OFFICIAL VEKN GANGREL ANTITRIBU NEWSLETTER VOLUME 4 NUMBER 8 AUGUST 2001

OFFICIAL VEKN GANGREL ANTITRIBU NEWSLETTER VOLUME 4 NUMBER 8 AUGUST 2001 IN THIS HOT AND SULTRY ISSUE ..... FICTION: Lure of the Serpent. GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. MY FIRST FINAL NIGHTS DECKS: [1] Legbiterized version of Sorrow's will-they-won't-they Setites, and [2] Tweaked giovanni Precon, Atlanta-style. FICTION: Lure of the Serpent. It's some hours after sundown but the heat is still intense, and the hot air rising from the pavements makes the lights seem to writhe, almost like serpents. The portly figure in the linen suit draws on a cigarette and sips at a tiny Turkish coffee, frowns a little and looks at its watch. Its cold eyes scan the street. Where can they be? Just then, two other figures enter the cafe, look around and then make their way over to his table. "Good evening, Boyar" "Sorry for the delay. They're everywhere, so it seems". The ancient vampire regards its underlings with distaste. Their clothes are awry, a strange sweet smell accompanies them and they wear the silly smiles of the poor liars they are. "Where's Anton?" "We, ah, i think he may be a little bit later still." "He has gone over." "O no, respected sir, he will be with us soon, i'm sure." "Do not presume to contradict me. Archbishop of Mexico City you may be, but i am TELLING you that Anton has been corrupted by the Vile Minions of Set." Stravinsky and Caleban exchange glances. At that moment, a curvaceous female figure enters the cafe and approaches the table. "Carnationsss, generoussss sirsss?" Stravinsky turns, his face a mask of bestiality. "Get you gone, demon!" As he makes to strike her she is suddenly over by the door again, then out in the street. Stravinsky rushes after her. Outside it is dark, and the lights seem to make it darker still. His attention is gripped by something at the end of the street, and he moves in that direction, turns a corner, and then another. He seems to be following faint laughter or possibly the sound of finger-chimes. Then somehow he is pushing aside a bead curtain and entering a cool courtyard where a bearded figure in a summer suit is sprawled on a divan. It sucks on a hookah and blows out the cool smoke. "Ah, welcome at last, your grace! Please to be seated! Celine darling, pray attend to our new brother's needs." From the shadows snake-vampires and luscious female Setites emerge, along with Anton, his eyes glazed and a foolish smile playing upon his lips. It does not surprise the Boyar of the Tzimisce when, later that night, a flute sounds in the darkness, stirring Caleban from his stupor. With a muttered excuse he rises and goes out into the night. It has begun to rain, and the hissing of the raindrops on the baking city mingles with the sussurations of the snakes which seem to boil out of the sewers. Caleban steps amongst them obliviously, as they writhe towards the cafe where their now-defenceless prey awaits. GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in upcoming continental tournaments. Here i want to draw the attention of all VTES/Jyhad players to the Hungarian mathematician Johnny von Neuman's Game Theory, and especially to the way this theory has been developed by people like Alexander and Maynard Smith in their attempts to understand how apparently-altruistic behaviours can evolve under Darwinian natural Selection. i'm doing this because i believe that, wittingly or not, good VTES players who like table-deals are implementing some of these ideas. For non-professionals it may be worthwhile to do a little scene-setting first. i don't suppose that Darwinian Natural Selection needs to be explained to people here [you can email me privately if you don't know what it is], but for this discussion it's worth emphasising the remorseless amorality of the theory, an aspect which deeply troubled Darwin's wife and to a lesser extent Darwin himself. Relentless and vicious cut-throat competition is absolutely the name of the Darwinian game, and therefore there's a problem when one observes apparently-altruistic behaviour in nature. Quantitative solutions to this problem became available thanks to Von Neuman's work on the strategies of simple games like Rock-Paper-Scissors and Prisoner's Dilemma. Essentially what you do is to construct tables or matrixes showing all the possible gains and losses to each player when different moves are made. Then you add up the results for possible strategies, and by doing this you generally find that there is an optimum strategy which will maximise your winnings and minimise your losses [occasionally there is more than one, and sometimes the multiple strategies can coexist, sometimes not]. Such a strategy is called a Stable Strategy because any deviation from it is going to lead to you losing. The crucial point is that for cooperate-defect games like prisoner's dilemma, THE STABLE STRATEGY IS OFTEN TO BE "NICE", AND NOT "NASTY". Maynard Smith and Alexander have taken this basic idea and applied it to issues like non-lethal fighting amongst animals, social grooming and the like. A vast amount of work is involved here and it's not possible to summarise it quickly, so i will refer those who want to chase it up to a couple of books: Evolution by John Maynard Smith [EUP, 1975], and The Descent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, BBC