An interesting revelation came to light about pre-game discussions in
the US Championships.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/c0750409e7cb244c
My question to the community is what is acceptable in terms of
discussion before everyone has seated and the game commenced?
My feeling is that a brief description of each players deck,
mitigating somewhat the advantage of scouting or disadvantage of not
having faced any of the decks is ok, but anything else is not.
Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
without any input from other players.
I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
would be?
~ Aa
On 6 Juli, 13:15, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> even to the extent where second seed put
> their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> seed.
This isnt allowed btw.
On Jul 6, 7:15 am, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting revelation came to light about pre-game discussions in
> the US Championships.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_t...>
> My question to the community is what is acceptable in terms of
> discussion before everyone has seated and the game commenced?
All discussion is allowed.
Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
of the game.
> My feeling is that a brief description of each players deck,
> mitigating somewhat the advantage of scouting or disadvantage of not
> having faced any of the decks is ok, but anything else is not.
Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
allowed.
> Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> without any input from other players.
Not true.
> I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> would be?
It is not collusion.
On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > without any input from other players.
>
> Not true.
Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
correct?
> > I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> > the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> > the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> > their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> > seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> > deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> > would be?
>
> It is not collusion.
So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?
On Jul 6, 8:55 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > > without any input from other players.
>
> > Not true.
>
> Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
> correct?
Determining seating has to be done.
Restricting input does not have to be done.
> > > I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> > > the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> > > the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> > > their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> > > seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> > > deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> > > would be?
>
> > It is not collusion.
>
> So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
> more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?
Non-sequitur.
But I do acknowledge that making a decision is a process.
Sorry, that was a leading question. My understanding is that making
an alliance during a game while another player has stepped away (to go
to the bathroom for instance) is illegal. If that is the case, I fail
to see the difference between making an alliance before the game has
started. They both are unethical because the alliance is done without
the knowledge of the other player(s) - IMO.
Are the cases similar?
On Jul 6, 9:03 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, that was a leading question. My understanding is that making> an alliance during a game while another player has steppedaway(to go> to the bathroom for instance) is illegal. If that is the case, I fail
> to see the difference between making an alliance before the game has
> started. They both are unethical because the alliance is done without
> the knowledge of the other player(s) - IMO.
>
> Are the cases similar?
The OP question doesn't include "without the knowledge of the other
players".
On Jul 6, 9:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
So to be clear,
> All discussion is allowed.> Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
> allowed.
and this is permitted before players have sat and the timer started.
Do all the table participants need to be present and privy to these
discussions despite the fact the game has not actually commenced?
> Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
> of the game.
How is deciding between yourself and one or more players where to sit
not going to alter the game? This has obviously been preceeded by much
talk of how and what will be done in said positions should they be
taken and what will be the result.
~ Aa
[ quoted text not captured ]
Is this true, that once a card has been placed, in essence declaring
your position, that it cannot be (re)moved? Or is that only until the
next card is put down?
~Aa
On Jul 6, 9:29 am, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> So to be clear,
>
> > All discussion is allowed.
> > Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
> > allowed.
>
> and this is permitted before players have sat and the timer started.
Pre-seating discussion is permitted before players have sat, yes.
> Do all the table participants need to be present and privy to these
> discussions despite the fact the game has not actually commenced?
?
Of course.
> > Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
> > of the game.
>
> How is deciding between yourself and one or more players where to sit
> not going to alter the game?
It has an effect on the game, of course. Not everything that has an
effect is collusion.
Perhaps you've overlooking the word "conspire" above.
> This has obviously been preceeded by much
> talk of how and what will be done in said positions should they be
> taken and what will be the result.
Obviously? No.
If you wish to analyze a new case, feel free to present the new case's
details.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, I thought it was. Just like with playing cards during game play
where there is no take-backs unless a rule has been broken. Apperantly
it isnt so clear cut.
On 6 Juli, 15:00, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:55 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:> > > > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > > > without any input from other players.
>> > > Not true.
>
> > Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
> > correct?
>
> Determining seating has to be done.
>
> Restricting input does not have to be done.
Ok,
so me and my friend know we are both going to enter the finals. Prior
to the finals and seating placement, xer and me discuss for ourselves
in private how to seat and play during the finals.
Does this behaviour break any rules?
> > So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
> > more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?
>
> Non-sequitur.
>
> But I do acknowledge that making a decision is a process.
