. Immaculate ratios or no.
-Peter
Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in
news:es7icg$dmk$1...@news01.versatel.de:
> atomweaver schrieb:>>> Oh, and btw: if I recall correctly, some continental championship
>>> qualifiers and championships over the past few years have seen
>>> people eliminated from finals because of errors in decklists.And it
>>> wasn't me judging in any of those.>>
>> Sure, heh. The infamous disqualification of a US player flying over
>> for the EC, due to what was a typographical error (or even if not, it
>> wasn't clear evidence of cheating, what with a single deck check
>> involved), is a large part of why these threads never just die out in
>> five posts or less. ;-)>
> Please get your facts right.
>
For the record, I only used this example to emphasize why getting
Judging right is so important, I didn't particularly want a re-hash of
the actual incident mentioned. If you're cool with talking about the
specifics, though, it'd make an interesting case study for Judging.
> The player was not disqualified, he got a game loss (for the final),
> so he ranked 6th (or 7th).
>
> It was certainly not a typographical error. He had Atonement in his
> deck which wasn´t on his decklist.
You're right. That's not a typographical error. Its a clerical error
which might possibly indicate cheating. Or, it was an innocent mistake.
My bad.
> Quite an important card if you
> consider that a lot of Embrace decks were seen on that day. I do not
> say I KNOW he was cheating but there was a possibility.
OK. Please, if you recall, what additional investigation was done, to
determine whether the decklist error was deliberate or accidental? Was
the deck as-constructed legal? (90 cards in deck, 89 on the list). Was
the offending card seen during the first round table? What did the
player say was the reason for the error?
> But certainly
> it doesn´t matter since he wasn´t disqualified but got the
> appropriate game loss. That he was an US player flying over is not
> interesting at all, players are to be treated equally.
>
That wasn't my point at all, Johannes. People travel far and wide for
the big VTES events. I mentioned that he flew over and spent >$1000 in
travel and accomodations _only_ because that puts a greater pressure on
the Judge for Getting It Right. I'm sorry if you feel put upon that
this incident gets raised. Thats not my intention. My intention is to
understand what happened, so that I and other Judges can understand it,
and raise the quality of their decisions by learning from it.
> Also, there was another player to play in the finals with severe
> errors in the decklist. For him it was a must to get a game loss and
> the organizers felt that it would cause a lot more controversy if they
> treated them differently based on the number of cards they had wrong.
>
Yeh. It sounds like a big mess, really. I don't blame you for treating
each as the exact same, regardless of what actually motivated both
decklist errors. I'd be curious what the additional investigation of
the reasons behind these two decklist incidents uncovered...
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
On Mar 2, 11:14 am, Azel wrote:
>
> i'd be counting that guys ash heap, nay etching it, into my memory. and,
> if it's particularly awe inspiring as it sounds like, play a millstone
> deck next time just to see what he's doing. a secret that good is too
> good to leave it be... or would card counting be naughty of me? ;)
As long as you are not stalling or disrupting the game, you may
inspect other players' ash heaps, and even take notes about it.
Which is why I believe that people making a point of keeping their
decklists secret is just plain silly, to say the least.
Although I may agree that you shouldn't force them to publish it if
they really don't want to, I guess.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
"Wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in
news:1172839849....@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thanks WL... All these require that you know your opponents. This
leads me to believe that if you want anti-cheating measures, not
letting people know who their opponents will be is a good way to
prevent this variety of deck manipulation.
Can anyone think of a way to alter your deck, which doesn't involve
knowing the specific opponents that you'll face? I guess you could
make these same alterations against the generic trend of what you
scout, but then you're back to the situation where risking cheating in
that way doesn't justify the return you'd see in any meaningful
sense...
>
> There's lots of small additions and/or changes which can, if not
> outright "hose", then at the very least severely impede specific
> decks, which are under other circumstances, simply not all that
> usefull..
>
I get you there. And yeah, as Jay pointed out, the finals would be the
time where deck changes would be most beneficial. I think that, if the
organizer keeps the opponent pairings and round by round results
confidential (already the case, but maybe should add extra measures,
like not putting Archon numbers on player index cards, and not numbering
tables), and the decks of the winning players are collected immediately
upon announcement of the final participants, you'll get a lot stronger
structure for preventing cheating through deck manipulation than
decklist checking will gain you, and for a lot less effort, too.
Maybe there should be a general advice to players not to share their
results from prior rounds? I'm less fond of that idea, but I throw it
out there for consideration. Usually, that question is asked by
friends who want to know that you are doing well.
DZ
AW
atomweaver schrieb:
> For the record, I only used this example to emphasize why getting
> Judging right is so important, I didn't particularly want a re-hash of
> the actual incident mentioned. If you're cool with talking about the
> specifics, though, it'd make an interesting case study for Judging.
I am very cool with it.
> OK. Please, if you recall, what additional investigation was done, to
> determine whether the decklist error was deliberate or accidental? Was
> the deck as-constructed legal? (90 cards in deck, 89 on the list). Was
> the offending card seen during the first round table? What did the
> player say was the reason for the error?
The Deck was 90 cards, the list had 89 cards. The card never saw any
play. I admit that when the remote possibility of cheating would be
actually true, it was very stupid cheating.
> That wasn't my point at all, Johannes. People travel far and wide for
> the big VTES events. I mentioned that he flew over and spent >$1000 in
> travel and accomodations _only_ because that puts a greater pressure on
> the Judge for Getting It Right. I'm sorry if you feel put upon that
> this incident gets raised. Thats not my intention. My intention is to
> understand what happened, so that I and other Judges can understand it,
> and raise the quality of their decisions by learning from it.
Ok, I see. I only wanted to emphasize it.
> Yeh. It sounds like a big mess, really. I don't blame you for treating
> each as the exact same, regardless of what actually motivated both
> decklist errors. I'd be curious what the additional investigation of
> the reasons behind these two decklist incidents uncovered...
I didn´t investigate the reasons behind the errors, I pointed them out
to the players, applied the penalty and moved on. Perhaps I would not
have applied the game-loss in the Atonement case if there hadn´t been
the other case.
Yes, in retrospect I have certainly learned from the experience and
would do it differently now. That I had 100+F° fever this day certainly
didn´t help nor the fact that I was very exhausted from the day where we
had problems with certain players and we needed to get the finals going.
That should not be an excuse for the decision since I still think it can
be justified, it´s just to show people that running 100+ player events
is physically and mentally exhausting. Time pressure is usually quite
high (and in return we were praised for running the whole event with a
total delay < 15 min) and I was not prepared for that kind of situation.
That tells me that we should have some better guidelines for judges with
good examples from the reality of those people who have experienced
though judging environments. We should also think about rewarding the
judges in big events since it is really a difficult and demanding job.
Not to forget that you forfeit the chance to play.
Johannes