books, 70s i think. But the bottom line is that despite their inability to talk or hold cards in their furry little paws, any remotely-social animal would recognise the UK-style table-splitting deal as completely consonant with their daily experience of animal social life. Big Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because they like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] but because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from the game of life. MY FIRST FINAL NIGHTS DECKS: While i was getting my butt kicked in the UK qualifier at the end of July i experienced a certain amount of good-natured ribbing about the VERY pre-FN nature of my deck. All of which was fair enough, but i HAVE been making and playing FN decks, and here to prove it are two of them. [1] Legbiterized version of Sorrow's will-they-won't-they Setites The idea for this deck came from something Sorrow [Chris Boget] played against me when he visited us in June. i used my version successfully in two Wednesday night games during July, managing on both occasions to take over ALL my Tzimisce prey's vampires and then swarm-bleeding out my next preys [3/4 and 4/5 possible vp]. Both times i was decked by the end, so 90 is not too big for this deck. On 2 other outings it [1] died horribly [prey's initial influence was Cailean, i was being dominate stealth-bled and didn't draw ANY Tributes] and [2] got 2/3 possible VPs in a game at home. Deck Name: Embrace the Serpent Created by: Legbiter, but inspired by Sorrow Comments: If you block, i corrupt you. If you don't block i swarm-bleed and swarm-corrupt you. If you rush me i get killed. If you vote against me i DT your vote. If you bleed me i probably get killed but ecstasy and tribute keep me in the game longer than you might think. Focussed-degenerate and therefore a Setite clan theme-deck, if you like. CRYPT [12 cards] Lalitha 2 Celine Chevalier 3 Khalil Anvari 3 7 x Aabbt Kindred 4 2 x Nefertiti 10 LIBRARY [90 cards] ACTIONS [24] 13 x Corruption 8 x The Embrace Form of corruption 2 x Summon the Serpent ACTION MODIFIERS [32] 16 x Change of target 16 x Venenation MASTERS [20] Opium Den The Path of Typhon 8 x Serpentis Temple Hunting Ground 9 x Tribute to the Master REACTIONS [14] 4 x Delaying tactics 5 x Ecstasy 5 x Wake with Evening's Freshness [2] Tweaked giovanni Precon, Atlanta-style. One of the most interesting ideas to have come out of the Atlanta playgroup recently has been the notion that you really want to keep your library size as close to minimum as possible. As i understand it, the logic is that by doing this you dramatically reduce your chance of experiencing deck-clumping, and increase the chance that you will see and be able to use any given card or combo in your deck. Of course, for some decks this is a Bad Idea, eg weenie decks like the above Setite affair. For others, however, it's a dam' fine plan, and here is how i implemented it for my quite-successful Giovanni deck, which is little more than a tweak of the precon. CRYPT [12 cards] Marciana Giovanni, Investigator 2 Mario Giovanni 3 Rudolpho Giovanni 3 Chas Giovanni, Tello 4 Francesca giovanni 4 Gloria Giovanni 4 Isabel Giovanni 5 Vittorio Giovanni 5 Gaspare Giovanni 6 Stefano giovanni 6 Carlotta Giovanni 7 Gillespi Giovanni 7 LIBRARY [68 cards] MASTERS [13] Acquired ventrue Assets Blood Doll Depravity Dominate Dreams of the Sphinx Elder library Haven Uncovered x 2 The Mausoleum, Venice Morgue HG Necromancy Potence Powerbase: Rome DOMINATE [16] Command of the beast Conditioning x 3 Deflection x 5 [could be replaced by 4 deflections and 1 Redirection to make deck 4CL legal] Far Mastery Foreshadowing Destruction x 3 Govern the Unaligned x 2 Thoughts Betrayed NECROMANCY [9] Jar the Soul x 2 Masquer [Wraith] Spectral Divination x 2 Summon Soul x 2 Whispers from the Dead x 2 POTENCE [13] Burning Wrath The Death of my Conscience Immortal grapple Increased Strength x 2 Thrown Gate x 4 Undead Strength x 4 NON-DISCIPLINE [17] Akhenaten the Sun Pharoh [sic], mummy Atonement Bum's Rush x 3 Consanguineous Boon Conservative Agitation Disputed Territory Leather Jacket Leonardo, Mortician Vial of Garou Blood WWEF x 5 [could be replaced by 4 WWEF and 1 Forced Awakening to make deck 4CL legal] Zombie This deck plays pretty well, and last night i swept a 4-player at Louisa's house with it, cycling all but 5 of my deck. As noted above, keeping the library-size low has the additional advantage that the deck is playable by those who like a card-limit; and furthermore, if like me you are violently anti-card limit having a deck like this in your collection is dead convenient if you run into a group that does play by them. ************************ OK, that's it for August. Soon we will be off to Portgual [22-29th] where we hope to catch a few games with the Lisbon/Almeda crowd. Late August/early September is UK Gencon, and Michael and i will certainly be there for the sealed-deck and constructed-deck events, which almost certainly means a late NL for September. And at the end of September i will go to Paris for the last qualifier, and stay for the final if i make it, or the losers tourney if i don't. So i'll be seeing a lot of you soon, and looking forward to it immensely! O, one final thing is that there might even be some !Gangrel content to the next NL. Seeya!