Ok, I think you missunderstand me so I'll give you an example.
4 Players has decided their final seating, the first seeded player
point out where he wants to be seated and declare it with a crypt card
where his spot is going to be.
One of the other finalists say: "Wait, if youre sitting there than X
and Y will happen, are you sure?". The first seeded player then picks
up his card and place himself somewhere else.
Should the judge deny the first seeded player to move his seating
again? Or is this perfectly in line with the rules?
On Jul 6, 10:12 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Juli, 15:30, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:11 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This isnt allowed btw.
>
> > Is this true, that once a card has been placed, in essence declaring
> > your position, that it cannot be (re)moved? Or is that only until the
> > next card is put down?
>
> > ~Aa
>
> Well, I thought it was. Just like with playing cards during game play
> where there is no take-backs unless a rule has been broken. Apperantly
> it isnt so clear cut.
Players can make it clear, if they choose.
Usually, though, it's done a bit more casually. A process.
Certainly nothing to get worked up about -- play the game and all
that.
> On 6 Juli, 15:00, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 8:55 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > > > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > > > > without any input from other players.
>
> > > > Not true.
>
> > > Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
> > > correct?
>
> > Determining seating has to be done.
>
> > Restricting input does not have to be done.
>
> Ok,
> so me and my friend know we are both going to enter the finals. Prior
> to the finals and seating placement, xer and me discuss for ourselves
> in private how to seat and play during the finals.
> Does this behaviour break any rules?
Coming to a secret agreement about how to work together for a common
goal is the definition of collusion.
> > > So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
> > > more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?
>
> > Non-sequitur.
>
> > But I do acknowledge that making a decision is a process.
>
> Ok, I think you missunderstand me so I'll give you an example.
>
> 4 Players has decided their final seating, the first seeded player
> point out where he wants to be seated and declare it with a crypt card
> where his spot is going to be.
It's usually never this clear cut.
Usually a player expresses a process Here. Or here. Hmm.
And eventually something like "OK. Here. Done."
> One of the other finalists say: "Wait, if youre sitting there than X
> and Y will happen, are you sure?". The first seeded player then picks
> up his card and place himself somewhere else.
Right. A process.
> Should the judge deny the first seeded player to move his seating
> again? Or is this perfectly in line with the rules?
Perfectly within the rules. Play the game.
On Jul 6, 10:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:29 am, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:> Perhaps you've overlooking the word "conspire" above.
Conspire meaning in secret. The details (or lack) of how you are going
to carve up the table with your friend can be public and legal, the
only thing needing to remain hidden is the agreement pre-game\
tournament that you will both try to be the last two remaining on the
table and then determine a winner from there. Extrapolate out to an
entrire local playgroup or clique of friends if you wish or even along
nationalities if it floats your boat. This secret agreement, the
essence of conspiring is nigh impossible to prove because any
discussion as to how it will be implemented is legal as long as the
other table players are present.
> > This has obviously been preceeded by much
> > talk of how and what will be done in said positions should they be
> > taken and what will be the result.
>
> Obviously? No.
OK, maybe not 'much' but at least some. It is fair to assume that any
discussion about what position to take will involve the theoretical
repercussions of that decision.
> If you wish to analyze a new case, feel free to present the new case's
> details.
Player A and B are buddies. Whether they have agreed to work together
beforehand to eliminate all others is unknown except to themselves.
Both proceed to discuss during table seating where they should sit,
who will be either decks biggest threat and place accordingly,
ignoring any input from other players. Lets say that they place each
other as A preying on B, then during game B assists A focusing
entirely on back ousting until it is only them both left and they
fight it out head-to-head for the win. All perfectly legal and above
board, yes?
On Jul 7, 1:53 pm, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Player A and B are buddies. Whether they have agreed to work together
> beforehand to eliminate all others is unknown except to themselves.
> Both proceed to discuss during table seating where they should sit,
> who will be either decks biggest threat and place accordingly,
> ignoring any input from other players. Lets say that they place each
> other as A preying on B, then during game B assists A focusing
> entirely on back ousting until it is only them both left and they
> fight it out head-to-head for the win. All perfectly legal and above
> board, yes?
In the above case, player B would probably have to convince any judge
worthy of the job how leaving his prey completely unmolested until the
end game constitues PtW.
"The man with no predator wins the game" - old jungle saying.
jase
On Jul 7, 1:05 pm, Jason <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> In the above case, player B would probably have to convince any judge
> worthy of the job how leaving his prey completely unmolested until the
> end game constitues PtW.
>
> "The man with no predator wins the game" - old jungle saying.
Well, Player B's prey actually has two 'predators', both A and B when
the time comes to eliminate them. B will actually be the first player
to garner a VP of the more than friendly pair. This action is also
justifiable to any judge, it is a deal playing to win for both A and
B. They are under no compunction to maximise VP's, only to garner the
GW.
"The most deadly alliance is that between Prey and Predator" ~ new
Palm Oil plantation saying
> Well, Player B's prey actually has two 'predators', both A and B when
> the time comes to eliminate them. B will actually be the first player
> to garner a VP of the more than friendly pair. This action is also
> justifiable to any judge, it is a deal playing to win for both A and
> B. They are under no compunction to maximise VP's, only to garner the
> GW.
>
> "The most deadly alliance is that between Prey and Predator" ~ new
> Palm Oil plantation saying
Whoops, i meant player A, soz. Player A is sitting there doing nothing
to B and backousting his preds the whole game until heads up, right?
Player A is, in additon to allowing B to bloat/quip/recruit/employ
unmolested, also giving B a free VP and six pool when he allows (nay,
assists) B to oust his prey.
You'd need to be in the presence of a mightily retarded judge to
convince him that you're playing to win there (because you're actually
not, 99% of the time).
jase
Jason wrote:
> Whoops, i meant player A, soz. Player A is sitting there doing nothing
> to B and backousting his preds the whole game until heads up, right?
> Player A is, in additon to allowing B to bloat/quip/recruit/employ
> unmolested, also giving B a free VP and six pool when he allows (nay,
> assists) B to oust his prey.
>
> You'd need to be in the presence of a mightily retarded judge to
> convince him that you're playing to win there (because you're actually
> not, 99% of the time).
>
> jase
I don't believe so. Any deal that is play to win at the time of making
is able to be held to until the heads up. B can claim he has no answer
to A's deck should he go forward thus they have struck a deal where both
of them have a greater chance for the GW. B is assisting A in all their
efforts...consider them a gestalt creature if you prefer.
Remember, this example is to demonstrate how easy it is for collusion to
occur in a legal manner (except for the obvious pre-game agreement) as
long as the details of how the assisting are made in the presence of all
the other players. As I said previously it is nigh impossible to produce
evidence that two or more players have decided to favour themselves and
their buddies in a tournament beforehand.
It was for this reason it seemed entirely appropriate to me that table
seating should be done with no input from other players, the
permutations need to be run through the players head alone. Additionally
deal-making should also not commence until at least the timer has started.
With all discussion being permitted (barring threats) this opens the
floodgates to elaborate power broking pre-game should the desire exist
and it is with some surprise and dismay that I learn this.
~Aa
Aaron Connor wrote:
> With all discussion being permitted (barring threats) this opens
> the floodgates to elaborate power broking pre-game should the
> desire exist and it is with some surprise and dismay that I learn
> this.
Is it with suprise and dismay that you learn that the players who
hear they are going to be gamed against are also themselves free
to team-up against the so-called power brokers, since everyone
is free to talk at all times?
In other words: Freedom works.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Kevin M. wrote:
> Is it with suprise and dismay that you learn that the players who
> hear they are going to be gamed against are also themselves free
> to team-up against the so-called power brokers, since everyone
> is free to talk at all times?> In other words: Freedom works.
Your talking about an improvised coalition versus a prepared alliance.
Many decks are mostly forward motion and these will be able to do little
in response, in fact they may see some advantage at first being gifted a
VP if it is their prey that is being demolished, that is until the
cannon targets them. The alliance however, will have complimentary decks
that can reach out cross table, either through votes, rush or other (D)
actions.
Let me be clear, I do not proscribe to this type of behaviour but I know
for a fact that it is exists, as you yourself have observed earlier that
people can solidify along national lines. We do as social human beings
have a predisposition to have an interest in and be loyal in our support
to those that we know, are friends or familiar with and have some common
ground. The rules however, should encourage a neutral and even playing
field.
This final table scenario is an example in the extreme, but within the
parameters of what is acceptable. It seemed a given to me that deal
making and table seating for finals was to be done with no discussion
pertaining to the game until the timer had started. This at least makes
it more difficult for those colluding to do so.
In other words: Freedom within boundaries works.