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting... thanks Legbiter. I'd also like to recommend "The Virtue of Selfishness", an essay by Ayn Rand *only* in the way it discusses altruism in the aforementioned condittions. I tried reading some of her writing based on recommendations by people I respect and found her worldview to be the *absolute* opposite of my own in every possible way. It does however become a pretty funny read if you think in terms of this game :) Rand would have made a *vicious* Methuselah, trust me... Cheers, WES

legbiter wrote: > Big Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because > they like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] > but because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from > the game of life. *picks up my big, orange cat* Cossette, is he correct? "Meow." There you have it. Regards, Noal

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:40:25 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >Interesting... thanks Legbiter. > >I'd also like to recommend "The Virtue of Selfishness", an essay by Ayn Rand >*only* in the way it discusses altruism in the aforementioned condittions. I >tried reading some of her writing based on recommendations by people I >respect and found her worldview to be the *absolute* opposite of my own in >every possible way. > >It does however become a pretty funny read if you think in terms of this >game :) > >Rand would have made a *vicious* Methuselah, trust me... > Oh Wes... you mentioned The Name. Now, if I were in an alt.syntax.tactical mood... crosspost this to humanties.philosophy.objectivism and watch the carnage. They're funny. Ayn Rand, Brujah antitribu, 5 cap, pre pot chi. Ayn gets +1 bleed if the Methuselah being bled controls a Toreador antitribu. Ayn may not block older vampires. Mark Woodhouse (also the opposite of an Objectivist, whatever that make me...)

> GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > upcoming continental tournaments. ???????????? [ quoted text not captured ] Are we using arguments from the Ivory tower to further our interpretation of the rules now? I惻l try to take this contribution as a misplaced joke. Doesn愒 the english V:TES community really regognize these posts air of arrogance? Whether this poster really is from the UK or not I惴 beginning to tire of this attitude. Shape up.

> GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > upcoming continental tournaments. > There's no need to make a Continental (the Island Mentality strikes again. Wake up call: the UK is part of Europe!) European template, especially not when it's based on just a handfull of French (probably all 'parisiens') players. All playgroups are different, even Continental European playgroups. In my playgroup, eg, table talk is the norm (allthough table-splits are reserved for tourney's) not the exception. And AFAIK Belgium is a part of 'Continental' Europe. When playing with people from Holland, the first person used table-talk as much as we did (hi, Tim!), the second playgroup didn't and even upheld a 4CL. How can you generalise such a thing? Jeroen

In message <cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com>, Scac <dre...@hotmail.com> writes >Are we using arguments from the Ivory tower to further our >interpretation of the rules now? I´ll try to take this contribution as >a misplaced joke. How is talking about useful forms of strategy and thoughts thereupon - such as game theory, prisoner's dilemma and so forth - a "misplaced joke"? They are well thought out and relevant strategies which any game can, at least, consider the effects of. You appear to be attributing some hidden motive that isn't actually found in the text. -- 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

"W. Mark Woodhouse" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote > > Oh Wes... you mentioned The Name. Now, if I were in an > alt.syntax.tactical mood... crosspost this to > humanties.philosophy.objectivism and watch the carnage. They're > funny. Hmmm... sounds like fun actually. I didn't realize there were still 'objectivists' that took themselves seriously :) Cheers, WES

"Scac" <dre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com... > > GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > > upcoming continental tournaments. > > ???????????? Care to offer an opinion on the above instead of just question marks ? > > Maynard Smith and Alexander have taken this basic idea and applied it > > to issues like non-lethal fighting amongst animals, social grooming > > and the like. A vast amount of work is involved here and it's not > > possible to summarise it quickly, so i will refer those who want to > > chase it up to a couple of books: Evolution by John Maynard Smith > > [EUP, 1975], and The Descent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, BBC books, 70s > > i think. But the bottom line is that despite their inability to talk > > or hold cards in their furry little paws, any remotely-social animal > > would recognise the UK-style table-splitting deal as completely > > consonant with their daily experience of animal social life. Big > > Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because they > > like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] but > > because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from the > > game of life. > > Are we using arguments from the Ivory tower to further our > interpretation of the rules now? I惻l try to take this contribution as > a misplaced joke. I don't think you should do that as that's not what it was. > Doesn愒 the english V:TES community really regognize > these posts air of arrogance? Nice use of utter generalisation there. > Whether this poster really is from the > UK or not I惴 beginning to tire of this attitude. Shape up. See, I'm a really decent guy (honest) but it is unfounded, unclear posts like these that make me see red and want to swear and flip tables but i've had a nice day so far so i'm not going to do that :o( I have the pleasure in knowing James fairly well on a social and VTES level, and I can't stress how phenomenonally wrong you are with your interpretation of James' letter. If you had to choose an ambassador for UK VTES you could not go far wrong with James. His knowledge and experience of the game is surpassed by very few and he has a well know and honourable codex of dealmaking. I think you may be reading something into the texts of UK players (and specifically James' excellent letter) that just isn't there. To generalise the 'english VTES community' (or any community for that matter) by referring to the whole with only the small percentage of us that post or choose to post on the group as your point of reference is weak at best and at worst, downright offensive. Rob.

"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9kuqof$6pkg1$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > "Scac" <dre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com... > > > GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > > > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > > > > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > > > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > > > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > > > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > > > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > > > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > > > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > > > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > > > upcoming continental tournaments. > > > > ???????????? > > Care to offer an opinion on the above instead of just question marks ? I thought it was obvious from following the last weeks debate. The author implies, and not so subtle, that the english communitys position was and is right all the way. (Forget the debate. That´s resolved for the momement)The commentary is understood as that the 'other' side in the debate wasn´t even mature and knowledgeable enough. Hence the condescending wording of the other side using to strong words in an issue that, in the authors opinion, was already resolved. In short I find this section and the following use of darwinistic theories to be offensive and patronizing. > > > Maynard Smith and Alexander have taken this basic idea and applied it > > > to issues like non-lethal fighting amongst animals, social grooming > > > and the like. A vast amount of work is involved here and it's not > > > possible to summarise it quickly, so i will refer those who want to > > > chase it up to a couple of books: Evolution by John Maynard Smith > > > [EUP, 1975], and The Descent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, BBC books, 70s > > > i think. But the bottom line is that despite their inability to talk > > > or hold cards in their furry little paws, any remotely-social animal > > > would recognise the UK-style table-splitting deal as completely > > > consonant with their daily experience of animal social life. Big > > > Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because they > > > like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] but > > > because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from the > > > game of life. > > > > Are we using arguments from the Ivory tower to further our > > interpretation of the rules now? I´ll try to take this contribution as > > a misplaced joke. > > I don't think you should do that as that's not what it was. Was it not a joke or wasn´t it an attempt to further the english interpretation of the table-splitting rules? > > > Doesn´t the english V:TES community really regognize > > these posts air of arrogance? > > Nice use of utter generalisation there. True. Apologize for that. Should have brought up some specific posts. It was just this one that felt like one to much for me. I´ll retract that and only refer to this. > > > Whether this poster really is from the > > UK or not I´m beginning to tire of this attitude. Shape up. > > See, I'm a really decent guy (honest) but it is unfounded, unclear posts > like these that make me see red and want to swear and flip tables but i've > had a nice day so far so i'm not going to do that :o( > > I have the pleasure in knowing James fairly well on a social and VTES level, > and I can't stress how phenomenonally wrong you are with your interpretation > of James' letter. If you had to choose an ambassador for UK VTES you could > not go far wrong with James. His knowledge and experience of the game is > surpassed by very few and he has a well know and honourable codex of > dealmaking. I think you may be reading something into the texts of UK > players (and specifically James' excellent letter) that just isn't there. > > To generalise the 'english VTES community' (or any community for that > matter) by referring to the whole with only the small percentage of us that > post or choose to post on the group as your point of reference is weak at > best and at worst, downright offensive. > > Rob. I have no idéa of how big part of the english community that reads these posts but of course I meant the ones who follows the list. As for of how honorable and knowledgable this person is, that´s irrelevant. It´s the attitude that´s offensive in my eyes. Makes me see red as you said yourself too. Mattias p.s. Er, that was really rude to not to put my name up on an negative commentary first time. Sorry for that =( p.p.s Obviously english isn´t my main language. But I try, bear with me =)

dre...@hotmail.com (Scac) wrote in message news:<cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com>... > "Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9kuqof$6pkg1$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de>... > > "Scac" <dre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com... > > > > GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > > > > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > > > > > > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > > > > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > > > > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > > > > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > > > > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > > > > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > > > > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > > > > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > > > > upcoming continental tournaments. > > > > > > ???????????? > > > > Care to offer an opinion on the above instead of just question marks ? > > I thought it was obvious from following the last weeks debate. The > author implies, and not so subtle, that the english communitys > position was and is right all the way. Forgive me, but i don't think i imply that in the above article. However, let me take this opportunity to ASSERT that the table splitting deal is legal under some circumstances, and to refer you to Scott if you don't believe me. Whether it is right is another question [i mean right in the sense of being a Good Thing from the game-play point of view, for which see the end of this reply]. (Forget the debate. That´s > resolved for the momement)The commentary is understood as that the > 'other' side in the debate wasn´t even mature and knowledgeable > enough. Hence the condescending wording of the other side using to > strong words in an issue that, in the authors opinion, was already > resolved. In short I find this section and the following use of > darwinistic theories to be offensive and patronizing. Can't help that old buddy, though obviously i'm sorry if i've hurt your feelings. i think i am right, though. > > > > > Maynard Smith and Alexander have taken this basic idea and applied it > > > > to issues like non-lethal fighting amongst animals, social grooming > > > > and the like. A vast amount of work is involved here and it's not > > > > possible to summarise it quickly, so i will refer those who want to > > > > chase it up to a couple of books: Evolution by John Maynard Smith > > > > [EUP, 1975], and The Descent of Man by Jacob Bronowski, BBC books, 70s > > > > i think. But the bottom line is that despite their inability to talk > > > > or hold cards in their furry little paws, any remotely-social animal > > > > would recognise the UK-style table-splitting deal as completely > > > > consonant with their daily experience of animal social life. Big > > > > Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because they > > > > like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] but > > > > because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from the > > > > game of life. > > > > > > Are we using arguments from the Ivory tower to further our > > > interpretation of the rules now? I´ll try to take this contribution as > > > a misplaced joke. > > > > I don't think you should do that as that's not what it was. > > Was it not a joke or wasn´t it an attempt to further the english > interpretation of the table-splitting rules? Not a joke. Not an attempt to further our [correct] interpretation of the rules. Rather, an attempt to get outside the argument in order to see how what looks to you like Nepotism is actually a rather general outcome of certain kinds of competition. > > > > > > Doesn´t the english V:TES community really regognize > > > these posts air of arrogance? > > > > Nice use of utter generalisation there. > > True. Apologize for that. Should have brought up some specific posts. > It was just this one that felt like one to much for me. I´ll retract > that and only refer to this. > > > > > > Whether this poster really is from the > > > UK or not I´m beginning to tire of this attitude. Shape up. i am from the UK, Scotland originally but now based in Portsmouth, England. Please clarify 'shape up' for me. > > > > See, I'm a really decent guy (honest) but it is unfounded, unclear posts > > like these that make me see red and want to swear and flip tables but i've > > had a nice day so far so i'm not going to do that :o( > > > > I have the pleasure in knowing James fairly well on a social and VTES level, > > and I can't stress how phenomenonally wrong you are with your interpretation > > of James' letter. If you had to choose an ambassador for UK VTES you could > > not go far wrong with James. His knowledge and experience of the game is > > surpassed by very few and he has a well know and honourable codex of > > dealmaking. Blush, simper, thanks Rob! I think you may be reading something into the texts of UK > > players (and specifically James' excellent letter) that just isn't there. > > > > To generalise the 'english VTES community' (or any community for that > > matter) by referring to the whole with only the small percentage of us that > > post or choose to post on the group as your point of reference is weak at > > best and at worst, downright offensive. > > > > Rob. > > I have no idéa of how big part of the english community that reads > these posts but of course I meant the ones who follows the list. As > for of how honorable and knowledgable this person is, that´s > irrelevant. It´s the attitude that´s offensive in my eyes. Makes me > see red as you said yourself too. > > Mattias Hi, mattias! Sorry i didn't get to play you in the tourney. > > p.s. Er, that was really rude to not to put my name up on an negative > commentary first time. Sorry for that =( > > p.p.s Obviously english isn´t my main language. But I try, bear with > me =) There really wasn't any hidden agenda or tease in the article. Well maybe a bit of tease, i just can't help myself sometimes. But i was trying to make a serious point about the INEVITABILITY of table-splitting deals under the current tourney rules. i think if you want to move away from this then going for a different tourney system is the way forward. Peter Bakija has been doing some interesting work on a system where you progress not primarily on the basis of VP, but rather on the basis of games WON. VP determine the result when there are ties for games won, and TP resolve ties when VP AND games won are tied. i think this is a good system and we should move towards it, because it embodies the letter of the VEKN rule that you play to win, and playing for any other reason at tourney level [eg; to maintain or improve your VEKN rating] is illegal.

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<5Nyc7.2511$ye.6...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > > GAME THEORY AND THE EVOLUTION OF FIGHTING: Why Big Fierce Creatures > > are sometimes Incredibly Nice to each other. > > > > One of the most interesting things about Mike Nudd et al's recent > > Watford tournament was the presence of, and strong showing by, > > Continental European players. Some but not all of these players were > > quite taken aback by the common UK tactic of table talk/manipulation > > and the resultant table-splitting deals. Words like "Collusion" and > > "Nepotism" were thrown around quite freely, and there was some > > worrying and confusing discussion, now happily resolved, about the > > possibility that a different playing style might be enforced in > > upcoming continental tournaments. > > > There's no need to make a Continental (the Island Mentality strikes again. > Wake up call: the UK is part of Europe!) i ABSOLUTELY agree. European template, especially not > when it's based on just a handfull of French (probably all 'parisiens') > players. No, some Swedish players too were surprised and upset by the way some of us do things [vide another poster in this thread]. > All playgroups are different, even Continental European playgroups. > In my playgroup, eg, table talk is the norm (allthough table-splits are > reserved for tourney's) not the exception. And AFAIK Belgium is a part of > 'Continental' Europe. When playing with people from Holland, the first > person used table-talk as much as we did (hi, Tim!), the second playgroup > didn't and even upheld a 4CL. How can you generalise such a thing? > > Jeroen Well, i carefully said that "some but not all" of our esteemed visitors were surprised by some of the stuff they saw. So i don't think this criticism is completely fair. i did a table-manipulating deal at a tournament in Portugal, so am completely clear about the fact that this isn't just an Anglophone thing.

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message > There really wasn't any hidden agenda or tease in the article. Well > maybe a bit of tease, i just can't help myself sometimes. But i was > trying to make a serious point about the INEVITABILITY of > table-splitting deals under the current tourney rules. i think if you > want to move away from this then going for a different tourney system > is the way forward. Peter Bakija has been doing some interesting work > on a system where you progress not primarily on the basis of VP, but > rather on the basis of games WON. VP determine the result when there > are ties for games won, and TP resolve ties when VP AND games won are > tied. i think this is a good system and we should move towards it, > because it embodies the letter of the VEKN rule that you play to win, > and playing for any other reason at tourney level [eg; to maintain or > improve your VEKN rating] is illegal. Hi James, That sounds like an interesting version of tournament rulings. By games WON do you mean being the last methuselah standing? Or most Vps on that table? So last in has 2vp, last ousted has 3vp ,last ousted WINS because has more vp? Could be interesting...would revert to winning philosophy instead of sharing the VP cake....

On 7 Aug 2001 04:39:43 -0700, legbiter wrote: >The crucial point is that for cooperate-defect games like prisoner's >dilemma, THE STABLE STRATEGY IS OFTEN TO BE "NICE", AND NOT "NASTY". This is only true when you play the game repeatedly with the same opponents. The essential feature of the prisoner's dilemma is that it always pays to defect if you are only playing the game once. >Fierce Creatures need to work together sometimes, not because they >like each other or want to help each other [quite the reverse!] but >because they NEED each other to maximise their own outcome from the >game of life. You only need to look around you to see the benefits of cooperation. But certain types of cooperative behaviour are forbidden in human society - nepotism, cartels, insider dealing. The same is true in VTES. You are allowed to cooperate within a tournament game but you are not allowed to extend your frame of reference beyond that game - this would be collusion. Being altruistic within a single game is forbidden. You have to play each game to win. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2001 04:39:43 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >The crucial point is that for cooperate-defect games like prisoner's > >dilemma, THE STABLE STRATEGY IS OFTEN TO BE "NICE", AND NOT "NASTY". > > This is only true when you play the game repeatedly with the same > opponents. The essential feature of the prisoner's dilemma is that it > always pays to defect if you are only playing the game once. A single game of V:TES usually has a series of "games" of the prisoner's dilemma. The trick (if you plan on never playing with the players again after the current game) is to be able to identify the last such opportunity to defect (if you're so inclined). -- 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/

jon.c...@ntl.com (JonCooper) wrote in message news:<94793e38.01081...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] No, IIUC the winner is still the guy/gal with the most VP. They qualify for the Won game Point for that game [there can be only 1]. i suppose in a timed-out tie you would have to decide whether all the remaining methuselahs got a fraction of a WGP, or only their VP and no WGP at all. > Could be interesting...would revert to winning philosophy instead of > sharing the VP cake.... i agree, i think it is the way. When we teach and assess students we try to make sure that they get rewarded for doing the things we want them to do. If VEKn wants people to play to win [and IMO it should], then it should reward people who win games.

In message <94793e38.01081...@posting.google.com>, JonCooper <jon.c...@ntl.com> writes >That sounds like an interesting version of tournament rulings. By >games WON do you mean being the last methuselah standing? Or most Vps >on that table? So last in has 2vp, last ousted has 3vp ,last ousted >WINS because has more vp? The current idea for tournament rules (under discussion at various levels) is that the people who get into the final are the people who "win" most tables - i.e. get the most VPs on a given table. Resolving ties and lower rankings is much more tricky. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:OZNjrkBi...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <94793e38.01081...@posting.google.com>, JonCooper > <jon.c...@ntl.com> writes > >That sounds like an interesting version of tournament rulings. By > >games WON do you mean being the last methuselah standing? Or most Vps > >on that table? So last in has 2vp, last ousted has 3vp ,last ousted > >WINS because has more vp? > > The current idea for tournament rules (under discussion at various > levels) is that the people who get into the final are the people who > "win" most tables - i.e. get the most VPs on a given table. Right. So instead of counting how close people got to winning over the 3 rounds combined (total VPs), we first count how many times they won, then total VPs and then total Tournament Points. > Resolving ties and lower rankings is much more tricky. Resolving ties and lower rankings for determining finalists isn't hard. The only difficult question is ties at a table. Do we award .5 table wins for a 2-way tie, .2 for a 5-way tie? I prefer to award no table win if at least one VP hasn't been scored. Or, alternatively, don't award any TWs at all if the tie is between more than 2 players. I am concerned about the effect of TWs on the enviornment if if we give partial TWs to tied players. I'm not sure we'll get fewer deals and suspect the deals will just evolve into even splits at the table of 2 VP each for the deal-makers. If the deal results in a tie for first then it would be hard to argue that either dealer is making a losing deal. Will we create more deals????? -Robert

JonCooper wrote: > > legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message > > Peter Bakija has been doing some interesting work > > on a system where you progress not primarily on the basis of VP, but > > rather on the basis of games WON. ??? I thought Robert Goudie was testing that. The idea got kicked around the newsgroup by a number of people. Anyway... > That sounds like an interesting version of tournament rulings. By > games WON do you mean being the last methuselah standing? Or most Vps > on that table? So last in has 2vp, last ousted has 3vp ,last ousted > WINS because has more vp? If I understand your last sentence, that would be correct. Basically, by whoever has the most victory points at the end of the game. There are several scenarios that are pretty clear and several that aren't. (* used to denote 1/2 point for not being ousted at the end in unfinished games below.) 5-0-0-0-0, 3*-*-0-0-0, 4-1-0-0-0, 3-2-0-0-0, 2*-1*-0-0-0 3-1-1-0-0, 2-1-1-1-0, and 2*-*-*-0-0 are all pretty much agreed upon game wins for the high man in 5-player games. 4-0-0-0, 2*-*-0-0, 3-1-0-0, and 2-1-1-0 are accepted game wins for the high man in 4-player games. There are a couple tie scenarios: 2-2-1-0-0 in a 5-player game and 2-2-0-0 in a 4-player game. The simple way to handle these would be to award a half game win for each of the top two players. But I question if this wouldn't be a means of VP splitting, if somewhat more delicate and difficult to accomplish than 3-2. I'd like to see something less than a half game win awarded for this. For any result less than 2 VPs to the high man or men, I'd say no game win at all. However, I have no idea how others feel about it. Personally, I think it's too much incentive to stall after someone makes a single oust. And in general, I'd like to see some incentive to get people to think offensively rather than defensively. Defensive games with wall and bloat decks are boring as all hell. Also, at times I've seen people rush through their games to by agreement of all players present just to empty their libraries and let everyone withdraw and get a whole victory point instead of the half they get for a time call. That also seems silly and counter to the spirit of the rules. I think these rules would tend to discourage that as well - unless there's truly no hope of another oust taking place at the table. Fred

In message <krYc7.752$Kl2....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes >I am concerned about the effect of TWs on the >enviornment if if we give partial TWs to tied players. I'm not sure we'll get >fewer deals and suspect the deals will just evolve into even splits at the table >of 2 VP each for the deal-makers. If the deal results in a tie for first then >it would be hard to argue that either dealer is making a losing deal. Will we >create more deals????? This is something along the lines of what I'd been thinking. The current splitters are most likely to be combat decks (I think most people would agree here, feel free to voice dissent etc.). Two combat decks sit next to each other: Deck 1 Combat A Combat B Deck 2 Deck 3 Combat B goes forward through 2. Combat A goes backwards, killing 1. This gifts a free victory point to 3. A and B then jointly destroy 3. Deck B can then roll over, making it a joint tie, as you say. It's terribly difficult. If (one of) the aim(s) of the tournament ranking re-write is to discourage this sort of splitting deal, it doesn't really impede combat decks from doing it - who are the most likely to do it anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Resolving ties and lower rankings is much more tricky. > > Resolving ties and lower rankings for determining finalists isn't hard. The > only difficult question is ties at a table. Do we award .5 table wins for a > 2-way tie, .2 for a 5-way tie? I prefer to award no table win if at least one > VP hasn't been scored. Or, alternatively, don't award any TWs at all if the > tie > is between more than 2 players. I am concerned about the effect of TWs on the > enviornment if if we give partial TWs to tied players. I'm not sure we'll get > fewer deals and suspect the deals will just evolve into even splits at the > table > of 2 VP each for the deal-makers. Which adds additional difficulty that it's "easier" for people stuck at 4 player tables to "split the TW" since they can easily deal for 2-2. They kind of need a "3rd sucker" to split the table 2-2-1. > If the deal results in a tie for first then > it would be hard to argue that either dealer is making a losing deal. Wow... That makes it *really* ugly, doesn't it? I'm not surprised you've thought about this, but I'm glad you are, and don't envy you the job. > Will we > create more deals????? Will we bother to create more decks? If the game is just "find an ally, and go-a-chopping" for a "tied 1st place win," I think the game goes TOO far toward being all deal making, by almost anyone's standards. <soapbox> I like to play my *deck*, and "table split" turns my stomach, but one reason S&B is waning is that people have learned to team up on it and blast it...unless you have an environment that says "just go forward, and take care of yourself," which over-rewards pure forward moving decks. There has to be some dealing, I just prefer the turn-by-turn table stabilization: which by the sound of Ben Peal's *excellent* "worm's eye view" report, is what happened in the Championship finals. The two combat decks seemed to be dealing, but none of this "blind trust 3/2 carving" from turn 3. </soapbox> -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> > Mattias > > Hi, mattias! Sorry i didn't get to play you in the tourney. Yes, me too. You愉e obviously quite famous, hence the name I understand. =P I know Sten was quite excited about wrestlig a VP from your table actually. Will be more chances to meet. =) > > p.s. Er, that was really rude to not to put my name up on an negative > > commentary first time. Sorry for that =( > > > > p.p.s Obviously english isn愒 my main language. But I try, bear with > > me =) > > There really wasn't any hidden agenda or tease in the article. Well > maybe a bit of tease, i just can't help myself sometimes. But i was > trying to make a serious point about the INEVITABILITY of > table-splitting deals under the current tourney rules. i think if you > want to move away from this then going for a different tourney system > is the way forward. Peter Bakija has been doing some interesting work > on a system where you progress not primarily on the basis of VP, but > rather on the basis of games WON. VP determine the result when there > are ties for games won, and TP resolve ties when VP AND games won are > tied. i think this is a good system and we should move towards it, > because it embodies the letter of the VEKN rule that you play to win, > and playing for any other reason at tourney level [eg; to maintain or > improve your VEKN rating] is illegal. Thank愀, it was a response like this I was looking for. I惴 unused to dealing and may not think it愀 really in the spirit of the game etc., but I defer to the judgemement made on this issue. Actually it愀 pretty cool that V:TES has a streak of Diplomacy to it imho. I have tournament winning friends from other ccg愀 that gets beaten regurlary in this game just because there is no way to make a safe deck as it愀 much easier in dual-type games. Mattias

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Resolving ties and lower rankings is much more tricky. >Resolving ties and lower rankings for determining finalists isn't hard. The >only difficult question is ties at a table. Do we award .5 table wins for a >2-way tie, .2 for a 5-way tie? I prefer to award no table win if at least one >VP hasn't been scored. Or, alternatively, don't award any TWs at all if the tie >is between more than 2 players. I am concerned about the effect of TWs on the >enviornment if if we give partial TWs to tied players. I'm not sure we'll get >fewer deals and suspect the deals will just evolve into even splits at the table >of 2 VP each for the deal-makers. If the deal results in a tie for first then >it would be hard to argue that either dealer is making a losing deal. Will we >create more deals????? I agree that this would be problem, even though it's more difficult to set up a tie than a 3-2 split. However, why not award three Tournament Victory Points to a single winner, and one each in case of a two-way tie? This would emphasize winning, without doing away with tie-VPs completely.

> >I am concerned about the effect of TWs on the > >enviornment if if we give partial TWs to tied players. I'm not sure we'll get > >fewer deals and suspect the deals will just evolve into even splits at the table > >of 2 VP each for the deal-makers. If the deal results in a tie for first then > >it would be hard to argue that either dealer is making a losing deal. Will we > >create more deals????? > > This is something along the lines of what I'd been thinking. > > The current splitters are most likely to be combat decks (I think most > people would agree here, feel free to voice dissent etc.). > IME, two political decks are just as likely to make a table-split. Especially if neither can attain vote lock. > Two combat decks sit next to each other: > > Deck 1 > Combat A > Combat B > Deck 2 > Deck 3 > > Combat B goes forward through 2. Combat A goes backwards, killing 1. > This gifts a free victory point to 3. A and B then jointly destroy 3. > Deck B can then roll over, making it a joint tie, as you say. > > It's terribly difficult. If (one of) the aim(s) of the tournament > ranking re-write is to discourage this sort of splitting deal, it > doesn't really impede combat decks from doing it - who are the most > likely to do it anyway. > That's why I'ld suggest giving Winnning Points (bad name, anyone know a better name?) instead of table wins. Finishing first: 5 WP Finishing first, but tied: 2 WP for a 2 person tie, 1WP for a 3 person tie, 0 WP for a 4 or 5 person tie. finishing 2nd with al least 1VP: 1WP The numbers are, of course, totally arbitrary. It's about the idea. Don't work with just 1 Table Win per table,but use higher numbers that can be rounded down in case of a tie. IMO, this will result in less table-splits, or maybe in less table-splits being carried out. The player who promised to roll over will be tempted to NOT honnour the deal, because then he would recieve more than double the WP's he would get by rolling over. Jeroen

In message <3bvd7.49521$ye.17...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes >IME, two political decks are just as likely to make a table-split. >Especially if neither can attain vote lock. Each deck stands a better chance at making "vote lock" on its own votes, with Private Audience and Closed Session. The Sabbat decks have the advantage at passing Cardinal Benediction, too, because of the Camarilla difficulties voting there. (And Indies, too, of course.) Also, either of them is quite capable of dragging out a Dramatic Upheaval or something similar (and I find lots of semi-political decks holding one or two). In that instance, instead of a carve-up and roll- over, they can co-operate a little on votes for their respective preys. [ quoted text not captured ]

shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark Woodhouse) wrote: [snip] >Ayn Rand, Brujah antitribu, 5 cap, pre pot chi. Ayn gets +1 bleed if >the Methuselah being bled controls a Toreador antitribu. Ayn may not >block older vampires. What about +1 hand damage from the invisible hand? Or is that totally Adam Smith's? Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.